I know this sounds incredibly racists, but I read this post in the voice of an obese African-American blogger.

ok 2nd then

What this crap have to do with law anyway? This brog nothing but a crap now. Too gay. Too stupid. David, you need come home this weekend, meet nice Filipino girl through matchmaker, I introduce you, ok? Then maybe your head get un-gayed, not so crazy no more. I make you your favorite rice cake soup too, just for you, then maybe you have energy, brog better.
- Mom

This is "good news!" Except for the 3 or 4 men who didn't make partner because they weren't affirmative action beneficiaries. Elie's only concern in life is furthering the unearned benefits of people other than European American males.

The Racist Walrus returns.

We missed you, Mystttal. We simply had too many non-diversity-related posts on here without your affirmative action presence.

Welcome back.

Thank you, Elie and Kash, for all you do on this site, and the abuse you take.

Oh, and seventh!

I wonder if these womens' cycles have matched up already. If so, that is bad news for the S&C plumbing.

I'm happy for them, and they must be good lawyers because they all look like they've been beaten with an ugly stick.

www.sullcrom.com

Diversity is a sham. The only moral, ethical and legally permissible criteria for hiring and promotion are merit.

Good thing Rodge Cohen can bring in enough business of his own, one cannot rely on female partners to make it rain.

Suck my ass, Mystal, you obese race bating Walrus.

Ol' Rodge refers to policies on flex-time and maternity leave. Does S&C not have a policy on paternity leave? Seems discriminatory.

Isn't one of the new partners a WGWAG?

10

Merit, a talented tongue, or big 'ol titties are the only reasons

The fact that our audience is predominantly white and male is purely a coincidence. Same with the partnership ranks of this law firm.

Does anyone really believe that the ratio of qualified partner candidate associates were really 4:1 women? It should be more like 3:1 men.

These stupid diversity policies are bullshit and I'm not even a white male.

Would it be good news if the four partners were from some other under-represented class, like pagans or Satmars? Elie, your post is a perfect example of why AA is such a disaster. You cared more about the category of person than the individual's accomplishments.

Every female law partner I know (that did not ultimately quit working) has a stay at home husband.

Where is the flex time availability for fathers? What would happen if a male attorney went to the partnership and said, "My wife wants to continue working in her carreer and doesn't want to go on a lengthened partnership track and since I'm an enlightened man, I'm willing to stay at home and take care of the child the majority of the time because we both believe one of us should be home instead of placing the child in day care or hiring a nanny. I, however, want it all and would like to continue in the legal profession on a limited basis. I am willing to work half-time for half-pay (even 40% pay would be acceptable). What say you, partnership?"

20,
You're fired.

Sincerely,
The Partnership.

hi ATL,

it's been awhile. i'm no longer a nervous 1L, in fact i'm not even that nervous anymore. i was able to sufficiently hustle enough to earn me a job at a "preeminent firm." but don't worry too much, my hustling days aren't over; there's still worrying about grades, full time job offers, editorial board positions, etc. it's exciting to see so many new faces on ATL, especially since i was the only "profile" when i started commenting over a year ago.

*nervously gives high fives to all the other commenters*

-nervous T-10 2L

This is PE's firm. I'll bet the old misogynist is not too happy.

23 - So who is PE?

20, excellent point. But you are just highlighting the degree of baked-in sexism at firms----male lawyers face enourmous pressured to kick childcare to their wives rather than take time off, which risks being seen as the ultimate flake.

17, why wouldn't there be more women than men eligible for partnership if the playing field were level? Women do better in college and in law school, and top law schools graduate significantly more women than men. This has been the case for a generation, yet partnership ranks remain almost exclusively dudes with stay at home wives, many of whom gave up careers to make at least one law career work. That is obviously meritocracy at work, isn't it.

Yes my preeminent peer law firm does have some female "partners", at least enough to keep Commisar Obama's lynch parties at DOJ happy. But when the careful observer looks carefully at the case load of these female "partners" they will discover that all is not as it would seem.....

