Black Attorney Quota in SV?

Originally posted by legalbeagle
At the risk of offending my Asian friends, I will say there is a difference. Perception is the key here. It's not what may actually happen, its about what these hiring partners believe to be the result of hiring more A-A associates. How many stories have you heard about an Asian American attorney claiming racial discrimination? Or that they tend to be less qualified as a group?(Clearly, this does not mean that other forms of discrimination do not effect Asians in a horrible way (see below))

I agree, and I think all sides are guilty of creating that perception of African Americans.

As you duly noted, I am guilty of painting with broad strokes but such is required to have a meaningful discussion with this issue. I used Creed/50 Cent example more for effect than substance, but even without scientific data, do you think A-A listen to Creed nearly as much as R/B hip-hop. The funny part is that its really OK and healthy to have these differences, its just not OK to limit people based on them and later claim you are really working hard to reach out.

Well I'll agree that you can't limit people based on their differences and then claim you're trying to reach out, too much hypocrisy there. However, firms are in a tough position, if they don't proclaim their allegience to the god (goddess?) of diversity, their savaged on campus, so they all do. I don't think if a firm just said "we don't discriminate in hiring," that would be good enough, though maybe more truthful (or not). It's hard to "celebrate" differences and then not act based at least in part on those same differences, postively or negatively.

To say I have "direct" evidence would be a bit of a stretch. As with common forms of prejudice, it doesn't lend itself to be readily identifiable. For example, how do you prove that a hiring partner rejected X number of A-A associate candidates once the majic number was reached? There are no two people with the exact same transcript, resume or cover letter so there will always be an excuse.

I don't have any "direct" evidence that they're not discriminating, but which is harder to prove? As I understand civil rights law right now (at least as a statutory matter, not a constitutional one), you could basically cut and paste you original post into a brief and the onus would be on the firms to show that they aren't discriminating, essentially proving a negative (though that's not as hard as it's been made out to be). I think that's hardly fair either.

But, given everything I've said and everything you've said, and assuming that's all the evidence we have, would you feel comfortable voting for a verdict that said all (or even one) of these firms have violated civil rights statutes?

But, given everything I've said and everything you've said, and assuming that's all the evidence we have, would you feel comfortable voting for a verdict that said all (or even one) of these firms have violated civil rights statutes?

Not at this point. I think further investigation must be done and other facts gathered. The tough part in these types of cases is that no one wants to believe that such behavior is condoned (expressly, impliedly, or through self imposed ignorance). If such a quota theory is true, what does that say about our community and our principles as professionals? Better yet, are we morally and ethically strong enough to do anything about it once it appears such allegations have a foundation.

Instead, I think the State Bar should investigate these firms under a claim of false advertisement and ultimately penalize those who are not living up to their claims. Just a thought.

However, firms are in a tough position, if they don't proclaim their allegience to the god (goddess?) of diversity, their savaged on campus, so they all do. I don't think if a firm just said "we don't discriminate in hiring," that would be good enough, though maybe more truthful (or not).

It's the same thing with probono. Anybody who has spent more than a week with most of these firms in SV know that pro bono is another "brochure" filler that has very little backing by firm management. But since everyone else thinks it looks good to say, they throw it in as well. They may even try to allot a certain percentage of billables for probono but the practical reality is that most partners want that time spent for paying clients and many of those "do gooders" were kicked into the cold when the economy began tightening.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by legalbeagle
It's the same thing with probono. Anybody who has spent more than a week with most of these firms in SV know that pro bono is another "brochure" filler that has very little backing by firm management.

In my experience, that's not true. I have no doubt that it's true at some or many firms, but it's just too easy and cynical to say it's true across the board.

What do you think the percentage of black attorneys in SV is?

[AngryMulletMan]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What do you think the percentage of black attorneys in SV is?

You've asked a good question, Ty. I suspect the answer is shocking and probably results from a number of factors. Many of them have already been discussed and I'm too overworked today to give this the attention it deserves.

Racism, sexism and classism all exist and its apparent in our profession. Sure, we like to think that people with similar credentials will have an equal shot to succeed or fail. Sure we like to think that we function in a meritocracy where everybody has similar access to those credentials.

But it just ain't so. Think about Ty's question for five seconds and you realize that it ain't so.

Those of us who have interviewed candidates for jobs at our firms ought to think hard about how much our own bias factors into our ratings of applicants and whether we've been fair in our assessments of candidates we've interviewed. After all, we've all been a part of the problem here.

