Image: sonofpromise/Shutterstock.com

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."