Saber rattling about law firm diversity hiring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

Not PP, but my answers-

The way to enforce title VII is through lawsuits, and in order to bring a lawsuit there would need to be an injured party to "defend." So yes, lawsuits brought against race-based preference in hiring would be deployed in defense of white/non-minority law students. Policy changes that a firm makes to avoid such a lawsuit is the same thing, one step removed.

To change policy now would indeed be an outlier position (for now) and would attract attention and draw lawsuits, based in part on an implicit admission that past practice was wrong, and increase liability.

[Anonymous]

Don't we need or want diversity anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

Not PP, but my answers-

The way to enforce title VII is through lawsuits, and in order to bring a lawsuit there would need to be an injured party to "defend." So yes, lawsuits brought against race-based preference in hiring would be deployed in defense of white/non-minority law students. Policy changes that a firm makes to avoid such a lawsuit is the same thing, one step removed.

To change policy now would indeed be an outlier position (for now) and would attract attention and draw lawsuits, based in part on an implicit admission that past practice was wrong, and increase liability.

Not true. In my experience these programs have excluded non-white minorities who, if they brought the suits, would find some very bad discovery indeed, including internal documents saying pretty expressly what the most sought-after "diversity" is.

Post SFFA I think it's foolish for firms to go ostrich, thinking they're going to increase liability by re-evaluating their Title VII compliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't we need or want diversity anymore?

What's the best way to accomplish diversity? It seems like the struggle has been attracting and retaining candidates because firms aren't offering what diverse candidates are looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

Not PP, but my answers-

The way to enforce title VII is through lawsuits, and in order to bring a lawsuit there would need to be an injured party to "defend." So yes, lawsuits brought against race-based preference in hiring would be deployed in defense of white/non-minority law students. Policy changes that a firm makes to avoid such a lawsuit is the same thing, one step removed.

To change policy now would indeed be an outlier position (for now) and would attract attention and draw lawsuits, based in part on an implicit admission that past practice was wrong, and increase liability.

Not true. In my experience these programs have excluded non-white minorities who, if they brought the suits, would find some very bad discovery indeed, including internal documents saying pretty expressly what the most sought-after "diversity" is.

Post SFFA I think it's foolish for firms to go ostrich, thinking they're going to increase liability by re-evaluating their Title VII compliance.

There is a reason why I included both white and non-minority in my post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

Not PP, but my answers-

The way to enforce title VII is through lawsuits, and in order to bring a lawsuit there would need to be an injured party to "defend." So yes, lawsuits brought against race-based preference in hiring would be deployed in defense of white/non-minority law students. Policy changes that a firm makes to avoid such a lawsuit is the same thing, one step removed.

To change policy now would indeed be an outlier position (for now) and would attract attention and draw lawsuits, based in part on an implicit admission that past practice was wrong, and increase liability.

Not true. In my experience these programs have excluded non-white minorities who, if they brought the suits, would find some very bad discovery indeed, including internal documents saying pretty expressly what the most sought-after "diversity" is.

Post SFFA I think it's foolish for firms to go ostrich, thinking they're going to increase liability by re-evaluating their Title VII compliance.

There is a reason why I included both white and non-minority in my post.

Wait what is a non-white minority? If you mean Asians, Asians certainly are underrepresented where it counts in law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

Not PP, but my answers-

The way to enforce title VII is through lawsuits, and in order to bring a lawsuit there would need to be an injured party to "defend." So yes, lawsuits brought against race-based preference in hiring would be deployed in defense of white/non-minority law students. Policy changes that a firm makes to avoid such a lawsuit is the same thing, one step removed.

To change policy now would indeed be an outlier position (for now) and would attract attention and draw lawsuits, based in part on an implicit admission that past practice was wrong, and increase liability.

I was the “nutshell” PP and, yes, this. Though I’d be less concerned about the “implicit admission” re: past practices. The bigger problem is the press and interest groups will burn your law firm to the ground, not to mention you would 100% have a massive internal mutiny.

No firm is going to adopt some kind of affirmative “we don’t favor POC/URM” policy because doing so would expose us to Title VII liability from aggrieved white law students.

Get real. There are fun masturbatory academic exercises and, then, there is running a business that makes hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. We’re engaged in the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Tom Cotton wants to play lawyer by blathering on about litigation holds and what not, he can get a real job and stop sucking off the teat of the American taxpayer.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

Not PP, but my answers-

The way to enforce title VII is through lawsuits, and in order to bring a lawsuit there would need to be an injured party to "defend." So yes, lawsuits brought against race-based preference in hiring would be deployed in defense of white/non-minority law students. Policy changes that a firm makes to avoid such a lawsuit is the same thing, one step removed.

To change policy now would indeed be an outlier position (for now) and would attract attention and draw lawsuits, based in part on an implicit admission that past practice was wrong, and increase liability.

I was the “nutshell” PP and, yes, this. Though I’d be less concerned about the “implicit admission” re: past practices. The bigger problem is the press and interest groups will burn your law firm to the ground, not to mention you would 100% have a massive internal mutiny.

No firm is going to adopt some kind of affirmative “we don’t favor POC/URM” policy because doing so would expose us to Title VII liability from aggrieved white law students.

Get real. There are fun masturbatory academic exercises and, then, there is running a business that makes hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. We’re engaged in the latter.

“Get real”? That’s what firms need to do. The lawsuits are coming.

