Black Attorney Quota in SV?

Recently, I had a discussion with an African-American (A-A)attorney in the Valley and he was telling me how firms in Silicon Valley had an unwritten quota limiting the number of A-A attorneys in each office. His understanding is that hiring partners feel that A-A associates either don't fit the "culture" or are limited to employment groups where they can be used as a black face to defend clients against claims of employment (racial, sexual, age, etc.) discrimination. I could not imagine that such an assertion could be true since I figured the Valley was fairly progressive and would be intersted in hiring as many qualified applicants as possible. In fact, he told me to check the NALP directory and look for myself. The results were truly amazing:
(All are SV offices unless otherwise noted)

Allen Matkins -- 37 Total Atty -- 1 Part. , 0 Ass.
Bingham McCutchen -- 60 Total -- 0 Part. 0 Ass.
Clifford Chance -- 49 Total SF/SV -- 0 Part, 0 Ass.
Cooley -- 224 Total -- 0 Part, 1 Ass.
Cooper -- 55 Total (SF) -- 0 Part, 0 Ass.
Davis Polk -- 29 Total -- 0 Part, 0 Ass.
Dewey Balantine -- 23 Total-- 0 Part, 0 Ass.
Fenwick -- 256 Total -- 1 Part., 3 Ass. (Down from 7 in 02')
Gray Cary -- 146 Total -- 1 Part., 1 Ass
Heller -- 80 Total -- 1 Part. 2 Ass.
Gunderson -- 60 Total -- 0 Part., 1 Ass.
MoFo -- 108 Total -- 1 Part., 0 Ass.
OMM -- 98 Total SV/SF -- 0 Part, 1 Ass.
Orrick -- 78 Total -- 0 Part, 0 Ass.
Pillsbury -- 82 Total -- 0 Part, 0 Ass.
Skadden -- 47 Total -- 0 Part, 3 Ass (up from 0 in 02')
Thelen Reid -- 28 Total -- 0 Part, 0 Ass.

There are many other firms in SV listed on NALP. To be fair I chose offices larger than 25 attorneys and those that were better known (presumably creating a larger recruiting pool). If anyone can explain these numbers please let me know. No office had more than 1 A-A partner and the vast majority of offices had either 0 or 1 A-A associates. This definitely appears to be more than an accident.

[AngryMulletMan]

Originally posted by legalbeagle
Recently, I had a discussion with an African-American (A-A)attorney in the Valley and he was telling me how firms in Silicon Valley had an unwritten quota limiting the number of A-A attorneys in each office.

Though I seriously doubt that firms have such unwritten quotas limiting numbers of minority attorneys, the numbers you posted (if they are even close to accurate) make me very, very sad.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by AngryMulletMan
Though I seriously doubt that firms have such unwritten quotas limiting numbers of minority attorneys, the numbers you posted (if they are even close to accurate) make me very, very sad.

Concur. The numbers, while deeply discouraging, are most likely the result of more insidious forms of discrimination.* I wouldn't put it past one or two firms listed to have had a "black people just never seem to fit in" conversation between one or two older partners, but a quota policy implemented by 17 of the largest firms in the area wouldn't remain a secret for five minutes.

*Includes the potential contribution of systemic forms of discrimination, such as educational policies that disproportionately discourage African-Americans from obtaining professional degrees or which disincentivize them from wanting BIGLAW jobs, the existence of which others can debate without me.

I think the worst part is that many of these firms claim to be actively recruiting attorneys of color. In doing my NALP research, each one of these firms were "committed" to increasing diversity through recruiting and retention. Based on the given numbers, either this is an outright lie or these programs have failed miserably. What happened to "diversity" committees that seemed to be all the rage several ago? I guess when the economy tanked, it gave these firms a good excuse to close ranks and hire mainly "white", excuse me, "bright" candidates. What a shame!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by legalbeagle
I think the worst part is that many of these firms claim to be actively recruiting attorneys of color. In doing my NALP research, each one of these firms were "committed" to increasing diversity through recruiting and retention. Based on the given numbers, either this is an outright lie or these programs have failed miserably. What happened to "diversity" committees that seemed to be all the rage several ago? I guess when the economy tanked, it gave these firms a good excuse to close ranks and hire mainly "white", excuse me, "bright" candidates. What a shame!