25,

A good point, to be sure. But it doesn't sound like meritocracy when the firm says: “We certainly for a long time have been trying to promote more women and more minorities.”

- Not 17

25,
Of course it is baked in sexism, that's the point. If, in a few years I go to the partnership and ask to move to flex time to be a working stay at home dad, I have no illusions that they would take it seriously. They would say yeah right because it doesn't help them look good to corporate counsel. Their agreement would only benefit some other company that would have a female attorney. It needs to be an industry wide approach, not just individual firms because a firm that lets a husband go flex time is advancing the carreers of women/mothers that would otherwise be forced to stay at home. It just shows how fake the effort is fake.

- 20

Elie,

Diversity policies promote, rather than curb, racism and sexism. If you truly cared about these issues you push for everythng to be colorblind and merit based. Unless, of course, you don't think women and minorities would be promoted under a system like this.

Is it true that women in NYC can walk around topless? If so, I am in favor of these promotions.

17 - "Women do better in college and in law school, and top law schools graduate significantly more women than men. " - You can't just write that this is true and expect anyone to believe it.

25, if women do better in college and law school, why is there affirmative action for women in law school admissions and law review entrance?

Take a look at the honors or magna cum laude students at any law school. They're disproportionately men.

I guess reality has a well known anti-liberal bias.

This is a tiny step in the right direction. However, most firms happily excluded minorities until clients demanded more than a token associate or partner. Now, the firms just use the 1L summer program to make their recruiting pool look diverse. Looking at the numbers of blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans graduating from top tier law schools, you would think that would be reflected in biglaw. While firms seem to be more willing to take Asians in, blacks and Hispanics still aren't accepted.

There are plenty of hardworking minorities who never had a chance to be 4th Generation Stalevard, because their grandparents or parents were not allowed to attend top schools. Despite having no legacy benefit, and coming from families that experienced open discrimination, minorities are graduating from top law schools with grades to prove their ability. However, firms still reject obviously qualified non-white applicants, and the minorities at the firm receive less work than their white counterparts.

If anyone out there thinks that AA is helping minorities at the expense of white males, I think they are mistaken. There is no accurate measure for the additional struggles faced by a minority family. Sure, socio-economic conditions are a huge factor, but even the poorest white man didn't face the open discrimination that minorities did 50 years ago, or the more subtle discrimination today.

My apologies for those who consider this troll bait, but my god, those of you who hate on minorities need to direct some of that anger towards legacies. I have seen so many more legacies get hired and climb the ranks, despite questionable abilities. You think that merits should be the only thing relevant in admissions? How about you take off the section where it asks for family members who have attended? What the hell does that have to do with anything other than securing donations?

Finally, an FTT-infested BigLaw does something right!

As for the snivelers, stop whining.

(1) Your implied statements that the four women promoted were somehow unqualified lacks any foundation whatsoever. Moreover, it reveals your own sexism. "Wow, four women got promoted--must be something funny going on." And yet amazingly, when four white male FTTs get promoted to partner, you never say "must have had good connections/a privileged background."

(2) Unqualified white males get promoted to partners all the time. Many of you FTT hacks will be in their ranks one day.

(3) Res Ipsa is a white male who has been passed up for jobs by females and minorities. Is he whining? No.

33 must be joking. At my firm, if you interview a black or Latino candidate you don't even bother asking questions or looking at a transcript or resume - you just vote "definite offer" because that's the firm policy.

35,

If that were even remotely true, your firm would be a mecca for the droves of unemployed and no offered minorities.

-33

Diversity programs are luxuries, and they reduce profits. When the economy is in rough shape, most places cannot afford this reduction.

In same firms, attorneys are being laid off, in part, to compensate for the lost profits the diversity programs are causing.

Diversity has almost no appeal to clients right now- as companies are falling apart, their GCs are looking at the bang they are getting for their buck, and not at how many female partners a company has.

“We certainly for a long time have been trying to promote more women and more minorities.”

