This is OP again. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Assume a white guy doesn't get a plum assignment on, say, a big WalMart case that he is well suited for because it is staffed to satisfy a client's demand for diversity, and the white guy's bonus is lower, or he doesn't make partner as a result. He sues for race or sex discrimination. What's the law firm's defense? I don't believe diversity for diversity's sake has been recognized as a Title VII defense. I'm sure the law firm can come up with other reasons for the decision (as if often the case in race or sex discrimination cases whe there is more than one qualified person for a job), but if the real reason was to satisfy the client's preference, what is the firm's legal defense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if there is already a thread about this. This week I read that some biglaw clients are saying they will no longer do business with law firms unless the firms guarantee a certain number of women and minorities on their projects. I can't think of any law this violates, but how is it different from someone going to a restaurant and saying I only want a white server? Or going to a hospital and asking for a male doctor?

It's definitely different. The goal here is inclusion -- you're framing it as exclusion. It's saying, ok, I'll have the white male lawyer, but show me that you also have women and minorities who are working on the project. The end result should be white males on the project along with females and minorities.

Why?

Do you actually not understand it, or are you being disingenuous because you want to argue about it?

Anonymous wrote:Client are not providing the service, they are paying for it. Firms are the service provider. So, it would likely be illegal for the firm to say they will only hire a specific gender or discriminate against a protect class. Clients are a consumer and can take their money where they wish.

An owner of a bakery cannot refuse service to a protect class. A customer can refuse to buy a cake from a bakery for whatever reason they wish. They can voice the reason to the bakery provided it doesn't amount to harassment. Bakery can choose to listen or ignore. It's really not that hard to understand the difference.

+1

Anonymous wrote:If the firm promotes minorities over others because their clients demand minorities, isn't that illegal?

Clients demand particular lawyers for all sorts of reasons. What is wrong or illegal about the following reason: we want our company represented by a group that's representative of the diversity of where we live/work.

You might as well fret about a company hiring a diverse group of actors for their TV commercials rather than all white people.

Anonymous wrote:If the firm promotes minorities over others because their clients demand minorities, isn't that illegal?

People get promoted because of client relationships ALL THE TIME. That's one of the criteria for partnership. And you're missing the point, no client is demanding that NO WHITE PEOPLE work on their cases. They're encouraging firms to create diverse teams.

This is not new. Our firm had a diversity committee decades ago.

If the firm promotes minorities over others because their clients demand minorities, isn't that illegal?

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?

It means that it doesn't matter what color it is as long as it's the cream of the crop. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

It's not difficult to understand. But this is often used as an excuse for lack of diversity. "We couldn't find any good women/POC, hence the all white male A-team."

^^^ meant "should note"

^^^ should not that while partnership is still overwhelmingly white men, the associate ranks are getting more diverse. IME clients want to make sure a diverse group of associates work on their cases and that those associate stay and progress to partnership.

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?

It means that it doesn't matter what color it is as long as it's the cream of the crop. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

Are you a lawyer? It doesn't sound like it. Law is a retrograde profession that put up barriers to non-white males entering the ranks for a LONG time. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was at the top of her law class at Columbia but then struggled to get hired at a firm. Clients know that, left to its own devices, the legal profession isn't exactly racing to reform itself. So they ask for the BEST and they know that there's no reason (besides the holdover legacy of exclusionary policies in the law and legal education) should not include women and minorities. The partnership at law firms is OVERWHELMINGLY white men so don't worry your little head off about white guys suffering from a few others that don't look like them on the team.

Client are not providing the service, they are paying for it. Firms are the service provider. So, it would likely be illegal for the firm to say they will only hire a specific gender or discriminate against a protect class. Clients are a consumer and can take their money where they wish.

An owner of a bakery cannot refuse service to a protect class. A customer can refuse to buy a cake from a bakery for whatever reason they wish. They can voice the reason to the bakery provided it doesn't amount to harassment. Bakery can choose to listen or ignore. It's really not that hard to understand the difference.

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?

It means that it doesn't matter what color it is as long as it's the cream of the crop. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if there is already a thread about this. This week I read that some biglaw clients are saying they will no longer do business with law firms unless the firms guarantee a certain number of women and minorities on their projects. I can't think of any law this violates, but how is it different from someone going to a restaurant and saying I only want a white server? Or going to a hospital and asking for a male doctor?

It's definitely different. The goal here is inclusion -- you're framing it as exclusion. It's saying, ok, I'll have the white male lawyer, but show me that you also have women and minorities who are working on the project. The end result should be white males on the project along with females and minorities.

Why?

If you can't think of a reason why, there's no point in explaining it to you. The majority of clients are not white washed like law firms and they want their outside counsel team to reflect the diversity that they have in-house. When I visit client sites I'm always taken shocked (in a good way) by the diversity and then have to crawl back to my all white law firm and wish that I wasn't the only POC in my group.