I have got to believe that some of these firms are trying hard and not getting anywhere, and others are not trying at all. I'm sure they all say the right things to NALP, but some of them surely mean it. There are not a ton of black attorneys in the pool of applicants to these firms, and those who are qualified often have very attractive options to go elsewhere (e.g., in-house). A friend is represented on your list, and has been heavily recruited to go in-house by a couple of companies. I don't hear em's stories about this repeated by white attorneys in similar circumstances.

None of which is to say that these numbers aren't terrible.

There were stories on the old board that the layoffs at a lot of valley firms fell disproportionately on women and people of color.

Yeah Whitey!

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I have got to believe that some of these firms are trying hard and not getting anywhere, and others are not trying at all. I'm sure they all say the right things to NALP, but some of them surely mean it. There are not a ton of black attorneys in the pool of applicants to these firms, and those who are qualified often have very attractive options to go elsewhere (e.g., in-house). A friend is represented on your list, and has been heavily recruited to go in-house by a couple of companies. I don't hear em's stories about this repeated by white attorneys in similar circumstances.

A number of other points here:

1. Since the state of california got rid of aff-act a number of years ago, the number of African Americans attending Boalt, UCLA and probably the other UC Law schools dropped precipitously, limiting the recruiting pool for Valley firms. The numbers have gone up lately, but not back to where they were.

2. It's been pointed out (in a book I think) that African American attorneys are more likely to go into public interest job, again limiting the recruiting pool (though I suppose it could be because they couldn't get firm jobs, but a lot of the public interest jobs are very competitive). Add this to the point about in-house opportunities.

3. Another point has been made (in another book) that it is extremely important to have a good mentoring relationship at a law firm in order to get ahead, and that a lot of senior associates & partners may hesitate to take up a relationship with a young African American attorney out of fear of a discrimination lawsuit somewhere down the road if things don't go well.

4. I hope this doesn't sound biased (or worse) but I also think it would be hard to come out of law school these days as an African American without a chip on your shoulder. I know where I went to law school two weeks couldn't go by without some event, talk, meeting about the evils of American society and how racist it is (not to mention how law firms only hire white people). If you go into a firm with any kind of attitude, white or black, you're not going to last long.

5. If you look at statistics for other minorities at those firm's valley offices, they don't look so bad. Cooley has 6 hispanic and 29 Asian american associates. Bingham has 20 Asian and 9 Hispanic associates. Fenwick has 25 Asian and 5 Hispanic associates. Not that this proves that there is no bias against or quota for African Americans, but would tend to show that others can "fit in."

6. I find it hard to believe that firms, especially in the valley, would actually pass up a qualified African-American candidate because "we already have one." From what I can tell, the only thing that matters in the Valley is that you're smart, though I could be wrong.

Of course this doesn't mean that there isn't bias, but I can't believe there is some agreed upon quota. It would be interesting to poll African-American attorneys at Bay Area law schools to see what their experiences were interviewing at Valley firms, how many did they interview with and how many offers did they get.

The points made by Tyrone and Fitshaced are very well taken. However, the point I was trying to make was that it appears, (based on the numbers)to be a clear cap of one A-A partner and three associates for any firm larger than 25 people in SV (I can only imagine it gets worse in smaller firms).

This does not hold true in other states or even other California regions. For example, in Los Angeles there were numerous firms which had multiple A-A partners and associates. For example:

Akin Gump -- 101 Total -- 3 Part, 3 Ass.
Baker Hostetler -- 37 Total -- 4 Part, 3 Ass.
Kirkland and Ellis -- 92 Total -- 2 Part, 2 Ass.
Latham -- 316 Total -- 3 Part, 5 Ass.

