Yes, Cravath Still Has Zero Black Partners
Meet the Am Law 100 firms where Black partners are barely existent or powerless.
July 08, 2020 at 04:26 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Last year, I asked this pointed question: How it's possible there are still Am Law 100 firms with zero Black partners?
Well, it's 2020 and I'm at it again. And the answer is that it's still possible. There are still major firms in this land where you can't find one Black partner roaming the halls, no matter how hard you look.
This year's winners for this singular distinction are Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Haynes and Boone. (Last year, Cravath shared the award with immigration giant Fragomen Del Rey, which squeaked by this year with a 0.5% Black partner rate.)
Unfortunately, Cravath is a perennial in this category. Suffice it to say, it's a bit shocking that a firm of such renown could be such a failure when it comes to Black lawyers. (Cravath's first and last Black partner in its 101-year history was Rowan Wilson, who left in 2017 to become a judge on New York's Court of Appeals.) That said, Cravath's partnership is relatively small (82 partners) and all equity. Haynes and Boone, in contrast, has 229 partners, including 102 nonequity, and it still can't scrape together one Black partner.
But let's not beat up on Cravath and Haynes. If you scratch the surface, you'll find plenty of other big firms where Black partners are barely existent or have no real clout.
This year, I'm focusing on the equity status of Black partners because, to state the obvious, equity means money and power. Frankly, it's too easy (and self-serving) for firms to make a bunch of minority and women "partners" without sharing the pot.
So let's pull back the window dressing. Here are the Am Law 100 firms with zippo Black equity partners, based on the average full-time equivalent attorney counts for the 2019 calendar year in our Diversity Scorecard:
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- Fried Frank
- Gordon Rees (since the survey, the firm says it has elevated one Black equity partner)
- Haynes and Boone
- Kilpatrick Townsend
- Mintz Levin
- Winston & Strawn (since the survey, the firm reports two new Black equity partners)
The good news is that there have been some improvements in the intervening time. Sadly, however, some firms are dodging the issue entirely. Among the Am Law 100 firms that failed to provide any information about Black partners to our Diversity Scorecard are Alston & Bird; Boies Schiller; Bryan Cave; Kirkland & Ellis; Sidley Austin; Troutman Sanders; Vinson & Elkins; and Womble Bond—which, coincidentally, happen to be the firms that refused to break out equity/nonequity rates of their female lawyers. Are they refusing to divulge the information out of principle or are their stats embarrassing? Well, your guess is as good as mine.
Then there are the Am Law 100 that are just scraping by—barely—those with just one lonely Black partner in their equity ranks. There are 20 such firms, including powerhouses such as Debevoise & Plimpton; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Quinn Emanuel; Orrick; and Wilson Sonsini.
So what do firms have to say for themselves about these dreadful statistics?
Haynes and Boone's managing partner Tim Powers sent me a statement in which he stressed the importance of diversity while acknowledging "that our best intentions are simply not enough," adding, "we need to do much more to recruit, retain and advance minority lawyers, who often leave the firm for a variety of opportunities." He also noted that the firm has formed a task force of senior leaders, led by its director of diversity, and that "we sincerely, fervently aspire to be a market leader in diversity and will not rest until we have achieved that goal."
It's a good response, but one I've heard before. I know it by heart by now: Diversity is a top priority for us. We are trying. Very hard. Doing our best. Truly.
I also contacted Cravath and other firms on the list above, but have not heard back. Maybe they're still trying to craft the right response. Or maybe it's because they know deep down there's not much they can say. Because until their numbers back their rhetoric, it's all meaningless.
On Twitter: @lawcareerist
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 AllHSF Locks In Its American Dream. But What Will a U.S. Merger Mean For its Asia Practice?
Law Firms Mentioned
- Vinson & Elkins
- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
- Sidley Austin
- Troutman Sanders
- Gordon & Rees
- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
- Debevoise & Plimpton
- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
- Haynes and Boone
- Winston & Strawn LLP
- Weil, Gotshal & Manges
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore
- Alston & Bird
- Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP
- Boies Schiller Flexner
- Kirkland & Ellis
- Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
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