i cant get hired at any firm, diverse or not.

Great report!

These rankings are a joke. Because one firm has 22% black associates and one has 14%, one gets an A and one gets an F. It certainly looks like something a group of law students would put together and claim is important. Just slicing the results into fifths and assigning each fifth a letter grade is the type of methodology a fifth grader would use.

Note to self, if these people every come across my firm for an interview, ding them.

This is some idiotic shit. Anyone who has actually practiced (clearly not the authors of this report) knows that these numbers are complete crap. As the numbers are all the report is based on, it is clear the the report as a whole is crap.
NALP forms are USELESS. Anybody, law student or attorney, who thinks otherwise is delusional. They are not updated on a regular basis (because the lawyers who run the firms could give two shits about them) and are often inaccurate as of the MOMENT they are submitted/edited.

What a joke. These guys look like morons.

i'm going to find some public domain data, put it in Excel and hold a press conference.

it's laughable that there are no baselines or weighting.

it would have made more sense to just make the observation that blacks etc are underrepresented rather than manufacturing "grades" out of such a small population.

By the way, my example was just made up. I couldn't bear to go back and look at it again for the actual numbers.

"[T]hey will also be provided to Fortune 500 companies, which often take diversity into account when hiring outside counsel."

Yes. This is why law firms need to care about having women and minority lawyers. Their clients care - big-time.

"Billable hour requirements, which have been rising, have a disproportionate effect on minorities."

Am I missing something? Are white guys better than women and minorities at billing 200 hrs/month?

Women = Child care responsibilities.

Don't know about the other minorities, though. Are gays too busy shopping and getting facials to bill hours?

Why are child care responsibilities limited to women? Child-birth, yes. Child-care, no. The way two parents choose to divide their labors is their own business. If your reasoning is what these kids are using to decide that billables are a diversity issue, then they're as dumb as they look.

Regardless of whether the underlying NALP data has any value, their rankings are garbage because they failed to connect percentages with the underlying real numbers. At some point, absolute numbers matter more than percentages, and small offices should have been removed from the calculations. Skadden-SF gets an A because they have 33% african american partners. All two of them. OMM-Menlo Park, with 11 asian associates, ranks higher than Fenwick (32) or Wilson (75).

At least they show the information, so someone who wants to actually look at the numbers can figure it out.

Regardless of the good they may be trying to do, they certainly come across as a couple of whiny Stanford kids.

I'm confused, I thought this was the group that wanted big firm money without working big firm hours? Thats great and all if they can get it, but what does their quest for a siesta lifestyle have to do with race/gender?

I think I must have finally grown up/become old. I have no admiration for these kids' idealism, only hatred for their idiocy.

4:28,
As a father, I can assure you that I have child care responsibilities equal to my wife's (aside from her growing them).

It's just like law school. The people who get F trash the exam and the people who get A smile and listen quietly.

4:39, 4:41: You're right. Factoring in child care and coding it as female/non-white is a problem. I actually do think the two-tier system creates a non-respected "mommy" class at firms. I really don't see a way around that.

4:28 -- last time I checked, women are not in the minority. 51%, dontcha know.

There is much more to this group that stats on diversity.

See http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2007/10/stanford-law-students-organize-150.html

Lat sould be encouraged to do more live reporting.

In addition to resulting in better posts, he really does need to get out more.

i wonder what grade their group gets re 'diversity'

The methodology for their "Diversity Report Card" is absolutely atrocious. They decided to split every ranking into quintiles, assign grades to quintiles, and then average the grades. This is going to distort the data terribly. They have controlled for absolutely zero factors, like demographics of the surrounding area, demographics of the schools they recruit at, etc.

These rankings, like almost all statistics/quantitative compilations, are useless.

They don’t measure the qualitative aspects of a firm's treatment of women and minorities. As a minority or female lawyer would you rather be one of a small group of HAPPY and nurtured minority or women lawyers at a firm or a one of many UNHAPPY and stepped-on minority or women lawyers at a firm that has better diversity numbers on paper?

Perhaps all these rankings do is show which firms have been the most aggressive in improving how they look on paper when it comes to diversity.

Gays could never bill 200 hours/month. They need to get a good amount of sunlight to have a good base tan. They need to spend a minimum of 2 hours in the gym each day to get the body that makes straight women drool. I think it is unfair to expect them to bill any more than $160 hour/month unless the client is A&F, Gunoil, Absolut, or NYSC!

