How the Mansfield Rule for In-House Counsel Is Faring Under COVID-19
"The work that we've done over the past 10 years has been super important in laying down a strong foundation and baking it into peoples' processes. I don't think we'll see legal departments lifting their commitments to diversity and inclusion," Leila Hock, director of legal department partnerships and inclusion initiatives at Diversity Lab, said.
May 29, 2020 at 05:03 PM
6 minute read
Last July, Diversity Lab launched the pilot program for its Mansfield Rule: Legal Department Edition. The program asked the 22 participants, which included PayPal Holdings Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc., to consider 50% of underrepresented groups for internal roles and when hiring outside counsel. The in-house participants were asked to track that data and report it back to Diversity Lab throughout the year.
Leila Hock, director of legal department partnerships and inclusion initiatives at Diversity Lab, said legal departments are in the process of mailing in certifications, and corporations are signing up for the Mansfield Rule: Legal Department Edition 2.0. The second version of the program will extend the certification time from one to two years.
The data from the pilot version of the program has not been finalized, but Hock said the program was not severely impacted by COVID-19. Hock spoke to Corporate Counsel about lessons learned during the first year of the program, how the next version has changed, and the importance of keeping up with diversity and inclusion efforts during the pandemic.
This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Corporate Counsel: How did COVID-19 impact the pilot program of the Mansfield Rule: Legal Department Edition?
Leila Hock: The way it's structured, it didn't actually impact the certification requirement that much because the requirements are more around hiring. We ask the legal departments and because of the knowledge-sharing calls, they're careful about any restricting decisions with a diversity lens. It doesn't affect the parameters.
We shifted the tones of our conversations such as supporting diverse lawyers while working remotely. However, the rule itself was not really impacted.
CC: Did any legal departments ask to be dropped from the pilot because of COVID-19?
LH: They did not. I do know a couple [of legal departments] that have had some hard decisions throughout. About half of our pilot participants have registered for the 2.0 version. The deadline is next week, and I think most of the legal departments will sign up again.
CC: What are some of the differences between the pilot and the 2.0 version?
LH: We have lengthened the certification for the legal departments from one year to two years. Part of that is to accommodate for less hiring that legal departments do than law firms and give them more opportunities for them to actually implement the rule. I think it is going to be great timing with the market slowdown because many legal departments may not be hiring for the first year.
In addition to the 50% diverse candidate pool, we are asking the legal departments to track those candidate pools on a disaggregated basis. Rather than track those candidate pools at a lump sum, we want them to have some visibility into the diversity of their diversity so they see the gaps in particular populations that they may be missing when they're promoting or hiring.
CC: What were some of the major lessons learned through the pilot program?
LH: One was that they don't hire as much [as law firms], which caused the change of the certification period. Legal departments have a lot of support. Some of the legal departments were part of organizations that have a diverse candidate pool requirement already and they just needed to match that with the Mansfield Rule.
CC: What are some of the challenges in implementing and maintaining in-house diversity and inclusion during the pandemic?
LH: One is unconscious bias. Unconscious bias is more prevalent in unprecedented times when we're asking legal departments and law firms to move very quickly. It has more of a chance to creep in. Moving slowly is really important to combat unconscious bias. That's one of the things that the Mansfield Rule does so well. It forces participants to move slower.
What we expect to see is unconscious bias creep into work advancement, work opportunities and layoff decisions.
Another issue is visibility. This is the first time for many employees where they are working remotely and their teams are working remotely. They don't have that day-to-day interaction and diverse candidates become literally invisible and may miss out on opportunities that they could have had access to if they were in the office. Really paying attention to your teams by working closely with them and making sure that everyone is getting the right work that they will need to advance is super important.
On the resources side, we know that "nonessential" programming is being cut. We don't think that diversity and inclusion is nonessential. It does take more resources to implement and do it well. Firms and legal departments are going to make sure they have those resources and continue to collect and track the data. It's easy to think that this is something you can just take your foot off the gas then just put it back on when you have the resources again. That's not how diversity works. We saw that from the 2008-09 recession. It takes much more time to get us back to where we were if we just stop. We have to keep this consistent pressure on diversity and inclusion programs.
CC: Have you noticed that companies are more conscious of keeping up with those efforts because of the ground lost following the Great Recession?
LH: I think it's a combination of lessons learned. Since then we have better structures in place and we have firmer commitments from legal departments saying we require this of our law firms and we require this of ourselves. It's harder to pull back on firm programs and structure than it is to pull back on statements such as, "We care about diversity."
The work that we've done over the past 10 years has been super important in laying down a strong foundation and baking it into peoples' processes. I don't think we'll see legal departments lifting their commitments to diversity and inclusion.
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 AllFrom Olympic Aspirations to Legal Innovation: Tom Dunlop's Journey to Founding Summize
8 minute read'Am I Spending Time in the Right Place?' SPX Technologies CLO Cherée Johnson on Living and Leading With Intent
9 minute readMary O'Carroll on Her Move to Goodwin: Law Firms Are at the Heart of Industry Disruption
How I Made General Counsel: 'Keep Betting on Yourself Against the Odds,' Says Maryam Abdul-Kareem of Arcellx
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