Not to provide equal opportunities to all and not discriminate based on race, sex or nationality, but simply to promote more women and more minorities (i.e., discriminate against those who do not fall within these two categories?). Fabulous. Can't it create a certain degree of doubt as to whether the promotion has actually been earned or has it just been received because of a distorted understanding of what non-discrimination actually is? Isn't it a bit of an ill service? All the fuss about diversity, rights of women and minorities, etc., is a clear sign that discrimination is still in full bloom, since division into categories is at the core of it.

“We certainly for a long time have been trying to promote more women and more minorities.”

Not to provide equal opportunities to all and not discriminate based on race, sex or nationality, but simply to promote more women and more minorities (i.e., discriminate against those who do not fall within these two categories?). Fabulous. Can't it create a certain degree of doubt as to whether the promotion has actually been earned or has it just been received because of a distorted understanding of what non-discrimination actually is? Isn't it a bit of an ill service? All the fuss about diversity, rights of women and minorities, etc., is a clear sign that discrimination is still in full bloom, since division into categories is at the core of it.

“We certainly for a long time have been trying to promote more women and more minorities.”

Not to provide equal opportunities to all and not discriminate based on race, sex or nationality, but simply to promote more women and more minorities (i.e., discriminate against those who do not fall within these two categories?). Fabulous. Can't it create a certain degree of doubt as to whether the promotion has actually been earned or has it just been received because of a distorted understanding of what non-discrimination actually is? Isn't it a bit of an ill service? All the fuss about diversity, rights of women and minorities, etc., is a clear sign that discrimination is still in full bloom, since division into categories is at the core of it.

I think I would rather work for a female partner than a Black partner.

SMU1L

33, you make a good point about legacy admissions, but don't expect to get any love around here. I'd venture a guess that at least 80% of the dbags posting stupid and/or racist stuff on this blog were admitted to law school because Daddy gave a donation.

Note that after this promotion, 30 of S&C's partners are now women.

30 OUT OF 172.

17.4%

Oh dear, we really had better stop that affirmative action quick, before women break the 20%!

As many commenters noted in a thread several months ago, firms that are unable to show promotion of females from associate to partner ranks in proportion to male promotions will be losing work from blue-chip clients, whose in-house legal departments are developing very serious and sophisticated diversity requirements that scrutinize such statistics. Client companies that value diversity are demanding this to be reflected in all their vendors, chief among them law firms.

"the poorest white man did not face...the more subtle discriminations of today."

What a foolish thing to say.

- from all the dirt poor white people who have it WAY worse than middle class black kids.

"Sure, socio-economic conditions are a huge factor, but even the poorest white man didn't face the open discrimination that minorities did 50 years ago, or the more subtle discrimination today."
Helloooo, I'm Jewish and 60 years ago my people were being herded into boxcars and gassed. 40 years ago my grandfather was being passed over for promotion because Jews were not acceptable in management. 20 years ago I was being chased around the neighborhood by neighborhood bullies who called me a money grubbing kyke (almost funny, since we were poor). Today, people openly refer to Jews using disparaging stereotypes and discriminate against them all over the world. Your bullshit about anyone with white skin not experiencing discrimination is crap, and the idea that a rich black kid from a good neighborhood and school should get an advantage over a Jewish kid from a comparatively disadvantaged background shows you to be both a racist and a moron.

You people have no idea - for the most part; what a disgusting bunch.

You people have no idea - for the most part; what a disgusting bunch.

Hey 47/48, you got some shit on your face.

How could having more female partners help anything? You're out of your mind. Female attorneys don't know how to behave in public. They yell, cry, bitch, and moan, but rarely do they actually say anything of substance. I've watched this for at least 40 years of practicing law. They want part-time this and part-time that. They want maternity leave. Do they think that client problems take a few months off while they have babies. Time for females to go back to doing what they do well: Fucking, sucking, and typing.

25 and 33, you both need to review your use of the word "obviously." That being said, 33, your point about legacy admits is a good one.

43, it's not about percentages.

50 = PE

PE was just overheard complaining about having to share profits with these four "cum dumpsters."

