The editorial staff of The Legal Intelligencer recognizes diversity as a continuing concern in the legal community. This is our biannual discussion, an attempt to propose concrete solutions for the issues the legal profession faces in recruiting, hiring and retaining diverse attorneys. We invited a group of practitioners to offer their suggestions and discuss some steps law firms can take to attract, retain and maintain a pipeline of diverse attorneys. The attorneys also offered insights on the importance of sponsorships for younger diverse attorneys and the differences in diversity and inclusion initiatives at large firms as compared to smaller firms. Our editors selected the panelists from a number of volunteers and lightly edited the transcript for clarity. Excerpts from the discussion follow: Panelists: Gilda Arroyo, Burns White Pamela Harper, Griesing Law Kimya Johnson, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart Edward Kang, Kang Haggerty & Fetbroyt (moderator) Evan Liu, Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig Ruben Munoz, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Paola Pearson, Anapol Weiss Gail Ruopp, Gail Ruopp Management Consultant Kenneth Sharperson, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby Marilou Watson, Fox Rothschild Raymond Williams, DLA Piper Edward Kang: I would like to start the discussion by talking about the term diverse attorney and how it has affected the legal industry. But before we do that, I would like to discuss first the meaning of the term diverse attorney, what it means to you today, especially now that the term has been broadened. Kimya, could we start with you. Kimya Johnson: A good question, so what does it mean for me personally may be different than how it is articulated for many firms, and then beyond that, many of the companies where our clients reside. From a firm perspective, we define diverse for purposes of our diversion inclusion work, as really we like to say the five buckets that are really aligned with the now definition, so we focused on gender diversity, racial and ethic diversity, LGBTQ, folks who are open, as well as those who are, I say openly disabled for D&I purposes, as well as folks who are veterans. So that's what diverse has meant from a law firm perspective. In my work, I think what it means for me, personally, is looking at ways that we can accept, and not only accept, but really embrace difference. And for me, diversity just really in its heart just means different. So what is it that we can do to harness the differences, that not only I present personally, but that we see presented through our attorneys, through our clients. Kang: Thank you. Does anybody else have any comments on Kimya's definition and her comments about the term diverse attorney? Pam? Pamela Harper: No, I think she covered it. It is interesting because there has been a lot of discussion in the terms of diversity of thought, and whether that should be included within the definition. But if you have followed those buckets, presumably there is going to be a diversity of thought in the process, so I wouldn't diverge from her definition that much. Kang: Many years ago the term diverse attorney was somewhat narrowly defined to include only minorities or women, and didn't include the broad definition that Kimya just mentioned. Do you think that the inclusion or the broadening of the term offends the general goal of increasing diversity in the legal profession, or to ask an open-ended question, what do you believe was the effect of broadening the definition of the term in the legal profession? Marilou Watson: My thought on that is it certainly has broadened the definition, and it is really all about inclusiveness, right? But where it could turn a different direction with respect to maybe not being inclusive is that first firms, corporations have to espouse the importance of diversity and inclusion because what can end up happening is you shift focus off of it. You start with maybe certain groups, and then as the term gets broadened, the focus gets shifted to the next group. And instead of being an either or, it should be both. So my point is that there should be a deliberate intentional effort to maintain, to begin and to maintain efforts to be inclusive with respect to all types of diversities, and not shift the focus to whatever that new broadened definition may be of the day. Harper: By broadening the definition, I think in some respects there has actually been dilution with respect to racial and gender diversity. And in general, I am not withstanding the broadening of the definition, it is still not viewed as a business imperative. It is viewed as I think a social or a cultural imperative, and until diversity is viewed as a business imperative, it will not be normalized irrespective of what the definition happens to be. Kang: Thank you. Anybody else have comments? Johnson: I think Pamela makes an excellent point. I think for me what is interesting is it may not be viewed as a business imperative for law firms or those in the legal profession, but it is certainly being viewed as a business imperative for our clients, and many of the companies with which we represent, so it is interesting. Harper: I agree because there is reputational risks now if you get it wrong. So by default it has become a business imperative I think for the private sector, certainly more