A Simple but Important Role in Diversity for Big Law
Sitting in a diversity and inclusion orientation session when I joined my firm as a first-year associate in the fall of 2014, I quickly became reacquainted with the low numbers and low retention rates of diverse associates at big law firms generally, statistics I was only previously aware of in the abstract.
May 16, 2018 at 03:33 PM
6 minute read
Sitting in a diversity and inclusion orientation session when I joined my firm as a first-year associate in the fall of 2014, I quickly became reacquainted with the low numbers and low retention rates of diverse associates at big law firms generally, statistics I was only previously aware of in the abstract. In addition to the sharing of these sobering numbers, the firm also shared, for its part, its ongoing efforts to raise these numbers and to support its diverse associates in various ways. Thinking back to that day has caused me to reflect on the continuing challenges that large law firms face in recruiting and retaining diverse attorney talent despite the fact that many firms have placed diversity and inclusion at the forefront of their initiatives.
If there was a clear solution, someone certainly would have figured it out by now and all of us would be seeing dramatic shifts in the hiring and retention rates in firms everywhere. Diversity and inclusion committees and chief diversity officers would be useful, but unnecessary. But instead we find ourselves grappling with the hiring and retention questions time and time again. We find ourselves saying farewell to diverse attorneys with potential either never realized or never cultivated. I'm convinced, however, that we can continue to chip away at these issues, and eventually we will realize the improvements that most of us openly seek. When coming up with solutions, they key is to look at what matters and what is important to diverse attorneys. It is essential for firms to gain an understanding of our perspectives and support our activities as diverse lawyers.
This past fall, the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Pennsylvania (APABA-PA) hosted the national chapter's Northeast Regional Conference which coincided with APABA-PA's annual banquet. Funds raised through the banquet are used to support the Judge William M. Marutani Fellowship. To honor Judge Marutani's legacy as a civil rights advocate, a pioneering Asian Pacific American jurist, and leader in the law, the fellowship is awarded annually to one or more Asian Pacific American law students who will be interning with a Pennsylvania nonprofit public interest organization or a government entity. This fellowship is important to me for two reasons. First, I received the fellowship when I was a law student, which provided not only financial support during law school, but also a mentoring aspect that helped shape me to be the lawyer I am today. It also connected me to a community of Asian Pacific American lawyers and supported my decision to practice here. Second, for the past three years, I have served on the Marutani Fellowship Committee, including as a co-chair. Serving on the committee allows me to offer the same support I received to Asian Pacific American law students in our community.
Given this involvement, a colleague and fellow APABA-PA member and I approached the firm about the dinner, explained its significance, and asked for the firm's support, just as many diverse attorneys do for activities of affinity bar associations in which they are active. Such sponsorship requests are often analyzed by firm administrators in terms of return on investment—how much publicity would result, how much good will would be generated, how many clients would be there—without real regard to the function itself, or the impact the firm's participation would have on the attorney requesting support. But using this type of market-based analysis often leaves diverse attorneys with the frustrations associated with feeling isolated and unsupported in a majority firm culture and context. But in my case, the firm took a different approach, one that truly targets principles of inclusion. The response we heard was one that more and more firms are offering today to support their diverse attorneys: “How can we help?” This simple reply, without the demand for further financial justification, reinforced the message that the firm was invested in me and my diverse colleagues.
The willingness of my firm to support my interests had a waterfall effect. Colleagues took time out of their weekend to attend and showed authentic investment in the organization. And it was an opportunity for them to see me in a different environment. My co-workers were not focused solely on identifying what clients or potential clients were at the dinner, but were genuinely interested in learning about the community efforts related to the organization.
Becoming a sponsor of an event or organization can seem like a small way for a firm to identify with the efforts of diverse attorneys in the legal community. But financial support to diverse and underserved communities is essential for the survival of the diverse lawyer pipeline. More important, however, is the intent behind the gesture. While complimentary tickets at a fancy dinner, the firm logo on event programs and the opportunity to sit with potential clients are great, when firms look beyond the surface to find the meaning of the event and the sponsorship, the true return on investment is far greater. The benefits of sponsorship of affinity group events, be they APABA-PA, the Barristers' Association, GALLOP, the Hispanic American Bar Association, or others, is not limited to the potential for new business or recognition, but rather, those that stem organically from supporting a firm's diverse attorneys, such as increased engagement, inclusion and retention.
John S. Yi is a commercial litigation associate in the Philadelphia office of Drinker Biddle & Reath. His practice focuses on representing clients in class actions, civil and criminal white collar matters, and merger and conduct investigations brought by state and federal enforcement authorities.
Maria L.H. Lewis is counsel in the Philadelphia office of the firm. Her practice focuses on counseling and representing clients in labor and employment matters, including discrimination and retaliation claims, wage and hour class actions, and counseling and compliance training. She also serves as chair of the firm's national diversity and inclusion committee, as well as career counselor to the firm's associate attorneys.
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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending 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