When 170 GCs talk, law firms listen - but will the GCs?
This isn't the first time GCs have demanded law firms do better on diversity - American Lawyer editor Gina Passarella asks whether anything will be different this time around
January 29, 2019 at 12:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
The message has been heard loud and clear. That is, if the number of people reading this week's story about 170 general counsel warning law firms to diversify or lose business is any indication, law firms are reading every word.
The lack of diversity in the legal industry has been a pervasive problem for decades and discussions of how to rectify the problem have grown more intense over the past few years, and, for that matter, over the past few hours. This weekend, The New York Times published an article highlighting the lack of diversity in Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison's latest partnership intake as emblematic of a broader problem in law. And leaders of legal departments in some of the world's largest companies responded with a pact to direct work away from firms that do not improve those numbers.
I have to admit that as powerful as it is to see that number of legal heads band together, my first reaction was one of scepticism, both of the firms and the GCs. Haven't we written this story so many times before? In fact, this timeline from 2017 shows similar calls to action on a number of occasions over the past 20 years. But the numbers are not budging.
Legal departments, as it turns out, have been dealing with a similar struggle. In 2018, for example. the Black GC 2025 Initiative was launched with a goal to increase the number of GCs in Fortune 1000 companies from 38 to 50, or 5% of the Fortune 1000, by the year 2020, and from 50 to 100 by the year 2025.
Certainly the news has prompted Paul Weiss to think really hard about these issues. And law firms in general have increased the staff they have dedicated to diversity and inclusion. The American Lawyer and others have been writing for years that the newest initiatives by GCs are the ones that are going to now make the big difference. And to some degree they absolutely have. There has been incremental change that, over the years, adds up. And I know of examples of firms that have lost work over a lack of diversity (though that group is small). RFPs are now pushing the issue, too, thanks even more to the ABA Model Diversity Survey.
But there was a line in the New York Times' piece - the last line - that caused the Negative Nancy in me to come out. It was from one of the architects of the open letter to law firms, Michelle Fang, the CLO of software company Turo.
According to the story, when asked whether she would fire a firm that employs a white male partner she has long relied on if the firm were not diverse enough, Fang said, "I trust him so much. I can't see walking away."
There is nothing wrong with Fang's comment. It's completely understandable in a profession that relies so heavily on trust and relationships. And I don't even think it's necessarily counterintuitive to her goal of improving diversity. But it highlights that there are two sides to a problem that has proved difficult for the industry to solve. Both law firms and legal departments need to be willing to make changes, but those changes come with consequences to existing relationships.
Despite my initial cynicism, I do think more may come of this letter than the ones before it. As one industry observer mentioned on LinkedIn, this comes as part of a larger groundswell of discussion around diversity that is becoming increasingly difficult for law firms to ignore. But even more than that, the target here seems different to me.
In earlier letters, general counsel were first seeking increased diversity among broader firm ranks, then it was about pitch teams, then it was about making sure credit for work went to the actual diverse teams that were pitched. Hiring diverse lawyers has improved, but retention has remained a problem. Now, however, the call to action is tied to one of the most sacrosanct decisions made in law firms: partnership promotions.
If law firms are forced to think differently and with eyes wide open about who they let into their equity partnership, ensuring pals of their partners aren't the only ones being considered for a piece of the pie, that is a game-changer. And when I say partnership, I mean equity partnership. And I hope the GCs do, too.
So, to law firms and GCs alike, prove the Nancy in me wrong. I'm rooting for you.
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?
Trending Stories
- 1$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
- 2Former Wamco Exec Charged With $600M 'Cherry-Picking' Fraud
- 3Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
- 4NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 5Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
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