so than for law firms. Johnson: Yes. Harper: Because for law firms, there really has not been a down side, per se, if you get it wrong because the reality is most clients are not at this point saying we really want to see diverse teams. If anything, it is a nice to have, but it is a must have. It is not a must have. There is not a particular down side except for some firms who will say if I don't see a diverse team of lawyers, then we may diminish our spend with your firm. There is not a lot of that yet. One hundred and seventy GCs signed a letter that said we are going to put a priority on firms that clearly have diverse teams. I think that we are still out on that. We don't know what kind of a result we are really going to see from that GC letter. But, yes, there is more reputational risk and brand equity dilution for companies than there are for law firms if they don't get it right. Watson: I was going to say, you know, it is interesting because corporations, our clients, understand the imperative of the diversity of the type of attorneys that are available. What I mean by that is, so we have some here that are small law firms that may practice in a couple of areas. But in particular with the larger law firms, you know, I am at a firm where we have 42 practice groups, 42. It is probably larger now. My point is, and the analogy is that clients and law firms understand the importance of having diverse practice groups, right, because we would want to be the one stop shop to the extent that we can barring conflicts. And so while both the law firm and the client can see benefit to a firm that understands the corporate culture, the corporate products and services, and so on, and having a group of individuals that can service them across the board in a variety of ways, a lot of times there seems to be a lack of an analogous comparison that a diverse thought process, or a diverse pool of individuals that look at legal issues from varying vantage points also bring so much more to the table. And I think back to that statement that if two of us think alike, then one of us is unnecessary. So from a business perspective, I consider that analogy. Kang: Now, that we have a general consensus on the definition of a diverse attorney, which is now broader than it has been in the past, I would like to discuss about what does it take to attract and retain diverse attorneys for a law firm. Let's start with you, Ray, with a large firm of over 4,000 lawyers. Raymond Williams: So, truthfully, it doesn't take much for us to attract them. The question is how do we retain them. That's the big question for us. I have to go back to, I think it is important that the term diverse attorney be used, but I also think it is important that we have our resource groups and our allies and understand that each group is different. Each group requires a different—has a different set of issues that they are dealing with. So, when you ask me how do you retain diverse attorneys, I ask you which set of diverse attorneys are we talking about. I look at African American attorneys. I look at African American women, African American attorneys, and I tell you that it is different than retaining LGBTQ attorneys. Their issues are different. It is not one box for all. And if you don't recognize that, then you are not going to be able to retain all of your diverse attorneys. It is that reality, I think, that we miss as lawyers in the legal profession. When we have expanded the term diverse, we have left behind individual resource groups or affinity groups, and we have forgotten that each of them have their different issues. And so I think retention is important. For a large law firm, a firm like DLA Piper, you know, we can go out, and people flock to us. I don't mean that in an arrogant way at all. I mean the reality is we pay $190,000 a year for starting lawyers. So that alone will get us the group of lawyers we want. The question then becomes how do we retain them. And the way we do it is we really spend time thinking about the individual lawyers, the individual groups of lawyers. You know, I have a list given to me each quarter that breaks down how my affinity groups are doing, how my resource groups are doing, not just my diverse lawyers. Telling me that I have 6% diverse lawyers at DLA Piper says nothing to me. Telling me that I have percent African American lawyers within that 26% tells me a lot. Telling me that I have, you know, 3% LGBTQ lawyers tells me a lot. Telling me that the lawyers, the Hispanic, Latino lawyers are at a 5-hour delta in a particular quarter tells me a lot. My ability then to go to the practice group leaders and have discussions with them as to why this particular group of lawyers are at a delta, then allows me to understand, maybe we brought in new people this quarter, maybe we lost people this quarter. I want to know why we have lost people this quarter. Maybe someone needs to be talked to, meaning a partner or a group needs to be talked to, but at least I understand what is happening within an affinity group. Did that answer it? I don't know if it did. Kang: Actually, it did. Thank you. Watson: I think a critical operative term or terms that Ray used was we think about diversity, and I think all too often organizations get caught into, quote, doing diversity for the sake of diversity, and it really is kind of like a nice thing to do. We should have