46,

Nazi Germany is a little beyond the scope. No doubt that many people faced adversity for their background, including some whites. However, look at the number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans in biglaw, politics, etc, and compare that to those of Jewish ancestry holding those positions. Considering that there are far more Hispanics and blacks than Jewish people in this country, there is clearly something keeping these groups out of the prestigious positions. Are whites discriminated against sometimes? Sure. But taken as a whole, darker skinned members of society face a thicker ceiling to break through.

54, maybe those underrepresented groups should just try harder.

"Just try harder" is incidentally the same advice that MysTTTal and his ilk give to white people who object to affirmative action. Curious that whites are the only ones capable of trying harder in an uneven playing field instead of asking for handouts.

54,

In the US at large, there are more hispanics and blacks than jews. However, in law school I remember there being many more jews than blacks and hispanics.

Maybe we should take AA a step further and force blacks and hispanics to go to law school.

look at the number of Jews and other whites in the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc and compare that to those of African American ancestry holding those positions. Considering that there are far more whites than black people in this country, there is clearly something keeping these groups out of the prestigious positions. Are blacks discriminated against sometimes? Sure. But taken as a whole, lighter skinned members of society face a thicker ceiling to break through in sports.

33's post is nonsense. It assumes that blacks, hispanics, and women are equally as capable, and therefore any deficit in achievement at top law firms or anywhere else necessarily must be due to "discrimination." I can assure you that this is simply not true. Also, the idiot that claimed that it is wrong to draw conclusions from 4/5 partners being women would surely not be singing the same tune if the situation was reversed. If "statistical evidence" can be used by liberals to prove discrimination (e.g. blacks are 12% of the population but only 1% of law partners, therefore, there must be discrimination), why can't we use statistical evidence to prove discrimination against white men?

57 = Jimmy the Greek

56, or force them to go back to Africa and Mexico.

The comments by Cohen are interesting for what they don't say - 5 new partners, 3 Corporate, 1 E&T, 1 Tax. What's missing here? Litigation.

The firm hasn't minted any new Lit partners for 2 years straight! Seems clear that it feels there wont be enough business in that practice group to support adding new partners. And despite what some might say, the Lit group at S&C isnt small, maybe 150 lawyers and 60 staff attorneys, much larger than the tax or E&T groups.

As far as the S&C "diversity program" goes - Sullivan is a diverse place, but not among the associates and partners. Tthere are plenty of minority attorneys at S&C, only they are working as temps reviewing documents in the basement. I wonder if the firm reports them to clients as "minority lawyers" - there's a world of difference between having a diverse non-lawyer staff and minority temps working in the filthy sublevels and minting new minority partners.

My IP bigtique continues to trumpet its "diversity" on the home page of its website, but the newish female partner didn't bring any much-needed book :(

The more I read these comments, the more I regret that the Europeans who settled this part of the North American continent were too lazy to pick their own damn cotton.

20, a male S&C associate who worked flex-time in order to shares child-rearing responsibilities with his wife made partner a couple years ago, so your point is somewhat mooted by that, at least with regard to S&C.

63, what's the difference? We're doing the same thing with Hispanic mestizos. We've admitted tens of millions of low IQ, unassimilable aliens into this country, and most people haven't thought about this issue beyond standard "diversity is what makes America great" crap.

It is common practice for female partners in Boston to shart on their associates.

63 - I'm sure those who were enslaved wished the same.

63 - You should regret the kidnapping and enslavement of people without having to imagine an AA candidate precluding you from getting a position that you think you deserve (but probably don't).

All others - If you were unsure about the current status of racism in this country, see 63.

67 and 68 FTW

The more I read these comments, the more I realize how many angry white men there are, especially in the legal profession.

-- White male

68, blacks as a group have been a disaster for this country for the past 50 years. Wishing that they weren't here when constantly bombarded with black crime is not unreasonable.

Seems to me that whites have done far worse for this country.