It only took several minutes to find these firms and others with much better numbers than SV. There were definitely firms in LA with similar 0 Partner 0 Associates numbers but at least there were firms out there willing to break the 1 A-A partner and/or 3 Associate trend that is apparent in SV. I would think your arguments that affirmative action or a smaller qualified pool (limiting the numbers) would also apply in Los Angeles.

As far as other minority groups with increasing numbers, you are absolutely correct. Some SV firms had as many as 29 Asian associates and 3 Partners. The numbers are less impressive for hispanic and basically non-existent for A-A.

I really don't believe SV recruiters or hiring partners are foamy mouthed, fist in the air, racist. Though, I am starting to believe that the Valley is averse to having a firm where there is more than one A-A in a position of influence (Partner) or more than enough associates to create a change in the social dynamic. This would mean playing less Creed at cocktail parties and more 50 Cent. Just a thought.

The Beagle

[Sidd Finch]

Given the larger base of the LA firms, their numbers are not dramatically better. I don't say this to downplay your concerns, but rather to echo them.

I do think the Valley is generally less diverse overall -- mostly white and Asian, far fewer African Americans than in SF or LA or NY. Why that is, I can't say.

I agree that my affirmative action and smaller pool arguments should apply to L.A. as well, but I would argue that they do to a much lesser extent.

I say this as I think LA is a much bigger draw on a national level for attorneys in general, and especially African American attorneys. SV is tech tech tech, with other stuff thrown in. I would say LA is more general, with a focus on entertainment, if anything. In the grand scheme of things, I would say that entertainment appeals more to the African American attorney than does tech (which I think also goes for most attorneys, who wouldn't want to represent J-Lo over Larry Ellison?).

Looking at Akin Gump's website, it appears (based on visual evidence as well as extracurricular activities) that all 3 of their African American partners and one of their African American associates in LA, are members of their "Entertainment & Media Industry" practice group.

Also, given SV firm's penchant for JD's with engineering/science degrees, the fact that African-Americans tend (based on all the statistics I've ever seen) to be less represented in these areas also could contribute to the statistics pointed out in the original post.

As to foaming at the mouth racists, if silicon valley firms are "averse" to having more than one partner or three African American associates, someone must be sitting around looking at the numbers going, "Hmm...we have to keep our African American numbers down. No more hiring of African Americans for the foreseeable future." While not foaming, still a pretty consciously racist decision.

I find it hard to believe that an African-American with an electrical engineering degree and mediocre grades at almost any law school would not be flooded with offers from the firms on the original post.

What possible good could it do these firms to have such a cap?

First, having spent several years working in the Valley, I can say that most attorneys that I have come into contact with do not have technical or science degrees. This holds true for most White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic partners/associates. But even assuming this "penchant for JD's with engineering/science degrees" holds true, Valley firms have a wide variety of groups (Corporate, Securities Lit, Employment Lit, Complex/Business Lit, Tax, etc.) where such degrees are not needed. I hope you have not gotten the "Johnnie Cochrane" syndrome which causes one to believe all or most A-A attorneys want to practice is either Criminal, Civil Rights, or Entertainment Law. I personally know an A-A JD/CPA and several A-A litigators who are currently unemployed in the Valley. I will certainly send them your post.

Second, the question is not what good can come from a cap, but rather what are the benefits of continuing to hire any more than you need for the recruiting brochure. Let's be frank, as several studies have shown, when you reach a certain number of a particular minority race in any environment, they will tend to spend less time trying to assimilate and more time developing relationships with those that have similar backgrounds. Such group formation leads to certain demands from mangement regarding hiring, off the cuff statements, etc.

Finally, the real shame is that most of these firms are touting their diversity of ALL RACES to gain Fortune 500 clients who often require outside counsel actively recruit and retain minority attorneys. If in-house counsel is not diligent than these firms are able to take away work from places that truly care about diversity, both in words and in numbers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by legalbeagle
Finally, the real shame is that most of these firms are touting their diversity of ALL RACES to gain Fortune 500 clients who often require outside counsel actively recruit and retain minority attorneys. If in-house counsel is not diligent than these firms are able to take away work from places that truly care about diversity, both in words and in numbers.

