Biglaw-- is this even legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but if a white guy is not selected for an important project because the client wants a certain number of women/POC, how is this not race/sex discrimination? Unfortunately the flip side of inclusion is sometimes exclusion.

Because white guys aren't a protected class. I hope you aren't a lawyer. SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a big law client ability trumps diversity. We too have to deal with diversity challenges but when you are paying absurd hourly rates you expect the best.

You can have the best and still have diversity. Surely you aren't saying that having the best means that you have an all white team?

Sometimes the best teams aren't diverse. Soldiers, engineers, and to a certain extent, police officers tend not to be very diverse. The team will be weaker if you force diversity in certain jobs. They typically lower standards when they push diversity, so the outcome isn't really that surprising.

Maybe one day people will talk about REAL DIVERSITY, which has more to do with your way of thinking that is shaped by your experiences, and not your skin color.

Angry white dude is angry that being a white dude no longer makes him a success just for being mediocre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a big law client ability trumps diversity. We too have to deal with diversity challenges but when you are paying absurd hourly rates you expect the best.

You can have the best and still have diversity. Surely you aren't saying that having the best means that you have an all white team?

Sometimes the best teams aren't diverse. Soldiers, engineers, and to a certain extent, police officers tend not to be very diverse. The team will be weaker if you force diversity in certain jobs. They typically lower standards when they push diversity, so the outcome isn't really that surprising.

Maybe one day people will talk about REAL DIVERSITY, which has more to do with your way of thinking that is shaped by your experiences, and not your skin color.

Angry white dude is angry that being a white dude no longer makes him a success just for being mediocre.

But he's wearing a nice suit and he just looks soooooo "like a lawyer." Give that bro a raise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but if a white guy is not selected for an important project because the client wants a certain number of women/POC, how is this not race/sex discrimination? Unfortunately the flip side of inclusion is sometimes exclusion.

Because white guys aren't a protected class. I hope you aren't a lawyer. SMH.

Sure they are if they're alleging race or sex discrimination. Title vii prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and sex; it doesn't specifically protect only blacks or only women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

That's laughable to anyone who has ever actually worked for an extended period of time in Big Law. You are a disgruntled minority who was rightfully shitcanned by his/her Big Law firm.

First of all, I'm white. And a man.

Second, I spent several years at Wachtell. After clerking.

Third, I've known plenty of people in firms like you who have used your bigoted views to side line people's careers. It's interesting how many times I am told about a black attorney's incompetence or a woman's laziness (after years of them diligently working on matters I supervised) to find that when we hire them, they suddenly are fantastic attorneys with excellent business sense. I've had friends in DOJ and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the SEC make the same observation. People thrive in these environment despite being drummed out of biglaw due to their incompetence.

Is it the person's incompetence or is big law the problem? My experience indicates that it's big law. They don't want diversity because that's yet another person to compete with over an ever decreasing pie. Much easier to knock out the low hanging fruit like mothers and black men. Oh, and those Asian attorneys since they lack "executive presence" and "leadership skill," right?

I can't explain why this happens, over and over again over the course of 20 years without admitting that big law is full of people who will use any competitive advantage to get ahead and stay ahead, including sexism and racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but if a white guy is not selected for an important project because the client wants a certain number of women/POC, how is this not race/sex discrimination? Unfortunately the flip side of inclusion is sometimes exclusion.

Because white guys aren't a protected class. I hope you aren't a lawyer. SMH.

Sure they are if they're alleging race or sex discrimination. Title vii prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and sex; it doesn't specifically protect only blacks or only women.

You don't understand what "protected class" means in this context. To distill it at the risk of oversimplifying, a protected class is a group of people who historically have been discriminated against by the dominant group. Women have historically been discriminated against, as have racial and ethnic minorities; therefore, these groups are considered protected classes. White men, as the group that historically has done the discriminating and been very much favored themselves, are not a protected class.

In the context of anti-discrimination laws, you are correct that discrimination based on race or gender is not permissible regardless of which race and gender you are, but that is not the same thing as saying all races and genders are protected classes. What protected class status gives you in a discrimination action is essentially a lower burden of proof. It's saying that because you are part of a group that historically has been discriminated against, we are more inclined to believe it happened here as well based on a particular level of proof. When the complainant is not part of a protected class but instead is part of the group that historically has been very much favored in a context such as employment, you have to go further to prove that you were discriminated against based on race/gender because it's just so much less likely to be the case. The burden of proof is still high for everyone, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

That's laughable to anyone who has ever actually worked for an extended period of time in Big Law. You are a disgruntled minority who was rightfully shitcanned by his/her Big Law firm.

First of all, I'm white. And a man.

Second, I spent several years at Wachtell. After clerking.

Third, I've known plenty of people in firms like you who have used your bigoted views to side line people's careers. It's interesting how many times I am told about a black attorney's incompetence or a woman's laziness (after years of them diligently working on matters I supervised) to find that when we hire them, they suddenly are fantastic attorneys with excellent business sense. I've had friends in DOJ and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the SEC make the same observation. People thrive in these environment despite being drummed out of biglaw due to their incompetence.