this. Everyone is talking about it. That's why we should do this. And anything that you do that you want to move the needle on, you have to do on a regular basis. I know that can seem exhausting because we are attorneys by profession, and we have our work to do for our clients. But from the business perspective, you know, being partners in the firm, or what have you, you have to look at it from the perspective of developing people, period, and really doing all that you can do to develop those individuals. Ray just mentioned what the starting salaries are of individuals coming into his firm. That's a lot of money for any firm to invest to have someone come in and not be trained in the way he or she should be trained, not exposed to opportunities to gain critical skills, not integrated into the client practice, and then to have an attrition rate that, you know, just has them rolling out of the door, and at a minimum, you're watching not only wonderful and great people that have things to bring to the table, you are watching money roll out the door. I think that organizations really have to be careful of not doing diversity for the sake of doing diversity. Kang: Let's say you're developing a plan, as you're implementing a plan to develop a lawyer within the firm, how do you factor in that person's diverse background? Watson: First of all, you have to have a connection with people. You have to get to know who is there and available to work for you. We have to be mindful that everybody starts at different places, right? All of us were first years at one point. Then we go on from there. So we have to first start there. I think sometimes we have the expectations of individuals coming right out of law school that they are just going to hit the ground running, and I don't know about you, I didn't do that. So, I recognized there was a lot to learn, but I knew how to go about it, and I had great teachers and mentors because I was at a boutique firm that couldn't afford not to teach me. So, you have to get to know the individual. You have to find out what their talents are, right? And to the deliberate and intentional piece of it, I recognized they didn't get hired by our firm because they didn't do well, and they were slackers, and they couldn't make it. They couldn't pass muster to get through the door. They got through our door, which is a narrow door to get through to begin with. So, these are not people that no one else wanted in the sense. So, if we don't take the time to find out what people bring to the table, one of the things I do, is I recognize the skill set of everybody on my team. And I will have a pre-call with my team before we talk to the client, and I will say, recognizing you are new. I will say, you know, so and so, I know that you have worked on this aspect. I am going to turn to you during our call and ask you to talk about what you learned in your research and so on. I will be there to pick up the ball, or there are many of us that will be there to kind of keep the ball going, but I need to teach them to speak up and be confident in what they know. If you don't do that, they just sit on the sidelines. They observe, and everyone else runs the show. My clients love to know any and everybody on that team is an integral part of the team and brings something to the table, no matter how junior they are, no matter how senior they are, no matter what their background is. I think that that is really critical. You have to take the time to develop people. Frankly, as a partner, I know that I can turn to someone. I am not always on. I don't have to be on all the time for the client. I know and trust my team that a client can pick up the phone, and I feel comfortable and confident that that individual can handle the questions. Or if they can't, I also teach them how to say I am not certain about that answer, but let me find the answer for you, and they know who to turn to. Harper: I just want to piggyback. One of the things that Marilou said is that you had a mentor, or you had mentors to mentor you. And I think it is really important in terms of the inclusion part of the diversity equation, mentors and sponsors. It is important to know the difference between the two of them and the value of each of them. A mentor is a nice to have, and a sponsor is a must have. And so to the extent that senior partners within a firm decide that they are going to sponsor someone within the firm to help to grow them, I think that's critical in terms of the inclusion part because participating is not belonging. They are two different things. At the end of the day, people do business, I think, with people that they know, like and trust. Sponsorship confers that access. It allows you access because you have a sponsor who is fundamentally expending their political capital on your behalf. So I think mentors are important, and I think sponsors are also important, an important part of it. Kang: Let's explore the topic a little more. Can you explain the difference between mentorship and sponsorship within that context? Harper: In my mind, a mentor can be another colleague. A mentor, if you are three years out, a mentor can be someone who is five years out who knows the firm, who knows the politics, who understands how to maneuver, and who you can brainstorm with, have a conversation with, have a bad day with. You don't have a bad day with your sponsor. You always bring