This is still a joke. First of all, which of the chickies (all of whom did get hit with an ugly stick) sleep with an equally ugly male partner who is pretty powerful (and thus the only way he gets ass)? Open secret at the firm, and this is a good way to fend off the lawsuit, publicity and big settlement that were sure to "cum" had she not made partner. Mais, c'est la vie. It's also a great way to replace expensive, older and, yes, male partners with cheaper, more pliant female ones. Do you think T&E chickie would have made it had they not gotten rid of a BSD male T&E partner some years ago? This is all a farce, and I feel bad for the really good people -- including a woman or two -- who did not make it.

The only thing that is cleais that there are two groups of people in this world. Some who understand that people should be treated based on individual merit, and ones that think that treatment based on group membership is fine (as long as it benefits politically approved groups).

I've been reading these kinds of comments for decades, since I first popped the question to Mayor Koch if affirmative action was reverse discrimination when he visited YU in the late 70's to address the students, through today.

By now, we should be having cradle to grave affirmative discrimination.

70 - Two questions:

1. Do you wear the white hood to the office?

2. When was your last cross-burning excursion?

74, you're a moron. Do you deny that blacks commit a very disproportionate share of the violent crime in this country? Do you deny that blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites and Asians, on average? Do you deny that blacks are overrepresented in welfare use, illegitimacy, and a host of other social ills?

70/75 = KKK member and first class moron/racist

-- 74

I think what remains true here is that if clients demand more of a certain demographic, law firms are going to respond. Legacy hiring has been doing this for years. See, e.g., The Kennedys.

I find it interesting no one batted an eye at the U of Chicago law school scandal, and in that case there was concrete proof of the candidate's inadequacies. However, the minute ATL posts a story on minority (race or gender) success in BigLaw , AA is immediately the culprit.

At the end of the day, even if AA is the cause for someone's hire, minorities make up 20% of a firms population at best. If you are a white male and didn't get admitted, didn't get the job or didn't get promoted, you need to address the fact that you weren't competitive with 80+% of the applicant pool.

Uh 70/75, Hannity called. He wants his shtick back.

76 and 78 of course did not respond to my legitimate, undeniable arguments. That is what the left is all about. Insults and shouting down the opposition.

63, the Europeans who settled this country were couldn't have picked their own cotton; they were too dumb to grow it. They were, however, very good at bullying people. Much like the guy who used to stuff you in lockers in high school.

58--

I can only assume that the "idiot" comment was directed at me. Your word choice is rather ironic, given that anyone with a correspondence-level understanding of mathematics would not have posted such a patently ludicrous comment.

Your argument is that four females out of five partners, in a single year at a single firm, obviously shows reverse discrimination. That's like saying that if I flip a coin five times and it comes up four tails, the coin is obviously biased. A small sample size cannot yield reliable conclusions. By contrast, large sample sizes do yield reliable conclusions--if I flip a coin 100 times, and it comes up 80 tails, that's pretty good grounds for presuming that it's biased. This is known as the "law of large numbers"--not that I would expect you to know that, as I presume you're a legacy FTT hack who majored in political science.

I would suggest that, after you return from your cross-burning meeting, you look up the partnership statistics at S&C for the past decade (still a relatively small sample size, but at least more representative). Tell me then if there's obviously a reverse-promotion bias.

70/75/79 -- Your "send them back to Africa" point of view is hardly "legitimate, undeniable" argument, it's just ignorant racism. Crawl back under the rock that you reside under, after you call your parents and tell them that having you was a criminal waste of baby batter. And don't paint me with the "left" brush, asshole, I didn't vote for Obama and am not a Democrat or member of any other left-leaning party. I'm a free thinking moderate who is just appalled by racism of the kind that fuckheads like you spew.

-- 74/76

79, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.

To give you a hint, you are terribly misinformed. Do some research (statistics, census reports, etc . . .) and then come back and try again.

For now, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

82, no one has suggested that blacks be sent back to Africa. You don't get to set up a strawman just so that you can tear it down.