Is it the person's incompetence or is big law the problem? My experience indicates that it's big law. They don't want diversity because that's yet another person to compete with over an ever decreasing pie. Much easier to knock out the low hanging fruit like mothers and black men. Oh, and those Asian attorneys since they lack "executive presence" and "leadership skill," right?

I can't explain why this happens, over and over again over the course of 20 years without admitting that big law is full of people who will use any competitive advantage to get ahead and stay ahead, including sexism and racism.

+1. Former top tier Biglaw after Federal appellate clerkship.

I went into Biglaw thinking that I had as much competence, ability and potential as any associate. I quickly learned that, as a woman, I was viewed as competent to draft briefs and manage discovery, but not to speak with clients or in court. That is man's work.

At one point the woman partner on my matter, another female associate and I spent a whole holiday weekend (including nights) drafting important filings to meet a court deadline. Two days later the head partner booked a strategy meeting with the client with only male partners and male associates. The men expected us to teach them the facts of the case before that meeting. It was appalling.

Now I'm in house. I only hire diverse teams. I also speak up if I sense that women or minorities are being shit upon. I just staffed a $20M case. It's my prerogative who I hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

That's laughable to anyone who has ever actually worked for an extended period of time in Big Law. You are a disgruntled minority who was rightfully shitcanned by his/her Big Law firm.

First of all, I'm white. And a man.

Second, I spent several years at Wachtell. After clerking.

Third, I've known plenty of people in firms like you who have used your bigoted views to side line people's careers. It's interesting how many times I am told about a black attorney's incompetence or a woman's laziness (after years of them diligently working on matters I supervised) to find that when we hire them, they suddenly are fantastic attorneys with excellent business sense. I've had friends in DOJ and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the SEC make the same observation. People thrive in these environment despite being drummed out of biglaw due to their incompetence.

Is it the person's incompetence or is big law the problem? My experience indicates that it's big law. They don't want diversity because that's yet another person to compete with over an ever decreasing pie. Much easier to knock out the low hanging fruit like mothers and black men. Oh, and those Asian attorneys since they lack "executive presence" and "leadership skill," right?

I can't explain why this happens, over and over again over the course of 20 years without admitting that big law is full of people who will use any competitive advantage to get ahead and stay ahead, including sexism and racism.

+1. Former top tier Biglaw after Federal appellate clerkship.

I went into Biglaw thinking that I had as much competence, ability and potential as any associate. I quickly learned that, as a woman, I was viewed as competent to draft briefs and manage discovery, but not to speak with clients or in court. That is man's work.

At one point the woman partner on my matter, another female associate and I spent a whole holiday weekend (including nights) drafting important filings to meet a court deadline. Two days later the head partner booked a strategy meeting with the client with only male partners and male associates. The men expected us to teach them the facts of the case before that meeting. It was appalling.

Now I'm in house. I only hire diverse teams. I also speak up if I sense that women or minorities are being shit upon. I just staffed a $20M case. It's my prerogative who I hire.

BTW, that's $20M in legal fees as a low estimate. Much more at stake as the client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

That's laughable to anyone who has ever actually worked for an extended period of time in Big Law. You are a disgruntled minority who was rightfully shitcanned by his/her Big Law firm.

First of all, I'm white. And a man.

Second, I spent several years at Wachtell. After clerking.

Third, I've known plenty of people in firms like you who have used your bigoted views to side line people's careers. It's interesting how many times I am told about a black attorney's incompetence or a woman's laziness (after years of them diligently working on matters I supervised) to find that when we hire them, they suddenly are fantastic attorneys with excellent business sense. I've had friends in DOJ and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the SEC make the same observation. People thrive in these environment despite being drummed out of biglaw due to their incompetence.

Is it the person's incompetence or is big law the problem? My experience indicates that it's big law. They don't want diversity because that's yet another person to compete with over an ever decreasing pie. Much easier to knock out the low hanging fruit like mothers and black men. Oh, and those Asian attorneys since they lack "executive presence" and "leadership skill," right?

I can't explain why this happens, over and over again over the course of 20 years without admitting that big law is full of people who will use any competitive advantage to get ahead and stay ahead, including sexism and racism.

Thank you for saying this. I worked my ass off at a firm that, during the recession pushed out practically all the associates that were mothers (I was one) and just enough men to say that men were let go too.

I am now an of counsel (voluntarily, I was not interested in the partnership track) at another firm. I guess they don't think I am incompetent.

[Anonymous]

I wish I could "love" the last couple of posts on this page. Thanks for saying this. I'm currently in the process of being pushed out of my firm after being made out to be an incompetent dolt--complete bullshit. My confidence is in the toilet after this experience which makes interviewing very difficult. I can't wait to be in a more diverse, supportive environment and "suddenly" be deemed competent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could "love" the last couple of posts on this page. Thanks for saying this. I'm currently in the process of being pushed out of my firm after being made out to be an incompetent dolt--complete bullshit. My confidence is in the toilet after this experience which makes interviewing very difficult. I can't wait to be in a more diverse, supportive environment and "suddenly" be deemed competent.

