Judging from tips we receive and comments we read when we post about affirmative action, it seems that a whole lot of white guys in Biglaw feel disenfranchised by all this "diversity" talk. They complain when law firms have special scholarships for minorities, "diversity networking forums" for various groups, and, worst of all, cocktail parties for the gays.

If you're an angry white male lawyer, and if you work in Chicago, you might want to attend this event:

White Men and Diversity: A Candid Dialogue

Tuesday, May 20, 2008
12:00 - 1:30 p.m.
The Offices of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Chicago, Illinois

The Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity, in conjunction with the Chicago Committee on Minorities in Large Law Firms, will host a panel discussion entitled, White Men and Diversity: A Candid Dialogue on Tuesday, May 20 from 12:00 - 1:30 p.m.

This interactive panel discussion featuring William Von Hoene, Jr. (Executive VP, General Counsel, Exelon Corporation), Robert Yates (Editor, Chicago Lawyer) and Lawrence Gray (Partner, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell) and moderated by Dr. Arin N. Reeves will begin a candid dialogue on white men’s perspectives on diversity efforts, the ways in which they feel included in and excluded by diversity initiatives in the legal profession, and insights on ways in which white men can become and stay engaged in creating a more diverse legal profession.

The emphasis on "candid" dialogue is intriguing. Does Katten expect its white males to show up and spout politically incorrect statements? White Males of Katten: don't take the bait! They're waiting to escort you from the building the moment you question why women and minority lawyers always get staffed on matters for certain clients. (Answer: It's because the clients demand it, which explains pretty much everything in Biglaw.)

In all seriousness, White Males of Katten, we'd counsel against an excess of "candor" at said event. Complaining bitterly about how diversity initiatives are screwing you over won't put you on the fast track to partnership. Just work hard and keep your mouth shut. Or get a sex change AND claim lesbian status (which would double your diversity value, while still allowing you to get with women).

As for the panel's exploration of "ways in which white men can help create a more diverse legal profession," here's one answer: THEY CAN LEAVE.

P.S. We expected this event to be open to the public, since it is up on the web, co-sponsored by the Chicago Committee on Minorities in Large Law Firms, and featuring non-Katten panelists. But we contacted Katten and learned that, sadly, it's not. If you work at another firm, dialogue candidly on your own time.

UPDATE / CORRECTION: As it turns out, this event IS free and open to the public. We received this correction, from a Katten representative:

The White Men & Diversity event about which you inquired is a Chicago Committee on Minorities in Large Law Firms event that is being hosted by Katten. The event is open to the public, and there is no charge for the event. Please let me know if you have further questions about this event. Thank you.

White Men and Diversity: A Candid Dialogue [Katten -- Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity]

The tipsters at Kirkland & Ellis who have complained about the gay cocktail party and the diversity networking forums would welcome this news, which comes from our home state. Reports Charles Toutant in the New Jersey Law Journal (subscription):

Seton Hall University School of Law has suspended its "Partners in Excellence" minority scholarship program while it considers whether it can make the selection process race-neutral, as federal regulators demand that it be.

The school has also entered an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to ensure that an annual job fair, run by local law firms but promoted by the school, is not restricted to minority students.

The actions are the result of a departmental investigation in response to a 2003 complaint that the minority programs are discriminatory. The grievant, David Wilson, a white Brooklyn Law School graduate looking for a job, came across promotions of the job fair and scholarship program online. He reported to the Department of Education that the job fair was exclusively for minority students and that the law school's Partners in Excellence program preferred minority students.

More details about the programs appear in the full article (subscription). The tipster who sent this our way predicts: "[T]his will undoubtedly be a comments clusterf**k. Let the closet racists be heard!"

What do you think of minority-only scholarships and job fairs within the legal profession? Sound off in the comments, or take our poll, which appears below.

We could break this down into a series of more targeted questions -- e.g., scholarships vs. job fairs? which minorities deserve preferential treatment? -- but we're not Gallup. So here's a rather broad question, designed to take the temperature of the ATL readership on a very general level.

Under Federal Scrutiny, Seton Hall Puts Minority Scholarships on Hold [New Jersey Law Journal]

We bring you two interesting updates on our friends at Kirkland & Ellis -- one important, and one silly.