your A game to your sponsor because your sponsor is using their political capital on your behalf. A sponsor occupies a position of power, which a mentor does not necessarily have to do. A mentor can be another colleague. So, that to me is the difference. The issue is the power and where that power resides within the firm and the fact that the sponsor is willing to use their power on your behalf. Kang: Thank you. Harper: It makes a big difference I think. Kang: Going back to the question that we discussed about how do you retain talented, diverse attorneys, we have perspective from large firms, from both DLA Piper and Fox Rothschild. Let's see that from smaller firms and the plaintiffs firms with respect to, Evan and Paola, can you offer your insight on that topic? Evan Liu: So, a lot of these issues that I am listening to that face large firms, I mean small firms are completely different. We don't have D&I programs. We are focused on a single client who is a single person, and they just want a result. You know, it has never been, at least in the, you know, 12, 13 years that I have been an attorney, which isn't actually that long, that I have seen some efforts at diversity, but not real, there is no real push for it. It's a nice to have, as you said. And it's hard because I mean our turnover rates are extremely low. You bring people in from other fields that you happen to know, or you play golf with, or you had some drinks with, and you like their work, and they come into your space, and then they move in, so the number of diverse attorneys is difficult to manage. People move on, and they want their own independence, and they, you know, open their own shop, and you have got small firms with one or two people. So it's very different. It's very different. In terms of retention, here, in the personal injury space, it is all about the result. You know, you win trials. You make big settlements, or you are a workhorse, and you work behind the scenes, either of those cases, I mean and they keep you on. Nobody cares what color you are in that sense to some degree. I can think of people who in the business are explicitly racist, or who are explicitly problematic in general, and that comes from both sides of the racial diversity question. Gender, not so much, it is really about results. You know, I don't know how to manage this in terms of telling you, or trying to explain how this should work in a small space, in a business where almost everybody is a small firm. I mean we try, but ... Paola Pearson: I think that I come at this from a little bit of a different perspective. I understand why there is a lot of focus on whether diverse attorneys are being retained at these firms. I think, going to what Pamela was saying earlier, we are not just talking about getting people through the door. What about getting people to the door to begin with. I think I come from a place, you know, I was born in the Dominican Republic, moved to Florida when I was a child, grew up in a middle- to low-income household. I didn't know a single attorney my entire life growing up, and I mean that, not one. Not a cousin, not an uncle, not a grandfather, not even a close family friend. I come from a place where I had to forge my own path because there wasn't anyone that I could look to and say, "wow, I see what they are doing. That seems like a really good career option for me." It literally was not an option for me in my mind at least, just because I wasn't exposed to that. I wasn't in that world. I think some of the focus needs to be shifted earlier. I think it needs to be shifted to a place of opening people's minds to maybe your uncle wasn't a lawyer, maybe your dad wasn't a lawyer, maybe you didn't know a single one, but you can do this, if this is something you want to put your mind to, and it's important to you to forge that path. And I think I look at it from the perspective of what are the precise things that law firms and hiring practices can do to bring more people to the door to begin with. Gilda Arroyo: I agree with Paola on that. I do think that retention, it's like a dual approach, because the retention part is important because I do think it is important for diverse children, high schoolers, whatever the age, to see themselves in the profession. I think the profession should reflect the people that which it serves personally. It doesn't. It is unfortunate. But I think a dual approach would be a great way to bring diverse future attorneys, or bring diverse attorneys into the fold, but also it is important to retain the ones that we do have. Because when you don't see yourself, it's just hard to know that you can be that, if it makes any sense. So, I remember, I am from Puerto Rico originally, and I remember in Pittsburgh, there were three female Hispanic partners, and I knew all of them. And it's a little disheartening. I mean it's great, and I am proud of them. They are fantastic women, but still a little disheartening. Williams: Cathy Bissoon? Arroyo: Judge Bissoon, yes. Williams: She's a good friend of mine. Kenneth Sharperson: I guess, from a midsize firm perspective, we have sort of the opposite problem as Ray. We sometimes hire diverse lawyers, but then they leave because someone comes and offers them a lot more money. So, to go to the question of retention though, I was going to mention the mentorship, sponsorship idea, but I think that part of