How Law Firms Overlook Diversity of Thought in Inclusion Efforts
Diversity of appearance doesn't necessarily ensure that firms have the right range of opinions to push forward.
September 10, 2019 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
U.K. law firm heads believe they have a new drawing card for law graduates. No longer able to compete with U.S. firms on salaries in London, many of the top firms privately say they are attempting to become a popular destination for the best talent through their diversity policies.
Many top U.K. firms already dominate international rankings of LGBT-friendly employers, and they are stepping up their efforts to improve the gender and racial balances in their partnerships. Yet, although it might help firms in the hiring process, the broader purpose in the push for diversity seems to have been lost.
Though great progress may be made regarding race, gender and sexual orientation, law firms are seemingly blind to a variety of diversity issues. There remains a massive bias toward in-shape, privately educated English literature, humanities and law graduates—a disproportionate number of whom went to either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge. In the U.K., the age range of lawyers is also limited. Not many partners work past the age of 65 and almost all trainee intakes at top firms are in their 20s. Where are the maths graduates who come from other industries and requalify as lawyers? Where are all the pensioners who decide to work into their 70s? When was the last time you met a lawyer with disabilities?
It is relatively easy to focus on specific quotas, but diversity is actually a far broader topic than race, gender and sexual orientation, and tackling those three areas should not be seen as a panacea to the problem.
Perhaps as they approach the issue of diversity, firms should think about what they are trying to achieve. Impressing graduates because you are diverse is obviously a benefit, but few would say it is the primary motivation for such efforts. In theory, at least, a bigger reason is surely to avoid groupthink. Employing a diverse range of people ensures creativity and helps guard against everyone remaining oblivious to certain problems.
Although partnerships with more women, ethnic minorities and LGBT lawyers are a good thing, I've never heard it said that they lead to more healthy debate on important decisions. In fact, they may all still think the same way because they were hired to fit in with a firm's culture. For decision-making purposes, some experts in the area suggest that diversity of skill, knowledge and opinion, rather than diversity of readily observable demographics, is key. In other words, law firms need people who not only look different, but think different.
This may require firms to bring in more old people, or those who have spent time in a different industry, or even those who are not as well educated in the traditional sense. But perhaps it simply requires them to seek out people who have a different mindset than what they are used to. That sort of diversity almost certainly leads to debate and healthy disagreement.
Fixated as firms are on the idea of a collegiate culture, encouraging dissent, especially below the partner level, is tantamount to heresy. But for firms keen on innovation, this is a necessary part of the creative process. I know of one person who works at a top British company famed for its innovation who says the institution actively hires people who question decisions, hoping to encourage debate and disagreement. It might cause internal friction, but it seems to help the company produce top-quality inventions.
Selling yourself as a firm that welcomes dissenting opinions might seem counterintuitive to graduate recruitment teams. But for law firms serious about developing diversity of thought, it could make all the difference.
Email: [email protected]
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 AllA China Practice by Any Other Name, Will It Be as Sweet?
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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