What an amazing picture.

are either of these guys gay

The problem identified by 4:39 is the key here: It's completely disingenuous to claim that a high percentage of non-white, non-male lawyers in a small outpost office is indicative of how a firm is doing as a whole. And I agree with 4:17--statistically, this is about as well-thought-out and useful as anything printed by National Jurist.

Two nice photos. Non-white? Nope. Female? Nope. That just leaves gay.

1) the quintiles, as many have stated, are stupid

2) "billable hour requirements, which have been rising, have a disproportionate effect on minorities (esp. women, who remain underrepresented in the legal profession)" - idiotic

where do these guys go to law school? TTT?

I see Stanford dropping in the US News Rankings because of the work of these idiots.

Wouldn't saying that something needs to be done about billables because women have to raise children reinforce the stereotype that woman should be the primary caregivers?

Nothing like a couple of upper class, white male 2Ls at Stanford to explain to us the problems with law firms, the lack of diversity, the first-hand experience of problems within those firms, the difficulties of maintaining an elite lifestyle with minimal work... profound. Please, Lat, stop giving these guys press.

bruck is hot!

5:03: Absolutely. I know firms are trying to be sensitive about this stuff, but perpetuating the "women need more time because of the children" thing isn't doing anybody any favors. It creates presumptions for females who don't intend to slow down after having a child. I suppose it opens up the possibility of a father slowing down, but nobody presumes the father's going to.

Can'tt elieve Stanford wasted 2 seats on these jerkoffs- they took the seats of someone that REALLY wanted to be a Stanford trained Lawyer- not a talking head for a ridiculous organization. BIGlaw will never change- if you don;t like it don;t go there!

5:03 - Women should be the primary caregivers. How many guys do you know who give birth and lactate?

5:06: Nobody's claiming that dudes lactate/give birth, but there's more to child-rearing than that, for God's sake. They're in your house for 18 damn years.

"these rankings will help law firms, by allowing them to see when their policies to encourage diversity don't generate results"

Showing law firms numbers that they reported will help them... how?

"Women should be the primary caregivers."

Like they were expected to be in the 1950's?

..... trolling trolling trolling,
just some dumb ass trolling,
trolling trolling trolling ....

4:40: first, it gives them a bigger sympathy base of folks willing to fund them in the future so they don't have to work more than 35 hours a week, and second, you missed the inevitable inference that "higher hours discourage minorities and women from the firms," which, I think, is more a stereotype than an empirical fact.

Don't get hung up on the "especially women" qualifier. These guys are claiming that higher billable hours requirements are also tougher on, inter alia, blacks than they are on white males.

Wow!

Is it because the blacks are stupider or because they're lazier? The women thing has an arguable point (the whole caregiver thing that's being argued here). But what possible reason do these guys have for claiming that higher billable requirements are tougher on blacks or latinos than on whites? These guys sound like condescending racists.

(It goes without saying that higher billable requirements discriminate IN FAVOR OF asians, who are uniformly hardworking robots.)

I am shocked, frankly, that my firm did not top all of these rankings. I was under the impression that everyone here was a winner.

A few thoughts:
1) agree with most of the posts: law students should have learned by now that they cannot change the system
2) calling women "minorities" is disingenious and do women, even in BigLaw really see themselves as such?
3) there are plenty of legal jobs out there with more work/life balance. This "report" that they think will have any effect whatsoever on big firms is useless. Attorneys are pretty bright and can figure out for themselves what their options are.

Lat seems to think that anyone who has a faint heartbeat is either "handsome" or "hot." Further, anytime he posts a photo he must comment on the person's looks.

So billable hours have gone up. So has pay. Regardless of what some posters here have noted, it still exceeds inflation, and is a hell of a lot of cash for a 25-29 year old who may or may not have ever held a real job. As the presenters at the panel said, would I like to use my "market strength" to have a better balance? Of course. We would all like less work for the same money. But reality rears its head- more work=more money.

I should have said: more money=more work

isn't diversity based more around diversity of opinion than the color of someone's skin? if everyone at a firm is a fascist rethuglican, but they've got some black partners and some women partners, does that really make them diverse?

these rankings seem flawed to the maxxx.

chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

6:08 - that was Walter, not the Dude, dude.