Let's start with the trivial, and work our way up. First, from a tipster:

The balkanization of Kirkland & Ellis continues. Why should an "informal, visible network for attorneys to exchange ideas, provide support, and develop relationships" be based on race and/or sexual orientation? What's next, separate cafeterias and drinking fountains?

A recent email from The Kirkland & Ellis LLP Diversity Committee reads:

Kirkland & Ellis Diversity Networking Forums (Chicago Office)

On behalf of the Diversity Committee, I am proud to announce a new addition to our diversity programming, Diversity Networking Forums. The main purpose of the Diversity Networking Forums is to provide an informal, visible network for attorneys to exchange ideas, provide support, and develop relationships. There will be four Diversity Networking Forums:

Asian Diversity Networking Forum
Black Diversity Networking Forum
Hispanic/Latino Diversity Networking Forum
GLBT Diversity Networking Forum

The Diversity Networking Forums are open to all Chicago Kirkland attorneys. If you are interested in becoming a part of any of these forums, please email Attorney Training and Development at [xxxx] by February 8 and indicate which forums you would like to join.

Note that the forums are "open to all." We wonder if that language was added to avoid a psuedo-controversy like the one over K&E's big gay party. We also wonder why you'd join one of these networking forums if you weren't a member of the group in question. But see "fag hags" signing up for the LGBT group.

Okay, on to the second update. Perhaps in an effort to avoid an Aaron Charney debacle -- or, on a smaller scale, a Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy or a Morisseau v. DLA Piper -- K&E has enacted a mandatory employment arbitration policy, applicable to all associates. From a tipster:

Kirkland just sent a memo to all of its associates, which they had to sign, reminding them that they were at will employees, and telling them they had to agree to arbitrate any employment dispute. Apparently a response to Charney-gate.

If you're interested -- perhaps you're a labor and employment lawyer, or a Biglaw partner looking to foist such a policy on the associates at your own firm -- check out the memo, after the jump.

If you're looking for confirmation of the Clifford Chance bonus announcement we posted yesterday, check out this short article from Legal Week.

In other CC news, the firm is making overtures to LGBT lawyers, in the wake of its own Brokeback Lawfirm scandal. From TheLawyer.com:

Clifford Chance is setting up a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) network just months after settling a sexual orientation discrimination claim from former competition partner Michael Bryceland....

Clifford Chance tax partner Stephen Shea, who has been active in setting up the LGBT group, said the firm established the network to further foster diversity, but also to respond to client demand. As reported by The Lawyer (21 May), JPMorgan now asks prospective panel firms for diversity statistics and companies such as Transport for London are following suit.

This is par for the course -- and in the U.S., too. If you want law firms to focus more on diversity, or if you think they focus too much on it already, you need to look to their clients. Much of Biglaw's current emphasis on diversity is being driven by clients: Fortune 500 companies that want to be able to say they have diverse teams of lawyers handling their legal matters.

Clifford Chance Joins the N.Y. Bonus Wars [Legal Week]
Clifford Chance set to launch gay network [TheLawyer.com]

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Clifford Chance Matches (For the Survivors)

She probably wouldn't be very happy with her law firm. From the Minority Law Journal:

[N]owadays most associates don't plan on spending their entire legal career at one law firm. But some associates are more likely to head for the exits than others. Nearly half of all white male midlevel associates say that they expect to be working at their current firm in five years, according to our Minority Experience Study. Just over 40 percent of minority male midlevels said the same. Of the minority female midlevels, though, fewer than a third planned to stay put.

Minority women seem to have more reason to want to leave big firms, according to our findings. [The study] showed women of color experiencing less satisfaction and more obstacles at large firms than their peers, including men of color.

You can read the full article -- replete with numerous quotes from "diversity advisers, "diversity consultants" and "diversity officers" -- over here.

P.S. Yes, the Wanda Sykes reference is pretty random. We just think that she is hilarious, and we try to mention her at every opportunity. We also think she bears an uncanny resemblance to one of our favorite jurists, Judge Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Cir.; see photo at right).

P.P.S. And have you seen -- or rather, heard -- Wanda Sykes in the new Applebee's ads? The restaurant chain has hired her to serve as the voice for their new "spokesapple." Genius.