that, too, is, and this is what I try to do when I mentor young lawyers is to say it's not just them finding you. It's you sometimes leaving your office and saying hey, you know, do you mind going to lunch with me or something like that and reaching out to some of the people who have the power in the firm because a lot of the stories, even from my classmates out here, is that they would go to like these big firms in New York, and they say well, nobody takes me to lunch, or people just walk by my office, or a group of associates would walk by my office, and I would say well, did you just jump in the crew and say hey, I am coming with you, and a lot of times the answer was no. And I think sometimes as diverse lawyers, we have to sort of put ourself in that position to get a mentor, or even a sponsor by taking that sort of outside-the-box step, which is sort of, you know, integrating yourself into what is happening within the firm instead of thinking oh, my gosh, here it goes again, they are just going to ignore me. The other thing I wanted to mention as far as this issue we have at our firm, besides losing people to more money, is sometimes, because we are a smaller firm, just the work, right? I mean we all have billable hours, but, you know, I can't say your billable hours don't matter, but ours matter a lot because our clients pay decent rates, but they are not probably paying rates that DLA Piper clients are paying. So every hour counts, so we work a lot. I think some of the younger attorneys, that's another thing, right, with the millennial attorneys, the diversity sort of angle, like generational, they don't sometimes want to put that effort, regardless of color. One of my son's classmates, his father is a partner at Riker, and they actually lowered their billable hours because the younger attorneys weren't meeting their minimal billable hours, and to me that is just ridiculous because I just remember working seven days a week, and I had young babies at home, because I wanted to just make it. You know, I wanted to get through, you know, what I needed to get through when I was at a firm in New York. You know, so even if you have a diverse attorney, or even a nondiverse attorney, if they are not willing to put in that effort, then you are not going to retain that lawyer anyway because from a business standpoint, they're not going to be making money for the firm. You are going to end up just, you know, recycling them through. So that's just sort of something else, this whole dynamic of retaining, how do you retain if the people who you want to retain aren't meeting certain expectations. I don't know how you change that. I mean we all had to meet those at some point. I still have to meet them. And, you know, if you don't meet those, you have to get rid of people who don't. The one thing I wanted to mention, you mentioned, yes, the pipeline program, it is bringing people, you know, high school, college, however you develop this pipeline. With the state bar association, what we did was, we have our annual meeting in Atlantic City every year. So we partnered one year with Atlantic City High School, and the next year we partnered with the Boys and Girls Club in Atlantic City, and we take our diversity committee, which is between 46 and 52 lawyers for some odd reason, a bunch of lawyers, and of all backgrounds, and basically we would run a program at the Boys Club, you know, something about Constitutional law. We pick some sort of topic that we thought they would be interested in and talk to, and just the 15 or 20 students that typically show up at the Boys Club, the high school is more because we had a contained group of about 100 and something students, you get to have that conversation. And, they get to see black lawyers, Asian lawyers, Hispanic lawyers, you know, discussing these issues with them, but then you get to have an individual conversation with someone who is in high school and talk to them about what the process is, what it takes, why is it important now to get the best grades you can get in high school so you can get into the best college you can get into so then hopefully you can get into the best law school that you can get into, but having that conversation with a 16-year-old that actually wants to hear that information, because my daughter doesn't want to hear it from me, but a 16-year-old who actually wants to hear that information is great because hopefully in a few years they will remember you, and then what I am thinking is if I could start building something like that, maybe they will want to come to Weber Gallagher, or they will look me up and then I can say well, here is someone we can bring in. I have known this person since they were 15, 16 years old. Then you have that thing where, you know, now you can be their sponsor. You can vouch for them. Because, unfortunately, sometimes you need that extra, you know, support. I am sorry to keep going through this. There is so much I wrote down. But then from a recruitment standpoint, you know, the thing that I always hear is well, we try, we try, we try. We can't find people. We can't do this. We can't do that. You know, I think of it as, you know, well, the one thing I'm going to try to do is, I am going to try to look at the statistics at law schools and say where are diverse students. I mean obviously where I went, Rutgers in Newark, we had the minority student program. So