Diversity Needs More than Numbers
Successful diversity programs require full inclusion.
January 31, 2011 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
I recently had an epiphany about the true essence of diversity. During the past year, I have written articles on the importance of having a diverse legal department and diverse outside counsel. Recently, it dawned on me that although striving for diversity is good, diversity is not meaningful if it does not entail inclusion.
The success of diversity efforts is often measured by assessing numbers listed on a sheet of paper. When it comes to determining whether diversity is real, we must look beyond the numbers. If the diverse group cited in the numbers is actually isolated, ignored, dismissed, second-guessed, or excluded from meetings, key assignments and advancement opportunities, then diversity is a sham. Inclusiveness is what truly drives a diversity program.
Think of it in terms of a party. The host invites two groups to attend. The first group, which has the same characteristics as the host, is welcomed with open arms and offered champagne, filet mignon and caviar. The second group is only offered soda and potato chips. The guests in the first group are oblivious to what is happening to the second group because all of their needs are being met. The host is not in tune with what is happening because he/she believes a great thing has been done by extending an invitation to the second group. But it boils down to the perception of the second group. Though invited to the party, they eventually leave feeling unwelcomed and that they were not extended the same level of hospitality.
Some corporate legal departments and law firms are functioning in the same way as the party example. There are certain groups–while invited–that are not automatically extended the same access or opportunities as others. That's not right!
Fostering an inclusive atmosphere requires a conscious effort, awareness, sensitivity and proactivity.
As in-house attorneys, we have to exercise leadership to drive inclusion at the law firms. Many law firms will not do it without our push. Diverse law firm associates often cite being excluded from client meetings, business development opportunities and substantive work assignments. As in-house lawyers, we need to forge a working partnership with our outside counsel on the issue. In-house counsel can start by requiring outside counsel to have the diversity numbers. Then we should make sure that diverse lawyers are staffed on our legal matters in a meaningful way. Where feasible, we should look to include law firm associates in client meetings and strategy sessions. In-house legal departments can further create and provide short-term secondment opportunities to law firm associates that will give them a chance to gain client contact with us and provide them with a hands-on opportunity to learn our business. A working partnership with outside counsel can enable us to work on training and development opportunities for law firm associates that will ultimately enhance the atmosphere of inclusion.
Within our own corporate legal departments, leaders need to take conscious steps to ensure that the workplace is inclusive. This means hearing everyone's opinions, ideas and suggestions equally and providing equal opportunities to diverse attorneys to gain substantive work experience and access to high-profile assignments. Furthermore, inclusion extends to invitations to lunches, golf outings and other informal networking opportunities. Don't extend the invitation to a select few and exclude others. As a rule of thumb, if the host invites one, he/she should invite all. This will ensure that people feel they are part of the team.
True diversity brings all to the table and gives them a seat as well. Examine the diversity of your legal department and outside counsel. If diversity is a sham, begin right now to make it meaningful, real and inclusive.
Laurie N. Robinson is senior vice president and assistant general counsel at CBS Corp. and founder and CEO of Corporate Counsel Women of Color.
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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