Readers' Poll Sheds Light on Attitudes, Approaches Hindering Diversity in Legal Profession
The Legal's most recent poll asked readers whether their law firms or organizations prioritized racial, ethnic and gender diversity and inclusion as part of their culture.
April 23, 2019 at 04:16 PM
3 minute read
The Legal's most recent poll asked readers whether their law firms or organizations prioritized racial, ethnic and gender diversity and inclusion as part of their culture.
While an overwhelming majority (65 percent) of the 37 respondents said their employers did place emphasis on diversity, 59 percent also said their organizations did not consider diversity when making decisions on promotions.
In addition, 49 percent of respondents to the The Legal's poll said they viewed their employers' stated emphasis on diversity as mere ”window dressing.”
The same questions were asked of readers in Texas, Connecticut and Florida. View the graphic below to see how the overall results compared to Pennsylvania's results.
While it's important to note that the responses to Pennsylvania's poll represent a very small sample size, some of the open-ended answers left by respondents, most of whom chose to remain anonymous, do provide some insight into the troubling attitudes and approaches toward diversity that can stifle progress within an organization.
One commenter complained about their firm “retaining underperforming minority lawyers when 'non-diverse' lawyers with the same performance would almost certainly have been fired.”
While that same respondent acknowledged that a “lack of diverse lawyers in the pipeline is a real issue,” they added that “the elephant in the room is that diverse lawyers, and [their] advocates, want to be held to a different, lower, standard than everyone else. The fact that firms aren't willing to adjust their standards is not indicia of devaluing diversity.”
Other commenters said they've witnessed pushback on diversity efforts within their own organizations.
“Some senior members are very committed to actual improvements in diversity, but small pockets of resistance stymie any real progress,” said one.
Another said firm leaders currently have little financial incentive to devote more than lip service to the issue of improving diversity.
“Law firm profits are booming without meaningful diversity, especially at senior levels,” the commenter said. “Unless and until that changes, doubtful that any significant progress will be made in terms of improving racial or gender diversity.”
Even those who said they believed many law firms were committed to diversity pointed out flaws in their approach.
“I truly believe that most firms care about diversity in 2019. The problem is that all the top firms are going after the same candidates, who are of a limited number,” one commenter said, adding that firms tend to focus too much on recruitment and not enough on retention.
Another commenter said law firms and other organizations that want to make real progress on diversity need to do more to counter-resistance within their ranks.
“I do think many firms value diversity, but they fail to realize that it takes courage and making others uncomfortable to be effective,” they said. “If it didn't make the majority uncomfortable, diversity wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Also, I think some people hide behind substantial gender diversity to cover for the fact that they have made poor progress in the areas of racial and other diversity. There are few (if any) firms that do not have a lot more work to do in this area.”
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 AllReaders' Poll: Does Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Help You?
1 minute readTrending 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