I know that there is a ton of diverse candidates in that program who are doing very well in law school that will be quality candidates. But then you have to look at a fact like there is a school at Howard, which is less than an hour and a half, two hours from Philadelphia, and I know that there are qualified candidates at Howard. So you can find candidates, but you have to sometimes look outside of the realm of where you recruit. I think that's where, at least for Weber Gallagher, we are going to start opening up our recruitment schools to try to find more diverse candidates. But they're out there. They want jobs, as I think we probably all know, but it does take sometimes a little bit of an extra effort, an extra step to get these candidates to our law firms. Johnson: I just wanted to add to some things that I heard Ken say, as well as what was spoken earlier. So, I think that what we are seeing is, you know, obviously the practice of law, whether at a small firm, whether on the plaintiffs side, whether the defense, a large law firm or what have you, I think that candidates, students are making a cost benefit analysis and looking at what the profession can mean to them and how it can benefit them. They are riddled with student debt. They are making decisions very early as to whether this is a path that they are going to pursue and really what's the benefit to them in pursuing it. I think that we have to recognize that. So I think oftentimes it may not be as much for some, maybe some markets, you know, as to people don't know that law firms exist, or that law could be potentially an option for them, but are they willing to absorb not only the personal investment, can they absorb that time, and to be able to invest in not only a legal education, but preparing for a bar exam, can they do this, can they absorb this. And if and when they do, will the profession embrace them so that they can actually be successful so that they would want to remain in the profession. I think we have been talking a lot about, I guess, attract and retain. I think many of us at this point, you know, at least on the larger law firm side, have already started, at this point, putting in place many of the pipeline partnerships. We go to the law schools. We go to undergrad schools. We are building out programs. We partner with minority bar associations. We do all types of things. We partner with national affinity oriented associations that will allow us hopefully an entree to get to these qualified, diverse candidates. So I think many of us are doing very specific things, and if you are not, then we can certainly talk about what you can and maybe should be doing on the diversity, the attract part of it. Retaining is really about inclusion. So when we say retain, what we hear, our chief diversity officer and a whole bunch of people saying I don't want to hear about retention. I want to hear about inclusion, what are you doing to include, you know, the diverse attorneys, what are you doing to include younger attorneys, what are you doing to include, so we have really shifted, and that's everybody from, you know, our CEO or our board on down, what are we doing to include folks at every aspect and every cycle within their career from hiring—well, recruitment, hiring, work evaluation, work and skill and professional development, to leadership, succession planning and development, what are we doing at every stage of the process. And if we are not doing anything, what could we do to really include these highly talented attorneys that are already in our midst. Once we have done the work to get them here, what are we doing to actually assure that they are prepared and equipped and want to stay, and I think that's where many of us are focused right now. We heard Ray talk about employer resource groups, or business resource groups. Marilou brought up mentorship and sponsorship. Those are two big areas that folks are focused on, but there are others as well. We have a lot of firms revisiting compensation. So how are people not only being compensated, but what are the markers that will indicate if somebody is actually successful. We are revisiting concepts, at least on the defense side, around origination credit and other ways of determining if somebody is actually successful. We have a very robust professional growth and development program that, you know, includes efforts for not only folks to get substantive skill development, but frankly develop some of the networking, the soft skills, the inclusive leadership skills that everybody needs to know. If we are talking about firms, for example, that are roughly 10% diverse as far as people of color, maybe 30% women, you know, folks who are LGBTQ, less, you know, and veterans, less, you know, clearly we are going to have to address the majority who are represented in our law firms and in our industry if we are going to be successful about retaining, including everybody. So we have been really focused on how can we include people who are, quote, unquote, not diverse, to ensure that we are building the types of systems and programs so that we can begin to address some of these issues. Sharperson: I think also alternative sort of work arrangements help, and I am using it from our experience because at Weber Gallagher, we went to a full at-home work program. And I know, I have noticed that we have lost less attorneys in the last