This is 17:05. I know you don't feel that way now, but this too shall pass and you will end up in a better place.

[Anonymous]

I'm went to big law after a federal appellate clerkship.

I am a white woman.

I have noticed it, as well, especially with black attorneys (asian attorneys at my firm are treated well) and women, particularly those with children. They are told that their research and writing skills are mediocre by partners and while not let go, pushed/encouraged out -- after we spent a lot of money and resources recruiting them. It's confusing to me.

We are great at recruiting diversity, but then seem to do everything to destroy it.

I stay because I have a long-term view but I've been yelled at, told I was worthless, explicitly told that there's no partnership for me, received comments that I don't "look" the part of the firm, criticized for so-called mediocre work. It's some sort of hazing process where you need to work twice as hard and constantly promise against having children if you are a woman. After all the threats of my job being at risk and multiple bad reviews by partners who dislike me but love to make me work on weekends, I haven't been fired. It's been 3 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a big law client ability trumps diversity. We too have to deal with diversity challenges but when you are paying absurd hourly rates you expect the best.

You can have the best and still have diversity. Surely you aren't saying that having the best means that you have an all white team?

Sometimes the best teams aren't diverse. Soldiers, engineers, and to a certain extent, police officers tend not to be very diverse. The team will be weaker if you force diversity in certain jobs. They typically lower standards when they push diversity, so the outcome isn't really that surprising.

Maybe one day people will talk about REAL DIVERSITY, which has more to do with your way of thinking that is shaped by your experiences, and not your skin color.

Angry white dude is angry that being a white dude no longer makes him a success just for being mediocre.

Mediocrity is what you get when you treat hiring as though it's a social experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm went to big law after a federal appellate clerkship.

I am a white woman.

I have noticed it, as well, especially with black attorneys (asian attorneys at my firm are treated well) and women, particularly those with children. They are told that their research and writing skills are mediocre by partners and while not let go, pushed/encouraged out -- after we spent a lot of money and resources recruiting them. It's confusing to me.

We are great at recruiting diversity, but then seem to do everything to destroy it.

I stay because I have a long-term view but I've been yelled at, told I was worthless, explicitly told that there's no partnership for me, received comments that I don't "look" the part of the firm, criticized for so-called mediocre work. It's some sort of hazing process where you need to work twice as hard and constantly promise against having children if you are a woman. After all the threats of my job being at risk and multiple bad reviews by partners who dislike me but love to make me work on weekends, I haven't been fired. It's been 3 years.

The issue is forced later in your career when male associates get opportunities to showcase and build their skills that women and minorities don't. You can't ignore those missing opportunities. They are necessary to grow professionally and ultimately to become partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm went to big law after a federal appellate clerkship.

I am a white woman.

I have noticed it, as well, especially with black attorneys (asian attorneys at my firm are treated well) and women, particularly those with children. They are told that their research and writing skills are mediocre by partners and while not let go, pushed/encouraged out -- after we spent a lot of money and resources recruiting them. It's confusing to me.

We are great at recruiting diversity, but then seem to do everything to destroy it.

I stay because I have a long-term view but I've been yelled at, told I was worthless, explicitly told that there's no partnership for me, received comments that I don't "look" the part of the firm, criticized for so-called mediocre work. It's some sort of hazing process where you need to work twice as hard and constantly promise against having children if you are a woman. After all the threats of my job being at risk and multiple bad reviews by partners who dislike me but love to make me work on weekends, I haven't been fired. It's been 3 years.

Partner here in a DC (branch) big law office.

Honestly, I think women who have kids and black associates (in particularly) are completely, utterly screwed in big law. They can't win for trying. Most figure out this fairly quickly, take the money/maternity leave and quit. But others are truly treated poorly.

When this report came out (http://www.blueprintjd.org/diversity/the-myth-that-black-lawyers-cant-write/), I asked my previous firm where I was a partner and the response was basically either silence or some justification saying this stuff never happens, HERE.

I lateraled because I'm a mercenary who looks out for his own bottom line and got a better deal at my current spot. But it's like unsaid, but yeah.

For black associates, I'd be honest. Big law isn't a good place. People don't want anyone (black or white) to be successful beyond making them looking good to their own clients (but don't get too close and try to poach). And like the PP said, firms are always looking for ways to cull the herd and reduce staffing as associates move up. The easiest way is to just claim black associates suck as a general rule and to bitch about their work product (which honestly is basically the same garbage untrained white associates turn in). The difference is the response to the garbage. You are more likely to get positive feedback and coaching if you're a white male. Then the white associate moves up, begins to take on more responsibility, develops, etc. For the black associate, you're shown the door before any of this happens. Rinse and repeat, complain about lack of qualified candidates, blah blah. A similar deal happens to women who take too many maternity leaves.

The good black attorneys are, indeed, doing well at DOJ and other places from what I've seen (I work in white collar/FCPA). It seems they finally get support and training and move up in the profession there.