[Anonymous]

I do wonder how the future is going to play out for all the M/WBE set aside requirements in federal contracting, for example, which also trickles down to state and local public contracting and procurement.

The whole DEI and affirmative action programs and federal Title VII all hung on the Supreme Court declaring affirmative action was constitutional. Now the court has said no, it is not constitutional, it opens up all Federal diversity based programs and contracting and employment regulations to potential lawsuits. It won't happen overnight but when we look at years and 10-2 years down the road, things could be very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this press release from Sen. Tom Cotton. I remember in law school being surprised firms were allowed to have “diversity 1L” jobs that were only given to URM applicants in practice. Seems like maybe they never were allowed to.

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cotton-warns-top-law-firms-about-race-based-hiring-practices

A lot of these programs are broad and include first-gen and veterans. Sorry, OP, I think a lot of the corporate diversity stuff is going to survive.

If that’s true they won’t have a problem. I don’t think it is true, though. In fact I think you’ll find internal emails that expressly say 1L diversity programs are intended for URM applicants. Because that’s what my T10 OCS said the firms intended.

Under-represented minorities doesn’t necessarily mean only racial/ethnic minorities…

Anyway the firms will just add extra groups to CYA and move on. You’re not going to get reparations from being excluded from some program once upon a time when it might have been more narrowly focused…

Language doesn't resolve the liability if it's actually provably a racially discriminatory program. The discussions I have seen on this topic are not ones I would want to hand over in discovery, from the perspective of a law firm.

With respect to "reparations," you're suggesting there's no damages theory, I think you're wrong there too.

Then good luck getting to discovery. And what exactly is your damages theory? There will be no point in injunctive relief or a declaratory judgment because firms will pro-actively expand these programs (if they are already so broad - and in my recent experience they already are really broad) voluntarily. Firms don’t really care about this stuff in the end - they reluctantly instituted a lot of the DEI crap at the behest of woke clients - so they are not going to fight like Harvard/UNC did.

[Anonymous]

/\ (if they are *NOT* already so broad - and in my recent experience they already are really broad)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care about Title VII. Don’t care about the feelings of the aggrieved white kids, or the whining about systemic blah blah blah.

However, I do need competent, workhorse associates. And I’m tired of being saddled with juniors who need remedial writing courses directly out of law school, four different mentors, and monthly check-in meetings for “supportive feedback” while they’re 40% utilized and doing crap work.

The DEI invincibility cloak is 100% a real thing. It is discussed regularly among partners. If this whiny little MAGA backlash helps us course correct even a little back toward sanity I’ll happily embrace it.

Can you please explain the logic of this to me? Because I see my colleagues seem to feel this way, and I don't get it. Why are we not living up to the level of compliance we would recommend to our clients?

My not caring is probably different from most/many others.

But in a nutshell:

1. Not my job. I’m neither an employment lawyer nor the firm GC. I also have no role regarding our compliance with anything other than professional ethics in my own practice. Eye on the ball.

2. More esoteric, but I’m an old school outlier cranky libertarian who would put freedom of contract above most anything else, so don’t much care about coercive federal statutes. It’s the law of the land, fine; if it came to a vote, sure I’d vote yes someone should make sure we’re able to reasonably take the position we are complying. Which in most any sector means you do roughly what others are doing and avoid any lone wolf practices that attract attention. (One such practice would be to assert Title VII be deployed in defense of white law students.)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying complying with Title VII to make sure you're not favoring one ethnic minority would be deploying it in defense of white law students? And that it would be exposing the firm to liability to comply?

Not PP, but my answers-

The way to enforce title VII is through lawsuits, and in order to bring a lawsuit there would need to be an injured party to "defend." So yes, lawsuits brought against race-based preference in hiring would be deployed in defense of white/non-minority law students. Policy changes that a firm makes to avoid such a lawsuit is the same thing, one step removed.

To change policy now would indeed be an outlier position (for now) and would attract attention and draw lawsuits, based in part on an implicit admission that past practice was wrong, and increase liability.

I was the “nutshell” PP and, yes, this. Though I’d be less concerned about the “implicit admission” re: past practices. The bigger problem is the press and interest groups will burn your law firm to the ground, not to mention you would 100% have a massive internal mutiny.

No firm is going to adopt some kind of affirmative “we don’t favor POC/URM” policy because doing so would expose us to Title VII liability from aggrieved white law students.

Get real. There are fun masturbatory academic exercises and, then, there is running a business that makes hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. We’re engaged in the latter.

“Get real”? That’s what firms need to do. The lawsuits are coming.

You’re totally delusional. The nutshell poster is 100% correct. You just don’t understand the biglaw business model if you think this is somehow going to become a new front in the culture war. It’s in nobody’s interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder how the future is going to play out for all the M/WBE set aside requirements in federal contracting, for example, which also trickles down to state and local public contracting and procurement.

The whole DEI and affirmative action programs and federal Title VII all hung on the Supreme Court declaring affirmative action was constitutional. Now the court has said no, it is not constitutional, it opens up all Federal diversity based programs and contracting and employment regulations to potential lawsuits. It won't happen overnight but when we look at years and 10-2 years down the road, things could be very different.

+1. This is much more likely than law firm diversity programs to be a new battleground. But people are over-reading the Harvard decision if they think it dooms these programs. The programs could be better justified with reparatory rationales in response to the federal governments’ own past actions. They don’t need to rely on the IMO flimsy diversity rationale that universities used.