Why Are Minority Female Associates Leaving Law Firms? [Minority Law Journal]

It's a term of art. We define a "comment clusterf**k as a post that generates over 100 reader comments (typically of a vicious and nasty nature -- but that could be said of many, if not most, comments on ATL). We enjoy a good "CC," and we haven't had one here since Friday.

Hence this post. There's no more surefire way to generate one than writing about affirmative action, a topic that tends to send y'all into a tizzy. From Fox News (gavel bang: commenter):

Does affirmative action work? An explosive study that suggests it does not is pitting the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights against the State Bar of California in a battle over admissions data that could determine once and for all if racial preferences help or hurt minority students.

"Currently only about one in three African-Americans who goes to an American law school passes the bar on the first attempt and a majority never become lawyers at all," says UCLA law professor Richard Sander.

In an article published in the Stanford Law Review, Sander and his research team concluded several thousand would-be black lawyers either dropped out of law school or failed to pass the bar because of affirmative action.

Wow -- those are shocking statistics. What's the explanation?

Read more, after the jump.

Andrew Bruck takes a question at Wednesday's press conference.

Every now and then, we leave our apartment. We did so on Wednesday, to attend the press conference of Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession, where the organization unveiled its law firm diversity rankings (accessible here; Los Angles Times article here).

It was quite informative. For those of you who might be interested -- and we're guessing there are a number of you, judging from the robust commentary on our earlier post -- read more, after the jump.

We know how you all love to argue about affirmative action. It's a hot-button topic here at ATL.

So here's a proposal worth considering, from Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw (via Paul Caron):

If right-wingers are underrepresented in universities relative to the population and discriminated against by the left-wing majority, as [former Harvard president] Larry [Summers] suggests, should there be affirmative action for right-leaning academics?

It seems that, on principle, those on the left (who favor affirmative action to promote diversity and correct past injustice) should endorse such a university policy, and those on the right (who more often oppose affirmative action) would be against.

One could argue that a conservative law professor -- especially a hard-core social conservative, not a law-and-economics or libertarian type -- contributes as much to law school diversity (and discourse) as an African-American or female law professor from a socioeconomically privileged background, who went to an elite college and an elite law school, and has the standard liberal views of most legal academics.

Thoughts?

Mankiw: Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors? [TaxProf Blog]
Is academia serious about diversity? [Greg Mankiw]
The Liberal (and Moderating) Professoriate [Inside Higher Ed]

Are you concerned about diversity (or the lack thereof) at America's top law firms? Have you been wishing for a handy resource that would rank the Biglaw shops by their performance on diversity metrics, as well as other measures, such as billable hours and pro bono work?

Well, you're in luck. Later today, Building a Better Legal Profession will be issuing just such a report. Here's a blurb for their upcoming press conference:

Over one-third of all large law firms in Manhattan don't have a single African-American partner. Nearly half of all large law firms in Washington, D.C. don't have a single Hispanic partner. One firm doesn't have a single LGBT partner or associate in either office. On October 10, find out who.

Building a Better Legal Profession, a national grassroots coalition of law students, will release its first report on the status of the legal profession. The groundbreaking study compares the largest law firms in each of the top six legal markets (New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Northern California, and Southern California) by various metrics. The report ranks firms by billable hours, pro bono participation, and demographic diversity (percentages of partners and associates who are female, African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, and LGBT).

On hand at the press conference will be statements of support from Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, and Prof. Deborah Rhode, former chair of the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession. Media: Please contact Andrew Bruck or Prof. Michele Landis Dauber for more information and sample rankings.

To get a sense of the rankings, click here (PDF), for a report card showing how D.C.'s top law firms stack up on diversity, or here (PDF), for the New York law firm diversity rankings.

The leading firm for diversity in Washington (with an overall grade of B+; almost all the firms earn C's or worse): Nixon Peabody! Remember, they hired lots of minorities to sing their theme song (mp3).

For those of you here in D.C., consider attending today's press conference (we'll be there):

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 -- 12:30 p.m.
National Press Club
13th floor, Zenger Room
529 14th St. NW
Washington, DC

Very exciting. Congratulations and thanks to Building a Better Legal Profession!