year because it is hard, and we all get recruited, and we get those e-mails and we talk and we find out what is going on. I am finding that, the conversations I am having even with just associates is they will say, you know, I got a job offer, you know, for $20,000 more, but it doesn't match the ability to work at home. And so I think, you know, that's something I'm going to utilize as I continue my efforts to retain, or even recruit diverse attorneys. Retaining, I think I am one of the few there still, but recruiting is yes, look, you can go, or you have been somewhere, you have been to a Sullivan & Cromwell, and now you are looking to move somewhere else. This might be a place for you. And I know particularly from a gender perspective, the women lawyers in my office in Bedminster love the fact that they work at home four days out of the week. I love the fact that I work at home four days out of the week because when my children come home, I don't think I missed a baseball game this spring. It just means sometimes I work later at night, but I think having some alternatives to attract, I mean that would attract diverse and nondiverse lawyers, but I think having alternative benefits is another way to sort of retain diverse lawyers, but lawyers in general, but diverse lawyers I think that may have certain situations as well. Kang: Ruben. Ruben Munoz: I just want to add something. I think your question went to how do you make diversity stick at a law firm, and that's the million-dollar question. In the business world, there is a business case for why diversity works. It matters to the bottom line. You can see studies from Boston Consulting Group or McKinsey that show that makes a difference to the bottom line. That case, that study is missing as far as I know in the legal setting, but I think we would all agree that there is a business case to be maintained, and what would it take, once you agree that there is a business case, and hopefully that research comes out at some point, then how do you make it stick. In my view, it is a culture, like we have all said it is not just putting one person in charge, and that's it. It has got to come from the top, and all the way to the bottom, there has got to be buy from everybody just because it makes business sense. That's the selling point for diversity at a law firm, and you do it from a practical standpoint at a big firm, with structure. You have some structure. But because everybody cares, because it is not just a mentorship that I have to go to somebody because I care that this person develops because it matters to the firm's bottom line, it matters to my bottom line, then you have everybody involved in one single goal going forward. Kang: It seems that the bigger firms have more diverse plans to attract and retain talent, talented people with the diverse backgrounds. Going back to what Evan mentioned earlier about in a smaller firm setting where retaining someone, or attracting someone is based, primarily on results, so can smaller firms, can they afford to invest in attracting and retaining diverse attorneys, and if so, how? Let's start with you, Gail. Gail Ruopp: For smaller firms for 25 years, I have seen a lot. I have seen the private conversations. I have seen people in power not buying into it. They would give an excuse expression, a token person to sit in on a meeting. You look at some people's websites, and they will bring in someone of color and a woman and someone else to sit, to be a part of the firm's home or whatever. Everybody has got the same diversity clause in their firm manual, as well as on their websites. I think it is important, the number one reason that the law firm is there, in a small firm, are because of the partners. The partners started the business. So you have got to understand their biases. Once they understand their biases, then it is easier to bring in people, whether it is a woman, or someone of color, or someone of the LGBT community, someone come in and feel included. You can do all the tap dancing you want and the lip service and do whatever your client wants. I have seen it. I have seen where clients said well, we want to see who is on your team. We want to make sure we have a diverse group working with us. You know they brought in two or three diverse people they had and they said just sit there, you are fine. And it is not fine. It is not fine. But the thing is that the crux of this for smaller firms, get your people, the people in charge to take a look at themselves, take an implicit bias test, read the book "23 Things that I, Intelligent People, Shouldn't Do or Shouldn't Say," and figure out what is it that I, my biases are, and how do I change my behavior. Then, I remember bringing in one man of color at a law firm. I won't mention the law firm, and he was there for like a year. He was like that's it, I am the only one. So, you know, again, it is chicken and eggs. You have got to have somebody in diversity who is charging it up at the partner level. In a small firm, you're talking partners, maybe five, ten, whatever. It is not a lot of partners. It is very, very different. It is night and day between large law firms and small firms. Williams: I agree it is night and day between the two, but the fix is the same, in my mind. So, as I think through this, and I think if you care, and I care a lot. I look at this country, and it is just breaking my heart