To be sure, much of the criticism here's worthwhile--the statistic work leaves much to be desired, and their so-called 'grading system' smacks of juvenille smugness. Still, you've got to hand to hand it to these guys for actually drawing our attention to these issues, and provoking this much discussion. Far better than most law students their age. Let's just hope that if either of them choose to stage one of these events again, they make sure that the evidence they've mashalled is supported by far more authoritative voices. [did they even bother to give these stats to a statistician?]

Here's an idea: How about I hire the BEST lawyer for the job, and then try to improve primary schools so that there are actually qualified lawyers of every race/color/creed/etc?

And if women don't want to work at Biglaw then they're smart! I wouldn't either. Why are these white men trying to tell women what to do?

No one asked about why he's using the term "legal profession," but including only biglawyers (who are a minority in the legal profession)?

People like this should be beaten itno unconsciousness then beaten again when the regain consciousness.

Way to go, Lat! You've managed the impossible!

Somehow you've managed to provide the soap box yet another group of resume-minded, Type A douchebags who come up with stupid projects like this to get lots of attention! Way to go! I didn't think anyone fell for this crap anymore! Do Nothing Lawyers Club of America . . . Lawyers for X Presidential Candidate . . . Law Students for Fun . . . Law Students Against Fun . . . Hell, let's all come up with some stupid organization and make absurd observations to get attention! We don't actually have to know what we're talking about, nor do we have to actually make sense. Just get famous . . . And then the BigLaw offers come rolling in . . .

Excellent choice Lat! Good journalists filter, Lat. They filter.

According to Lat, Bruck said something like "billable hour requirements, which have been rising, have a disproportionate effect on minorities".

Like others who have commented, I find this mind-boggling. If this is a problem, what are the choices to solve it? Lower billable requirements accross the board in the name or equality, or just make straight white guys do a disproportionately higher amount of the work (without a disproportionate rise in benefit).

Despite being neither black, nor gay, nor married, I find it hard to bill 2000 hours a year, so yeah, if Bruck wants to have billable hours requirments lowered across the board, I'll be all for it. But do you think anyone will do this? The executive commitee at NY, Washington, Chicago or LA biglaw firm is really going to say, "by golly, women and minorities can't do 2000. Down to 1900! And we'll keep starting salaries for first years at $160/year"?

Obviously this isn't going to happen. So what these minority advocates really want, I think, is a free ride on the backs of the straight white guys. 2000 billable hours a year for the straight white guys, 1900 for everybody else. Just as the lsat average at some law schoold is 170+ for whites and in the low 160s for "minorities". Sorry, but this isn't going to happen either. Nothing depletes morale at a workplace more than the perception that management gives certain people preferences over other people. Without a baseline of fairness, people will spend their whole time bitching in each other's officer and sending out their resumes. So Bruck and his cohorts have had their 15 minutes of fame. Economic reality will impede soon.

I just wrote them this letter. I wonder if they'll respond.

Dear Refirmation,

I have a question about your organization. Why do you claim to represent the legal profession, when all of your work pertains to large firms ("biglaw")? If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of lawyers do not work in biglaw. The demand for biglaw jobs far outweighs the supply of these jobs. Biglaw is the cream of the legal profession and it is very difficult for many students to get offers from these firms. As you know, just last year two Yale students sued the site autoadmit, and if I understand, their main injury was that autoadmit damaged their reputation and prevented them from getting one of these highly sought after positions.

The vast majority of people who work in biglaw don't last, because the partnership tracks are very competitive. A lot of people want to be a multi-millionaire biglaw partners, but I think only 5% make it to that level? If you dispute any of the factual assertions in this email, I am open to listening, but I think they are self evident.

I understand that in such a competitive world, there is a heightened need to alert the public of injustices like discrimination. The charts you prepared were great. Your complaints about the billable hours structure is also interesting and I certainly don't claim to know the answer to that problem.

But can I please ask you one small favor? Can you please make it clear that you do not represent the legal profession, but rather, that you represent one tiny and highly sought after segment of that profession? Every year, tens of thousands of students graduate law school and they don't have the luxury of a high paying biglaw position. I'm sure you read the recent WSJ article, "Hard Case: Job Market
Wanes for U.S. Lawyers." ( http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119040786780835602.html )They have to work for one third, or sometimes one fifth, of the salary, often putting in the same hours. I'm one of those students, and I am bemused by your claim to represent me.

