Saber rattling about law firm diversity hiring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Famous last words. This IS the next front because there are orgs, donors, and plaintiffs who want it to be.

I won’t pretend to know how the opinions will come out, but if you can’t see the storm on the horizon I can’t help you.

Who? Because I don't believe it. And if you are qualified enough to be at a law firm participating in the clerk/interview process at these top law schools, where are your damages?

Any org or law students that files a lawsuit based on this is a poison pill forever more.

+1. Remember the ex-Breyer clerks suing Jones Day for sex discrimination because it’s stereotypical to give women longer leave than men after having a baby? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/jones-day-ex-associates-lose-sanctions-bids-law-firm-bias-case-now-2023-07-10/

I do remember (I read the whole complaint when it was filed because it was so salacious) but I’m confused about what that example proves. She still has the job she left JD for and he is clearly still welcome in biglaw, in a counsel role, which is consistent with his claim that he planned to be the primary parent. Sounds like they suffered no consequence at all.

Point is, did it cause some huge culture reckoning or is it now basically about whether JD fired the one guy for legit reasons? Some firms went to gender-neutral leave and moved on. If someone sues about some dumb 1L diversity job, firms will quietly make the “diversity” group so large that it’s bulletproof legally (as many/most firms already have - LGBT, first gen, vets, immigrant, whatever) and then the lawsuit will just become about the individual weirdo who sued and whether they can possibly claim damages. The whole thing will be a nothingburger in the larger scheme of things.

My firm quietly changed its policy to be gender neutral after this case was filed and I know it wasn’t the only one.

Yeah, hence the very next sentence I included after the part you bolded.

If firms actually change their hiring practice in the way you say, that would be a significant change. They’ve always made the claim that diversity doesn’t just mean being URM but that’s not what happened in practice.

I really don’t think your experience is current. It’s already happened/happening.

You’re saying it’s typical for white vets to actually get diversity 1L SAs now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering about that foreign service back door masters program that is only for African americans. There are two of them and I have some really n talented Asian students and I would .like to urge them to Apply if the ridiculous racial requirements are now struck down.

Do you have a link for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering about that foreign service back door masters program that is only for African americans. There are two of them and I have some really n talented Asian students and I would .like to urge them to Apply if the ridiculous racial requirements are now struck down.

What program are you talking about? Never heard of this. Wondering though if it would be justified under something like the military loophole the justices seemed to allow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Famous last words. This IS the next front because there are orgs, donors, and plaintiffs who want it to be.

I won’t pretend to know how the opinions will come out, but if you can’t see the storm on the horizon I can’t help you.

Who? Because I don't believe it. And if you are qualified enough to be at a law firm participating in the clerk/interview process at these top law schools, where are your damages?

Any org or law students that files a lawsuit based on this is a poison pill forever more.

+1. Remember the ex-Breyer clerks suing Jones Day for sex discrimination because it’s stereotypical to give women longer leave than men after having a baby? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/jones-day-ex-associates-lose-sanctions-bids-law-firm-bias-case-now-2023-07-10/

I do remember (I read the whole complaint when it was filed because it was so salacious) but I’m confused about what that example proves. She still has the job she left JD for and he is clearly still welcome in biglaw, in a counsel role, which is consistent with his claim that he planned to be the primary parent. Sounds like they suffered no consequence at all.

Point is, did it cause some huge culture reckoning or is it now basically about whether JD fired the one guy for legit reasons? Some firms went to gender-neutral leave and moved on. If someone sues about some dumb 1L diversity job, firms will quietly make the “diversity” group so large that it’s bulletproof legally (as many/most firms already have - LGBT, first gen, vets, immigrant, whatever) and then the lawsuit will just become about the individual weirdo who sued and whether they can possibly claim damages. The whole thing will be a nothingburger in the larger scheme of things.

My firm quietly changed its policy to be gender neutral after this case was filed and I know it wasn’t the only one.

Yeah, hence the very next sentence I included after the part you bolded.

If firms actually change their hiring practice in the way you say, that would be a significant change. They’ve always made the claim that diversity doesn’t just mean being URM but that’s not what happened in practice.

I really don’t think your experience is current. It’s already happened/happening.

You’re saying it’s typical for white vets to actually get diversity 1L SAs now?

They definitely get hiring preference at firms. We have clients that count vets as part of the diversity percentages they require to be a preferred firm or whatever. Also LGBTQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Famous last words. This IS the next front because there are orgs, donors, and plaintiffs who want it to be.

I won’t pretend to know how the opinions will come out, but if you can’t see the storm on the horizon I can’t help you.

Who? Because I don't believe it. And if you are qualified enough to be at a law firm participating in the clerk/interview process at these top law schools, where are your damages?

Any org or law students that files a lawsuit based on this is a poison pill forever more.

