When it comes to diversity, the spirit of some firms may be strong but the proverbial flesh is weak. They want to recruit and retain more people of color, women, and, presumably LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) talent, and for many good reasons. By far the most important is that they're acutely aware of how relentlessly their clients insist on it.

Yet at the end of the day, the numbers are flat. For example, around 1 in 8 ethnic minority attorneys made partner in 2012, according to a survey by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association and Vault.com.

Today we hear the same lament as four decades ago: There aren't enough diverse associates in the pipeline, so the partner elevation process is constricted from the get-go. It's a lamentable situation, because it strongly suggests that the biggest problem is retention, and retention problems bespeak cultural issues.

Of course the numbers are important and both OGCs and C-suites have proven in the past that direct pressure can improve percentages. Enhanced results in partner as well as associate demographics are particularly evident among industries that were themselves historically ahead of the game in appointing diverse legal service buyers to top in-house law and other key positions.

No one should suggest that GCs stop pressuring law firms to show quantifiable results. At the same time, in-house counsel can exert broader pressure on firms by looking beyond the numbers. To what extent do the firms they retain or consider retaining have systems in place to enhance recruitment and especially retention? What are the telltale signs that a firm is or isn't doing everything possible to achieve success?

If the objective is real diversity, we'd suggest that a closer dialogue on actual practices will benefit everyone. Are senior managers and rainmakers visibly and insistently supporting the diversity goal? If not, why should you as the client see the program as more than window-dressing? If so, such senior involvement sends a strong reminder to partners to consider diversity when staffing their matters.

Leadership in the ranks. Are there diverse practice group heads, office managing partners and committee leaders? If so, there's a strong likelihood that incoming associates will enjoy the support they deserve. It also suggests that diverse lawyers are very much a part of succession plans.

Diversity officers. Is there a partner assigned to oversee the diversity initiative? Has a diversity professional been hired to focus full-time on the effort? If so, to whom does he/she report?

Diversity incentives. Some firms reward partners for measurable gains on the diversity front. Some firms hold partners accountable, periodically evaluating their individual efforts.

Client teams. What role do diverse attorneys play on the teams handling your work? Are diverse attorneys conspicuously present at beauty contests but conspicuously absent afterward?

Mentoring. Are diverse associates adequately nurtured? Not just assigned mentors; informal relationships are just as important.

LGBT awareness. Is the firm as cognizant of its obligations in this area as with people of color and women? Don't make diversity a zero sum game where resources invested in women and minorities cause LGBT attorneys to feel excluded.

Flex time. What provisions enable lawyers to control their own lives without compromising client service? Is there a stigma attached when lawyers avail themselves of these options?

Business development. Is the firm supporting professional groups that provide diverse lawyers business development opportunities to enhance their shot at partnership?

In the final analysis, it's a carrot-and-stick strategy for in-house lawyers. The carrot is all about the inside/outside partnership and the progress that can be achieved as a result. The stick is all about hiring somebody else if it's not.

When it comes to diversity, the spirit of some firms may be strong but the proverbial flesh is weak. They want to recruit and retain more people of color, women, and, presumably LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) talent, and for many good reasons. By far the most important is that they're acutely aware of how relentlessly their clients insist on it.

Yet at the end of the day, the numbers are flat. For example, around 1 in 8 ethnic minority attorneys made partner in 2012, according to a survey by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association and Vault.com.

Today we hear the same lament as four decades ago: There aren't enough diverse associates in the pipeline, so the partner elevation process is constricted from the get-go. It's a lamentable situation, because it strongly suggests that the biggest problem is retention, and retention problems bespeak cultural issues.

Of course the numbers are important and both OGCs and C-suites have proven in the past that direct pressure can improve percentages. Enhanced results in partner as well as associate demographics are particularly evident among industries that were themselves historically ahead of the game in appointing diverse legal service buyers to top in-house law and other key positions.

No one should suggest that GCs stop pressuring law firms to show quantifiable results. At the same time, in-house counsel can exert broader pressure on firms by looking beyond the numbers. To what extent do the firms they retain or consider retaining have systems in place to enhance recruitment and especially retention? What are the telltale signs that a firm is or isn't doing everything possible to achieve success?

If the objective is real diversity, we'd suggest that a closer dialogue on actual practices will benefit everyone. Are senior managers and rainmakers visibly and insistently supporting the diversity goal? If not, why should you as the client see the program as more than window-dressing? If so, such senior involvement sends a strong reminder to partners to consider diversity when staffing their matters.

Leadership in the ranks. Are there diverse practice group heads, office managing partners and committee leaders? If so, there's a strong likelihood that incoming associates will enjoy the support they deserve. It also suggests that diverse lawyers are very much a part of succession plans.

Diversity officers. Is there a partner assigned to oversee the diversity initiative? Has a diversity professional been hired to focus full-time on the effort? If so, to whom does he/she report?

Diversity incentives. Some firms reward partners for measurable gains on the diversity front. Some firms hold partners accountable, periodically evaluating their individual efforts.

Client teams. What role do diverse attorneys play on the teams handling your work? Are diverse attorneys conspicuously present at beauty contests but conspicuously absent afterward?

Mentoring. Are diverse associates adequately nurtured? Not just assigned mentors; informal relationships are just as important.

LGBT awareness. Is the firm as cognizant of its obligations in this area as with people of color and women? Don't make diversity a zero sum game where resources invested in women and minorities cause LGBT attorneys to feel excluded.

Flex time. What provisions enable lawyers to control their own lives without compromising client service? Is there a stigma attached when lawyers avail themselves of these options?

Business development. Is the firm supporting professional groups that provide diverse lawyers business development opportunities to enhance their shot at partnership?

In the final analysis, it's a carrot-and-stick strategy for in-house lawyers. The carrot is all about the inside/outside partnership and the progress that can be achieved as a result. The stick is all about hiring somebody else if it's not.