Is Lack of Diversity a Bigger Problem for IP In-House Lawyers?
Nearly 60% of the participants in a new survey of IP corporate counsel reported that they have been discriminated against for being a woman, ethnic minority and/or LGBTQ.
July 30, 2019 at 01:19 PM
4 minute read
Updated with additional info on the survey, and comments from Jean Lee, president and CEO of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association.
A new global survey of in-house counsel who specialize in intellectual property matters paints a bleak picture of limited diversity and widespread discrimination in their professional world.
Nearly 60% of the participants reported they have been discriminated against for being a woman, ethnic minority and/or LGBTQ, according to a report released Tuesday from Managing Intellectual Property magazine. The London-based publication's managing editor declined to disclose how many in-house lawyers participated in the online survey, which was posted July 5.
Jean Lee, president and CEO of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, said she was not surprised by the report's finding on the prevalence of discrimination. Her group was involved in a racial and gender bias survey that was released last year and made comparable findings. The study included responses from more than 2,800 in-house and private lawyers.
The report from Managing IP features anonymous comments from several global in-house IP lawyers, including a U.K.-based corporate counsel for a credit card company who reportedly said her legal team had several women in senior roles—but noted that men were being hired at higher pay grades and promoted twice as quickly as women.
An associate general counsel for a U.S.-based life sciences company added, “I was specifically not given responsibility for a project because I was a woman with young children.”
And a senior patent attorney for a German pharmaceutical company reported she believed she'd lost job opportunities because her resume lists leadership experience for a LGBTQ employee network.
“What is clear from the survey results is that a lack of diversity remains and many respondents have experienced discrimination because of their background,” the report states.
On a more encouraging, perhaps contradictory, note, 85% of the in-house lawyers in the study said their companies have diversity and inclusion initiatives. The initiatives focused most commonly on women, LGBTQ and mental health or wellness issues. Nearly a quarter of the participants said they'd like to see more initiatives focused on parenting issues and 22% wanted a greater focus on ethnic minorities.
The respondents were split down the middle when asked whether the IP realm has a greater lack of diversity when compared to other legal practice areas.
The group vice president of a U.S.-based international hotel company reportedly observed the trademark section of the IP bar seems more diverse than the patent side. An associate GC for a U.S.-based life sciences company echoed the assertion, saying the patent practice “is a white dominated specialty,” apparently due to the underlying requirement for degrees in science, technology, engineering and math, according to the study.
“I've heard that a lot,” Lee said. “This is anecdotal, but to be a patent lawyer you have to take a USPTO patent exam and you must have a bachelor's degree in science or engineering. This is the whole STEM that women, and especially underrepresented minorities, were not encouraged to take in high school.”
In China, IP counsel for foreign companies reported they face a cultural glass ceiling because “there is a sentiment that those in senior management roles are always from the company's country of origin, rather than China.”
The China-based IP manager of a Japanese company noted she has hit a dead end with her position and doesn't expect to be promoted even though she oversees issues throughout Asia and handles as much work as her colleagues at higher levels within the firm.
A Chinese IP counsel for a U.S.-based conglomerate expressed similar concerns, saying he'd “already reached the top IP role for the company in China but there is no further progression to a more global role.”
Read More:
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 AllTrump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Ballooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
Am Law 100 Partners on Trump’s Short List to Replace Gensler as SEC Chair
4 minute readElon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
Trending Stories
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