"BIGlaw will never change- if you don;t like it don;t go there!"

But they pay $160,000 plus bonus. What to do?

But they pay $160,000 plus bonus. What to do?

make a choice: the money or a life.

FB: And you don't sound like a "condescending racist" when you classify all Asians as "hard-working robots"?

Jesus. Why is it perfectly okay to lump all Asians in together?

to 8:08:

"Jesus. Why is it perfectly okay to lump all Asians in together?"

I think you answered your own question. Was it not Jesus/God who lumped all of the Asians together... in Asia?

10:15: evolution is the explanation - there's no such thing as god.

does he have a boyfriend? is he a top or bottom? is he planning to move to nyc anytime soon? i need to get me some of that...

Most of these large firms won't hire people who don't fit gender norms ie short haired women who don't girl it up. I'm going to start sending testers to these firms, and once I prove this, I'm going to bring the mother of all law suits. I'm sick of this discrimination bullshit.

Perhaps it is more difficult for minorities to hit the 2,000 billable requirement because some were chosen not so much for their abilities but for their race (yah, they are "qualified" but not cream of the crop) and when push comes to shove, partners want their work handled by the best associates... The truth generally come out in the darwinian biglaw firm life of an associate - Good associates (regardless of skin color) tend to get the most work!

I know, blasphemy!

Anonymous, I don't agree. My firm was not a meritocracy. Regarding advancement, a lot depended on who partners liked.

Note that Heller Ehrman's Menlo Park office gets a "C" for associate gender diversity, *because* it has 50% females and 50% males. In order to be gender diverse in Northern California on these jokers' "methodology," you must employ *more* female associates than males (you won't get an A unless you're at least 54/46 female).

Your letter is very "bemusing." It's a wonder no one thinks you're qualified for top compensation.

To go ahead and play this out all the way, the most "diverse" firm under this "methodology" would be a firm that refused to hire anyone other than black lesbians.

5:36 - Well-run law firms are meritocracies to a large extent. They are not run like country clubs, democracies or social experiments. Women who don't want to sacrifice - stay late - as much as others will pay the price of not being "liked". But that applies to men as well.

I will admit that things are changing though. Many firms are treating associates as staff attorneys - with no real chance of making partners. They keep the associates interested by paying them well (the Cadwalader model), but know that very very few will ever make it to the holy grail. The smart ones will develop strong relationships with the client, jump to a mid-size firm and try to leverage the relationship. That is the only real effective way to put partnership in your control. Then you build the relationship and move back to the big firm with a book of business.

I wasn't willing to play that ping pong with my career. After a few years at Big Law, I went in-house and I absolutely love it. Develop a strategy when you are at the firm - don't wonder aimlessly from firm to firm thinking that things will get better. They won't.

In my view, to be successful, minorities and women have to work even harder to overcome stereotypes - i.e. that women want to reduce billables to accommodate family needs and that certain minorities got in due to their classification rather than their abilities. As long as you work hard and do more than can reasonably be expected of you, you should be in a better position than your white male colleague who does the same. Firms are really pushing for partners who are women/minorities so you have a plus. But to get there, you have to earn it - really earn it.

Andrew Buck to 190!

"Your letter is very "bemusing." It's a wonder no one thinks you're qualified for top compensation."

What do you mean by that?

By the way, the refirmation people never responded to the letter I posted at 12:11. I guess they don't want reality to interfere with their pipe dream.

Yes these kids are smart. This conference and organization will be great resume fodder.

Otherwise, i like what they're doing. i think the part about asking firms to sign the commitment is interesting, although telling that no one has exactly jumped at the opportunity.

The big law types, if they were smart, motivated and lucky, could form a union.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=955039

"The big law types, if they were smart, motivated and lucky, could form a union. "

No they couldn't. You can't unionize the most desirable job in the legal profession. You biglaw folks need to understand that tons of people want your jobs.

"This conference and organization will be great resume fodder."

Ummmm, I don't think so. I would hate to have one of these guys working with me. Talk about a bunch of whiny assholes.

andrew buck to my gay boyfriend!