what is happening here, but that's besides the point, but if you care about the people that you work with, and you see that they're limited to people like them who 42 they are working with, then you have to ask yourself how could they enjoy the work they are doing. How could they enjoy where they are working. It is just to me, it is almost like common sense that if I am the only woman in a firm of 15 males, at some point I am like I can't work here anymore. So the law firms like DLA Piper that value partners who bring in compensation like I do, right, if that was the bottom line, then we wouldn't be diverse except for me and a few other partners, right, because they would say well, whoever brings in the money, that's all we care about. So when you are at a small firm, or a plaintiffs firm, you have to say to yourself, no, I get it that you are the guy that brought in the money, but we have to be able to think about how we are going to have a diverse group of lawyers working for us that feel comfortable, that actually want to work for us, and feel like they can be part of this. I look at like the group of lawyers, and actually, you know, I am one of the few defense lawyers that actually go to have beers with plaintiffs lawyers. I actually see plaintiff lawyers as good people. Liu: Thanks. Williams: From the defense point of view, and if you want a job, let me know, Evan, I will bring you over. You've got an M.D. So the point being though, that as I look at this, and I say how many minorities, LGBTQ folks are actually plaintiffs in cases. Johnson: Exactly. Williams: It is one of those things that I just think, yes, you can do that, but at the end of this, to me, as I look at it, I think if we just think internally about the people we are working with, and we care about them, every one of them, then this issue should be able to take care of itself. Right? So, you think about it this way, I was in our New York office during Ramadan. I am not Muslim, but at all of our offices, we have diversity chairs, and I tell them do whatever you want to make people feel comfortable. If you get push-back, come talk to me. And so they had an Iftar. I am like, what is that. I don't know. They tell me. They say you have to fast all day, from sunset, to sundown, and then you have this community dinner, and they wanted to do it in the New York office, to have the community dinner. I am like it sounds cool. Then they said will you come, and I am like OK, I will go, do I have to fast. Yes, you have to fast. OK, I will do that. So I fasted all day. I went to the dinner, and I am like, you know, they had YouTube videos of what it was all about, and I learned. There was about 40, 50 people in our New York office, and it just so happens that one of our summer associate was from Jordan. She was Muslim, and she comes up to me afterwards, and she is like oh, my God, you don't understand how important it was to me that you guys did this in the workplace. She said, now I can tell people why I am not eating during lunch during Ramadan, and how hungry I am, so stop asking. It's moments like that that if we focus internally on the people that we are working with, and we make them feel comfortable, I think that's part of the beginning of retention. Kang: Thank you. We have about a minute or two remaining. I would like to conclude the meeting by getting a sentence or two comment on how to vet diversity initiatives going forward, and let's go around the room starting with Kimya. Johnson: Be intentional. Sharperson: I think it is just having a respect for all cultures and all persons of diverse backgrounds so that you can move it forward by understanding where people are coming from. Arroyo: I think it is important to have awareness, not just where you stand, but also of where others stand as well. Liu: I think from the small firm perspective, it is about keeping an open mind and being aware of implicit bias. Pearson: I think it is about opening people's eyes to the possibility of a career in the legal profession earlier. Ruopp: I think it is about educating our leadership, and you can't say anymore we have always done it this way. Munoz: I would say let's crystallize the business case for diversity in the law firm setting. Kang: Ray. Williams: I think we just have to care. I think we have to care. Kang: Thank you. Marilou. Watson: Absolutely have to be deliberate and intentional, and work to come together instead of being divided. It is just a couple of words. There is so much more. There is so much more. Kang: So little time. Pam. Harper: I am the last one, and everyone has said everything, but I really agree with Ruben about the business case, and law firms also caring. But also recognizing that each person was hired with the assumption that they would do well. You believed in these people when you hired them, recognized everyone's strengths and leverage because they wouldn't have been hired in the first place if you didn't think they could do the job. So leverage, find out what their true strengths are, which goes back to what Marilou said as well, and leverage those strengths. Kang: Thank you. I appreciate everyone's passionate and very thoughtful discussions today. I have learned quite a bit. I would like to work together, continue to work together in promoting diversity in the legal profession going forward, and looking forward to working with each of you. Thank you.