In-House, Law Firm Professionals: A Business Case for Diversity and Inclusion Is Not Enough
Diversity and inclusion initiatives cannot just be motivated by business incentives, urged a group of in-house counsel and law firm attorneys at a Silicon Valley symposium hosted by the Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession.
November 22, 2019 at 03:42 PM
4 minute read
Simply declaring that diversity and inclusion are business imperatives won't get the job done.
That was the resounding message from a group of in-house counsel and law firm attorneys at a diversity and inclusion symposium at Hewlett Packard Enterprise on Thursday, hosted by the Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession, where they discussed the challenges for diversity in the legal profession.
"I think the business case alone is not realistic," said Quyen Ta, co-administrative partner of Boies Schiller Flexner's San Francisco office, noting the legal profession is still primary dominated by white males, and it is important to consider the statistics when weighing on the impact of a diversity and inclusion initiative.
Carefully tracking diversity statistics, both in relation to hiring and attrition, "is a way of ensuring that social justice is working, but it takes a lot of vigilance," Ta told the audience.
The panel, titled "The Business Case for Diversity and Inclusion: Is it Time to Renew Social Justice as a Rationale for D&I in the Legal Profession?" was moderated by Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Simona Agnolucci. Also joining the discussion were Ta; Wesley Bizzell, senior assistant general counsel for Altria Client Services Inc.; Chester Te, assistant general counsel for Silicon Valley Bank; and Robert White, executive director at California Minority Counsel Program.
For years, the legal profession has been enamored with the idea of a business case to drive diversity and inclusion efforts, and while it has spurred some progress, Te said he is not a fan of the business case argument.
"When people fell back on the economic arguments, my reaction would always be, 'Really? Like that's what you need as your incentive to put things where they really should be?'" Te said, adding that diversity inclusion should be a social justice argument instead of a business case.
Furthermore, the legal industry as a whole needs to look at the overall talent pool, increasing the efforts to fill out the demographics that are missing from that population, Te added.
The fight for diversity and inclusion in the legal business has been going on for decades, said Bizzell, who was named president of the National LGBT Bar Association's board of directors in early March.
"You see the numbers tick up, but tick up in a very slow way," Bizzell said. "I am hopeful that as we have millennials and Gen Z coming into the workforce—who are much more focused on social justice issues—that social justice argument may help save the day."
Echoing Te's comment about diversifying the talent pool, Bizzell said younger lawyers are more likely to join a firm that embraces diversity and inclusion.
|The 'Chicken-and-Egg' Problem
"The firms are looking at us and we're looking at the firms. There's definitely a chicken-and-egg problem," said Te, who has spent most of his legal career in-house. Te acknowledged that in-house departments, as the client, have the "bully pulpit" to push for diversity and inclusion, but ultimately, firms still decide whom to hire.
Bizzell added that while in-house counsel can use bonuses and fee reductions as leverage, that will not be enough to incentivize law firms to make changes.
"Any size company if you've got an ongoing matter, disentangling your company from a firm takes time and energy," Bizzell said. "A lot of companies aren't willing to make that sacrifice."
The panelists agreed that diversity and inclusion require more effort from both the firms and their clients. They encouraged general counsel to sit down with their outside counsel to communicate their diversity expectations early on.
"Diversity is intentional," Ta said. "It takes effort on the part of everyone involved."
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 AllShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Old Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
At DataGrail Summit, Legal Leaders Call for Transparency in the Age of AI
'This Is Your Time': AI Gives In-House Counsel Unprecedented Leverage
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 4Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 5'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
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