If you could advise one of these firms with good intentions but terrible numbers, what would you tell them to do?

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you could advise one of these firms with good intentions but terrible numbers, what would you tell them to do?

Sidestepping the question of whether any biglaw firm has "good intentions," if I had happened to spend several years sitting on the Hiring Committee of a former biglaw firm, I might have done the following:

1. Grow suspicious/weary of the excuse that the problem was too many biglaw firms competing for the same small number of "qualified" A-A law students and, therefore, the fault lies with the law schools.

2. Gather the "minority enrollment" stats of each of the schools at which my firm did on-campus recruiting and compare the stats to those of similarly ranked schools where we did not recruit.

3. Argue, by way of example, that, even though our managing partner was U.Chicago, since we hadn't recruited anyone from Chicago in at least ten years and since people of color were only 11% of Chicago's enrollment, perhaps we should consider eliminating Chicago and adding one or more schools with higher POC populations. And, no, don't fall for the hooey that that means lowering standards. Lot's of first and second tier law schools had higher POC populations than some of the third and fourth tier law schools where we recruited solely because one of the schmoes in power had gone there.

4. Argue that, as did many E. Coast firms including Cravath, we should be on-campus recruiting at predominately A-A schools such as Howard. Embarrass the Recruiting Partner into agreeing by offerring to pay one's own expenses to go recruit at Howard.

5. Argue that, since like attracts like, those who are sent out to do on-campus recruiting must be carefully selected and trained or else they will persist in viewing similarities as positives and differences as negatives, i.e., they'll keep favoring the call-back offers on white folks whose backgrounds and interests are remarkably similar to their interviewers.

If indeed I had done such things, I probably would have been extremely disheartened by the outcome, but then that would just take us back to the question of good intentions -- fact or fiction?

If this thread continues, though, it might be interesting to take up the subject of what might be done to improve retention of those people of color who do somehow manage to get hired. If I had been at former biglaw firm, I might have some thoughts on that too.

Originally posted by legalbeagle
First, having spent several years working in the Valley, I can say that most attorneys that I have come into contact with do not have technical or science degrees. This holds true for most White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic partners/associates. But even assuming this "penchant for JD's with engineering/science degrees" holds true, Valley firms have a wide variety of groups (Corporate, Securities Lit, Employment Lit, Complex/Business Lit, Tax, etc.) where such degrees are not needed. I hope you have not gotten the "Johnnie Cochrane" syndrome which causes one to believe all or most A-A attorneys want to practice is either Criminal, Civil Rights, or Entertainment Law. I personally know an A-A JD/CPA and several A-A litigators who are currently unemployed in the Valley. I will certainly send them your post.

So let's see, the idea that we need more minorities on law school faculties in order to attract more minorities to those schools is okay; but the idea that those same minorities might want to work in areas where their clients are likely to also be minorities is "Johnnie Cochrane" syndrome?

If diversity in law school is supposed to bring together people with different backgrounds, experiences, ideas and views, couldn't those same differences lead to different career path's?

As far as my comment about techie lawyers in the valley, please don't misconstrue what I said. Will they hire more JD's with tech backgrounds than firms in other areas? Of course. Is that all they hire? Of course not. Does the fact that A-A are less likely to have a tech background make them relatively less hireable in the valley? Draw your own conclusion.

As for unemployed JD/CPA's, count me among them.

Second, the question is not what good can come from a cap, but rather what are the benefits of continuing to hire any more than you need for the recruiting brochure. Let's be frank, as several studies have shown, when you reach a certain number of a particular minority race in any environment, they will tend to spend less time trying to assimilate and more time developing relationships with those that have similar backgrounds. Such group formation leads to certain demands from mangement regarding hiring, off the cuff statements, etc.

