OK, Your Law Firm's Diverse, But in What Practice Areas?
Black partners were more dominant in the labor and employment field, generally a lower-paying practice area, according to a recent survey.
February 08, 2019 at 11:08 AM
4 minute read
I know I'm a pain about gender and diversity issues, so I don't take it personally when law firms sometimes avoid me like an STD. Sure, they love to tell me about their newest, most awesome diversity initiatives, but if I press them about their track records on female or black equity partners—well, let's just say, they're not so forthcoming.
But I've noticed an exception to this rule. Firms with major labor and employment practices usually chase me down to tout their diversity records. Their spiel is that they're not like the other big firms. It's like they're saying, “See! We have female and black partners! And more than just one or two!”
Indeed, it's no secret that labor and employment is packed with female lawyers (remember, I called it a Pink Ghetto), but is this a practice where black lawyers are prevalent, too? If so, is this one explanation why women and black partners lag behind white male partners in compensation? (Male partners make 53 percent more than female partners, while the earnings gap between white and black partners is 15 percent, according to Major, Lindsey & Africa's partner compensation survey.)
The answers to those question seem to be yes. First, keep in mind that labor and employment partners report the lowest total compensation ($681,000 compared with $1.18 million for corporate partners). And women represented an astounding 38.9 percent of labor and employment partners in the MLA survey (versus only 16.2 percent female corporate partners). Black partners were also more dominant in the labor and employment field, making up 8.4 percent of partners (versus 0.9 percent who identified as corporate partners). Though the sampling in the MLA survey was small (24 partners identified as black, representing 1.9 percent of the 1,246 respondents), “it is a large data set and there is no particular reason to suspect that the 1.9 percent isn't representative of the market overall,” says Lucy Leach, research director of Acritas, which administered the survey. “Another way of looking at it would be that a third—eight of the 24—black partners responding were labor and employment lawyers, compared to 7.9 percent of white partners.”
So here's the big question: Why are women and black partners occupying such a big chunk of the lowest-paid sector of Big Law? I'll ask the same question about black partners that I did about female partners in this area: Are they there by choice? Or are they somehow pushed into the least lucrative, nonglamorous rungs of Big Law?
While women might gravitate toward labor and employment because it provides more predictable hours, I'm doubtful that explanation is relevant to black partners, especially the men.
One former lawyer, who's African-American, says it's easier to elevate black labor and employment lawyers because it doesn't really upset the existing order: “It's rote work, not bet-the-company litigation. Big companies have a lot of small employment matters, where the plaintiffs are often minority, hourly workers. By using minority lawyers, companies can show the board that they have diverse outside counsel and get credit.” Plus, adds this lawyer, many partners in labor and employment are nonequity. “It's a way to throw a bone,” the lawyer says.
That said, no one claims that black lawyers are deliberately steered into certain practices.
“I think it's a matter of choice,” says Bernadette Beekman, managing director at Hire Counsel, a recruiting firm. “That's where they see people of color. A lot of people don't go into certain areas because they don't see anyone like themselves.”
In other words, it's the old chicken/egg thing. Of course, it's only human nature to gravitate to a group where there's a critical mass of like-minded souls.
But does that qualify as a choice?
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHSF's American Dream: What Will a U.S. Merger Mean For its Asia Practice?
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250