+1. Remember the ex-Breyer clerks suing Jones Day for sex discrimination because it’s stereotypical to give women longer leave than men after having a baby? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/jones-day-ex-associates-lose-sanctions-bids-law-firm-bias-case-now-2023-07-10/

I do remember (I read the whole complaint when it was filed because it was so salacious) but I’m confused about what that example proves. She still has the job she left JD for and he is clearly still welcome in biglaw, in a counsel role, which is consistent with his claim that he planned to be the primary parent. Sounds like they suffered no consequence at all.

Point is, did it cause some huge culture reckoning or is it now basically about whether JD fired the one guy for legit reasons? Some firms went to gender-neutral leave and moved on. If someone sues about some dumb 1L diversity job, firms will quietly make the “diversity” group so large that it’s bulletproof legally (as many/most firms already have - LGBT, first gen, vets, immigrant, whatever) and then the lawsuit will just become about the individual weirdo who sued and whether they can possibly claim damages. The whole thing will be a nothingburger in the larger scheme of things.

My firm quietly changed its policy to be gender neutral after this case was filed and I know it wasn’t the only one.

Yeah, hence the very next sentence I included after the part you bolded.

If firms actually change their hiring practice in the way you say, that would be a significant change. They’ve always made the claim that diversity doesn’t just mean being URM but that’s not what happened in practice.

I really don’t think your experience is current. It’s already happened/happening.

You’re saying it’s typical for white vets to actually get diversity 1L SAs now?

They definitely get hiring preference at firms. We have clients that count vets as part of the diversity percentages they require to be a preferred firm or whatever. Also LGBTQ.

Well that is consistent with my experience but still doesn’t address “diversity” jobs like 1L SA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Famous last words. This IS the next front because there are orgs, donors, and plaintiffs who want it to be.

I won’t pretend to know how the opinions will come out, but if you can’t see the storm on the horizon I can’t help you.

Who? Because I don't believe it. And if you are qualified enough to be at a law firm participating in the clerk/interview process at these top law schools, where are your damages?

Any org or law students that files a lawsuit based on this is a poison pill forever more.

+1. Remember the ex-Breyer clerks suing Jones Day for sex discrimination because it’s stereotypical to give women longer leave than men after having a baby? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/jones-day-ex-associates-lose-sanctions-bids-law-firm-bias-case-now-2023-07-10/

I do remember (I read the whole complaint when it was filed because it was so salacious) but I’m confused about what that example proves. She still has the job she left JD for and he is clearly still welcome in biglaw, in a counsel role, which is consistent with his claim that he planned to be the primary parent. Sounds like they suffered no consequence at all.

Point is, did it cause some huge culture reckoning or is it now basically about whether JD fired the one guy for legit reasons? Some firms went to gender-neutral leave and moved on. If someone sues about some dumb 1L diversity job, firms will quietly make the “diversity” group so large that it’s bulletproof legally (as many/most firms already have - LGBT, first gen, vets, immigrant, whatever) and then the lawsuit will just become about the individual weirdo who sued and whether they can possibly claim damages. The whole thing will be a nothingburger in the larger scheme of things.

My firm quietly changed its policy to be gender neutral after this case was filed and I know it wasn’t the only one.

Yeah, hence the very next sentence I included after the part you bolded.

If firms actually change their hiring practice in the way you say, that would be a significant change. They’ve always made the claim that diversity doesn’t just mean being URM but that’s not what happened in practice.

I really don’t think your experience is current. It’s already happened/happening.

You’re saying it’s typical for white vets to actually get diversity 1L SAs now?

They definitely get hiring preference at firms. We have clients that count vets as part of the diversity percentages they require to be a preferred firm or whatever. Also LGBTQ.

Well that is consistent with my experience but still doesn’t address “diversity” jobs like 1L SA.

Another reason this whole thing is pretty uninteresting to me and unlikely to be a big deal … the vast majority firms don’t even have those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Famous last words. This IS the next front because there are orgs, donors, and plaintiffs who want it to be.

I won’t pretend to know how the opinions will come out, but if you can’t see the storm on the horizon I can’t help you.

Who? Because I don't believe it. And if you are qualified enough to be at a law firm participating in the clerk/interview process at these top law schools, where are your damages?

Any org or law students that files a lawsuit based on this is a poison pill forever more.

+1. Remember the ex-Breyer clerks suing Jones Day for sex discrimination because it’s stereotypical to give women longer leave than men after having a baby? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/jones-day-ex-associates-lose-sanctions-bids-law-firm-bias-case-now-2023-07-10/

I do remember (I read the whole complaint when it was filed because it was so salacious) but I’m confused about what that example proves. She still has the job she left JD for and he is clearly still welcome in biglaw, in a counsel role, which is consistent with his claim that he planned to be the primary parent. Sounds like they suffered no consequence at all.