If this group formation and demands from management are such a problem when it comes to hiring minorities (I assume that's what you're saying), why are there so many Asian American attorneys at these firms? Don't they present the same issue? And why can you paint with such a broad brush about minorities and "what they do", but I mention that A-A law students may relatively tend to go into entertainment law and I'm accused of "Johnnie Cochrane" syndrome? Also see your "Less Creed more 50 Cent" comment.

Why is "developing relationships with those that have similar backgrounds" okay for minorities, but when white people do it it's called exclusionary or worse? See the various "Black Law Student Association," "Asian-American Student Association," etc. Want to guess what kind of reception a "Caucasian Law Student Association" might get at a law school campus?

Look, I'm not arguing that there's no discrimination going on in the Valley, I'm trying to point out that there are a lot of other factors at work here that can help explain the numbers that you instantly point to as evidence of a "quota." In your years in the valley, did you see any evidence of such a thing?

So let's see, the idea that we need more minorities on law school faculties in order to attract more minorities to those schools is okay; but the idea that those same minorities might want to work in areas where their clients are likely to also be minorities is "Johnnie Cochrane" syndrome?

Not at all. I am not saying there are not some trends amongst racial groups. Though I do believe that to use a Entertainment/Media Law, Civil Rights, or Criminal law as if they are absorbing the lion share of A-A attorneys would be a mistake. I don't have the numbers but I know I have met as many A-A attorneys out of those mentioned fields (if not more) than within them. Specifically, Entertainment Law, is such a relatively small field of law and mainly limited to LA or NY that the chances of successfully entering that field pushes most people away. From what I know of it, there are only a handful of such attorneys that big stars, athletes, or studios will risk working with. Consequently, a formerly aspiring Entertainment lawyers will either end up doing Corporate or some litigation (hence my point about other groups in the Valley)

If this group formation and demands from management are such a problem when it comes to hiring minorities (I assume that's what you're saying), why are there so many Asian American attorneys at these firms? Don't they present the same issue? And why can you paint with such a broad brush about minorities and "what they do", but I mention that A-A law students may relatively tend to go into entertainment law and I'm accused of "Johnnie Cochrane" syndrome? Also see your "Less Creed more 50 Cent" comment.

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)) Now compare that to your mental picture of the A-A experience with thse issues.

Its like what often happened (and still happens to some degree) in the Valley with Tech Businesses. Asians are believed to be great engineers/programmers but when it comes to hiring them for management positions, then the story becomes "well they are too docile, or they don't have the instincts for marketing, or connecting with clients." Obviously bu*!sh*#t, but such is the perception within that community. I'm sure you also noted in your NALP research, the numbers of Asian associates compared to Asian partners in some places (e.g 25 associates, two or three partners). Looks pretty similar to the situation I just mentioned.


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.

I'm trying to point out that there are a lot of other factors at work here that can help explain the numbers that you instantly point to as evidence of a "quota." In your years in the valley, did you see any evidence of such a thing?

Up until my discussion with my A-A friend, I really didn't think much about it (as I assumed the numbers were probably not great but there was no "quota"). 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. It's even worse to prove now since they can always use the economy as an excuse and say "We just aren't hiring right now" as they simultaneously bring their own in under the radar. Which is another problem, I don't want people to think just because these firms don't post job listings in the Recorder that they are not hiring. Often times these firms will use "word of mouth" to recruit and who do you think benefits from such recruiting efforts? Not the A-A candidates who may not be privy to such networking.

Tyrone, I would advise these firms to:
1) Re-evalute their hiring procedure/criteria (If you hunt in a desert you will get more lizards than deer)
2) Make sure (as some firms already do) to place a survey card in the rejection letter that would allow numbers to be kept on the race, sex, and possibly school of the rejected applicant. From there we may get a better idea of the candidate pool.
3) Encourage firms to disclose open positions with BLSA and other A-A organizations instead of the "general" network of friends who are often hired outside the radar.

The Beagle