83, why don't you respond to my statistics instead of just saying that I am misinformed? I will ask again:

Do you deny that blacks commit a very disproportionate share of the violent crime in this country? Do you deny that blacks, on average, are less intelligent than whites and Asians, on average? Do you deny that blacks are overrepresented in welfare use, illegitimacy, and a host of other social ills?

75 has clearly never taken any type of class ... on anything.

22 - you are in fact an idiot. also L2L was the first and only real "profile", around here

84, in a word: Yes.

Again, do some research and then come back and try again.

-83

What a puff piece.

84,

Do you deny that the poor commit a very disproportionate share of the violent crime in this country? Do you deny that the poor, on average, are less intelligent than whites and Asians, on average? Do you deny that the poor are overrepresented in welfare use, illegitimacy, and a host of other social ills?

Further, do you deny that police enforcement of crimes is levied more heavily on minorities? Do you deny that conviction rates are much higher against minority defendants?

84, your statement re African Americans, "Wishing that they weren't here," clearly shows your point of view, as described in my post at 82.

Your brain-dead existence is not worth any further attention on my part. So goodbye asshole.

87, which specific claim do you deny?

89, I deny that police target blacks because they're black. They target them because they are committing most of the violent crime. And conviction rates are higher because they're more likely to be guilty.

92, you're dead right! Either they just committed a crime, or they're getting ready to commit one. Either way, lock their sorry asses up and throw away the key.

67/8/9,
If 63 is the state of racism today, that's not too bad. Written anonymously and cowardly. In fact, there's a chance it was written by 67 (black person) in order to bolster his argument.

The women who made partners at S&C this year deserved it and are definitely superstars of the firm. Yes, some of these women have taken maternity leave. At least one male partner promoted last year took advantage of paternity leave and flex time policies.

White males are hired and promoted solely because of merit. Solely because of hard work and personal skill. Always. You people should never question that hard fact. The mere fact that AA exists serves to prove that all white makes obtain success only by the sweat of their brow and that minorities and women are only here because we pity them. Case closed.

On the other hand, any woman or minority who achieves success is solely an incompetent AA case until proven otherwise. The second someone with a vagina or darker colored skin walks through that door, you just KNOW they don't deserve to be there. The best options are to 1) ignore them, 2) belittle them, 4) act condescendingly towards them, or 4) express your true thoughts anonymously on a law blog and get out all of the pent up frustration hold in during the work day when you smile and waive hello...like a true man.

True story.

The first person to point out the double use of the number 4 in 96 gets a prize for biggest bad ass on ATL.

PLEASE DO IT!

- 96

Extra points for the "hold" instead of "held"!

PLEASE DO IT!

- 96

65/70/75--Maybe pick up a book, perhaps Gould's Mismeasure of Man. Just sound out the big words. Just sound them out....

99--Maybe pick up a book, perhaps Herrnstein and Murray's Bell Curve. The fact that you are so enraged by any crime think as to pathetically belittle those who don't agree with the you exposes your simple mind.

100, also notice that the junk work of Stephen Jay Gould is the only evidence they have against the mountain of evidence showing blacks are less intelligent.

100/101--To suggest Gould's work is "junk work" is ridiculous. While any important work, including Gould's, will have critics, probably not one among Gould's critics would describe his work as "junk." Why, exactly, do you think Gould's work is junk? Because you heard a pundit on Fox news say so? Your failure to articulate anything other than an unsupported conclusion suggests why you have such affinity for The Bell Curve, which, despite posturing as original scientific research was released without peer review and subsequently, after all the media hype, was largely panned by natural and social scientists after they had an opportunity to review the work. Since then, The Bell Curve has been largely regarded as "junk," or worse, intentional misrepresentation of analytic data by a wide range of scholars. The unspecified mountain "evidence" you claim supports racial differences largely ignores Gould's criticism and the fundamental failure of causation analytics. The scholarship on causation analytics subsequent to The Bell Curve largely supports the basic principles argued by Gould. To describe his work as junk is evidence of your own scientific illiteracy.