Point is, did it cause some huge culture reckoning or is it now basically about whether JD fired the one guy for legit reasons? Some firms went to gender-neutral leave and moved on. If someone sues about some dumb 1L diversity job, firms will quietly make the “diversity” group so large that it’s bulletproof legally (as many/most firms already have - LGBT, first gen, vets, immigrant, whatever) and then the lawsuit will just become about the individual weirdo who sued and whether they can possibly claim damages. The whole thing will be a nothingburger in the larger scheme of things.

My firm quietly changed its policy to be gender neutral after this case was filed and I know it wasn’t the only one.

Yeah, hence the very next sentence I included after the part you bolded.

If firms actually change their hiring practice in the way you say, that would be a significant change. They’ve always made the claim that diversity doesn’t just mean being URM but that’s not what happened in practice.

I really don’t think your experience is current. It’s already happened/happening.

You’re saying it’s typical for white vets to actually get diversity 1L SAs now?

They definitely get hiring preference at firms. We have clients that count vets as part of the diversity percentages they require to be a preferred firm or whatever. Also LGBTQ.

Well that is consistent with my experience but still doesn’t address “diversity” jobs like 1L SA.

Another reason this whole thing is pretty uninteresting to me and unlikely to be a big deal … the vast majority firms don’t even have those.

I mean sure and the vast majority of employers aren’t even law firms who are unusually “numbers based” as in hire based on school rank and GPA so sure. This won’t have wide reaching consequences. But for those of us for whom this is our industry, and especially those of us who know our firm has a different GPA cutoff for SA positions that is based on race, and not vet status, well. It should give us pause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering about that foreign service back door masters program that is only for African americans. There are two of them and I have some really n talented Asian students and I would .like to urge them to Apply if the ridiculous racial requirements are now struck down.

What program are you talking about? Never heard of this. Wondering though if it would be justified under something like the military loophole the justices seemed to allow.

Rangel and Pickering fellowships. It's for all URMs, not just African-Americans.

https://careers.state.gov/interns-fellows/foreign-service-fellowships/charles-b-rangel-international-affairs-program/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering about that foreign service back door masters program that is only for African americans. There are two of them and I have some really n talented Asian students and I would .like to urge them to Apply if the ridiculous racial requirements are now struck down.

What program are you talking about? Never heard of this. Wondering though if it would be justified under something like the military loophole the justices seemed to allow.

Rangel and Pickering fellowships. It's for all URMs, not just African-Americans.

https://careers.state.gov/interns-fellows/foreign-service-fellowships/charles-b-rangel-international-affairs-program/

I will add that these programs were created by statute by Congress. It's not clear to me if the SC would take a different tact, similar to how they scoped out the military academies from their ruling.

[Anonymous]

Not just saber rattling anymore: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/06/morrison-foerster-diversity-lawsuit-white-applicants/

Law firm opens diversity fellowship to all students after lawsuit
Morrison Foerster changed the program rules after it was accused of racial discrimination

A corporate law firm that was accused of racial discrimination for offering a diversity fellowship to law students of underrepresented groups has opened its program to students of all races, according to a change on its website.

[Anonymous]

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

So preferential hiring one year in advance of other peoples access to legal internships was only offered to URMs?

In an attempt to train them before others, bolster their resumes with a 1L internship before their 2L one, and special mixers, advisors and URM events?

[Anonymous]

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

It was views as charity back then.

Just like watering down med school tests resulted in a bunch of incapable American-born doctors escorted through med school.
Holy overreach Batman. Do the good people of Arkansas not have any problems that could use solving that Cotton has to waste his time with this? Pathetic.

It's not an overreach. It's been a blatant violation of the law for decades and these firms know it. I recall discussing it circa 2005 and my firm was basically like "it might be illegal but who is going to come after it?"

[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

Holy overreach Batman. Do the good people of Arkansas not have any problems that could use solving that Cotton has to waste his time with this? Pathetic.

Can you explain how taking note of systemic violations of a law passed by Congress by a member of the Senate is an overreach? Not sure I follow.

Where are the cases that prove these "systemic violations" that Cotton is taking notice of?

All of us who have worked at large law firms know this is very real. A class of jobs you can only meaningfully be considered for if you’re URM? Yeah. Systemic violations of Title VII.

It’s the same at undergrad and business school.
They start school a week earlier, more hand holding, first access to recruiting for large banks or consulting companies.
They basically don’t compete with the class but amongst themselves, then can try again with the regular timing.

[Anonymous]

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

It was viewed as charity back then.

Just like watering down/ eliminating med school tests resulted in a bunch of incapable American-born doctors escorted through med school to uptick diversity grad counts.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-racial-achievement-gap-and-the-war-on-meritocracy-education-race-reading-math-exams-medical-school-college-admissions-c2226334

[Anonymous]

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.

Our firm sent a black Hispanic woman to grad school at Yale for free on some program.
She had the worst work ethic and work product I had seen in two decades of working in finance.
No clue who wrote her recommendations. And her new big company job didn’t do any reference checking either. Oh well.