I'm not interested in arguing about whose fault it is that things are the way they are as much as I'm interested in how I can personally respond to the problem. For instance, why am I not asked to interview minority candidates, except once in a blue moon lately? Am I doing anything in the interview process to discourage a minority candidate from accepting an offer with my firm? And how can I tactfully discuss these issues with a GP if I think they might be factoring into hiring decisions in my firm?

We've got to stop sitting around and blaming everybody about this and start doing something about it. After, we've got the credentials, the jobs and some say in who gets hired in our firms. We've got to stop blaming "the firm" and start looking at our own behavior here.

AMM

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In my experience, that's not true. I have no doubt that it's true at some or many firms, but it's just too easy and cynical to say it's true across the board.


What do you think the percentage of black attorneys in SV is?

Tyrone, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers and your firm may be the exception but from my experience in the Valley, most firms will have a handful of those who regularly do probono (several hours a month), a couple who will throw a free bone when work is slow and the rest wouldn't have the slightest idea where to find the nearest law clinic. Though not enough credit is given to those hard working souls who have chosen to balance their professional careers with community involvement (except when its time to claim firmwide support for probono causes in the most recent newsletter). Give me a break!


As far as the percentage of black attorneys in SV, I'm not sure whether you mean employed, unemployed or both. Also, this may lead to a chicken or egg problem. Is the number in Valley low because they don't have jobs in firms or are firm numbers low because there are no black attorneys in the Valley?

My personal feeling, as you may have guessed, is the former. I say this because there are several small and midsized civil firms in San Fracisco and the East Bay with considerable A-A presence. It's hard for me to believe that they all are staying in the East Bay to avoid the tolls and/or almost double salary that would result from commuting to the Valley.

Finally, I agree with everything AngryMulletMan has just said with the exception that I believe firm management (e.g. hiring partners, managing partners, exec. committees) deserve the blame by the fact that they should be aware that these biases exist within interviewers and they still refuse to implement checks to increase the integrity of the system (see suggestions for change by Klaatu and myself in earlier postings). If these firms can coordinate several ongoing multi-million dollar class action lawsuits or close multi-billion dollar tech deals, they are grown-up enough to look at the NALP numbers and say "hey our program may not be working, lets put some of our $500/hour minds together to solve this problem." That is if they cared in the first place. Just a thought.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by legalbeagle
Tyrone, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers and your firm may be the exception but from my experience in the Valley, most firms will have a handful of those who regularly do probono (several hours a month), a couple who will throw a free bone when work is slow and the rest wouldn't have the slightest idea where to find the nearest law clinic. Though not enough credit is given to those hard working souls who have chosen to balance their professional careers with community involvement (except when its time to claim firmwide support for probono causes in the most recent newsletter). Give me a break!


As far as the percentage of black attorneys in SV, I'm not sure whether you mean employed, unemployed or both. Also, this may lead to a chicken or egg problem. Is the number in Valley low because they don't have jobs in firms or are firm numbers low because there are no black attorneys in the Valley?

My personal feeling, as you may have guessed, is the former. I say this because there are several small and midsized civil firms in San Fracisco and the East Bay with considerable A-A presence. It's hard for me to believe that they all are staying in the East Bay to avoid the tolls and/or almost double salary that would result from commuting to the Valley.

Finally, I agree with everything AngryMulletMan has just said with the exception that I believe firm management (e.g. hiring partners, managing partners, exec. committees) deserve the blame by the fact that they should be aware that these biases exist within interviewers and they still refuse to implement checks to increase the integrity of the system (see suggestions for change by Klaatu and myself in earlier postings). If these firms can coordinate several ongoing multi-million dollar class action lawsuits or close multi-billion dollar tech deals, they are grown-up enough to look at the NALP numbers and say "hey our program may not be working, lets put some of our $500/hour minds together to solve this problem." That is if they cared in the first place. Just a thought.

My feathers aren't ruffled at all -- I just think there are differences between firms relevant to what we've been discussing, and these boards are more useful to GAs and GLSs if we try to distinguish betwen them instead of lump them together. I have worked at a firm where pro bono was discouraged in practice, and at a firm that was committed to do a lot of it.

As for the % of A-A lawyers in the Valley, I was thinking in terms of the bar association, or something. I wonder if there are more A-A lawyers in government service or in-house (anecdotally, I would expect the former is true), and then I would wonder why this is. (And one reason could be that firm life is perceived as less attractive by A-A lawyers for reasons that make them want to go elsewhere.)