Law Students Building A Better Legal Profession [official website]
Diversity Report Card: D.C. [PDF]
Report on Big Law Firms [National Press Club]

As we mentioned before, we regularly receive all sorts of apocryphal rumors related to the fall recruiting process.

The gossip can be salacious and fun to read -- even if turns out to be untrue. Like this rumor, which we heard from a University of Virginia law student quite some time ago:

Skadden has not interviewed here on grounds yet.... [Ed. note: We believe that they have by now.]

There are some rumors going around the school that a handful of my classmates, all of whom are minorities, have already received offers from Skadden. Obviously, any rumor must be taken with a grain of salt, but the word here is that offers were made very early to minority candidates in an effort to attract more minorities. I know of at least two with offers and both are African-American. Neither worked for Skadden last summer, which is the red flag in my eyes....

As I said, I'm not too familiar with the NALP rules, but others have indicated to me that those early offers are not proper given the NALP rules and regulations. I personally could not care -- I'm not interested in Skadden or the markets in which Skadden is interviewing for at UVa -- but I read the site regularly and wanted to pass along the information.

Sadly, it appears that this gossip -- while juicy and potentially controversial -- is not true.

The explanation appears after the jump.

From the opinion of Chief Justice John "Sordid Business" Roberts:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

From Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent:

"John, John, John, you don't even -- you're glib. You don't even know what Brown v. Board of Education is. If you start talking about school integration, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how schoolchildren are affected by racial segregation. That's what I've done. Then you go and you say that no member of the Court at the time of Brown would have agreed with today's decision."

Enough quoting from the opinions. How should we react to this ruling?

1. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!

2. Brown v. Board has been eviscerated!

3. American schoolchildren will soon be getting after-school milkshakes at lunch counters with Robert Bork!

(Note to diner owners: Keep those floors dry -- or at least have a warning sign up while you're mopping. If Judge Bork slips and falls, he WILL sue your ass.)

Court strikes down school integration plans [SCOTUSblog]
Schools Must Ignore Race in Placing Pupils, Justices Say [Associated Press]

* If you’re not spreading your music like herpes, then you’re just paying an extra 30 cents for the same product you’ve always been buying; as a side note, doesn’t Damon Alburn look dreamy these days? [New York Times]

* The SEC wants to be more like a friend than a parent, but watch out if you try to sneak out of the house after curfew on a school night. [FT.com via MSN]

* She may fight it until she regains her dignity writes another best seller, but chances are that I’ll get my groove back before she does. [New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer]

* Remember how Andrea from Beverly Hills, 90210 used her grandma’s address, and Vivian Abromowitz lived in the Slums of Beverly Hills to attend the prestigious public high school? Well, this is different. [Los Angeles Times]

Sadly, we missed this event because we were still out of town. But yesterday morning, here in Washington, DC, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an incendiary debate a panel discussion entitled "Are Law Firms Breaking the Law? Racial and Gender Preferences in Attorney Hiring and Promotion."

Accounts of the event are available from The BLT and the WSJ Law Blog. Here's a squib from Rob Rogers's BLT write-up:

Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice argued that law firms typically have "no viable defense" for discrimination against non-minority attorneys. Richard Sander of UCLA School of Law, whose research previously has been discussed in Legal Times' commentary articles (including here), analyzed the hardships that racial preferences can impose on their beneficiaries.

On the other side, Shirley Wilcher, president of Wilcher Global, argued that law firms have a history of discrimination to overcome and some partners still assume that minority associates aren't as qualified. Michele Roberts [at right], a partner at Akin Gump, questioned whether law-school grades (a key element in Sander's analysis) were that significant to legal success and pointed out that becoming a partner depends on other factors. (She also said that Akin Gump's minority associates do not have substantially lower grades.)

We also had a source in the audience. Our tipster's thoughts -- reader discretion advised, no punches are pulled -- appear after the jump.

* A flight attendant was suspended for merely taking a bathroom break. Of course, this “break” involved Ralph Fiennes’s penis. Wrongful termination or not, it would have been worth it. [The Daily Telegraph]

* Was this a way out of CLE requirements? [San Francisco Chronicle]

* Too many lawyers, not enough nuts, fruits or flakes. [Professor Bainbridge; Point of Law]

* How many times have you wondered what a producer actually does? And how many times since last year’s Oscars have you wondered why Crash won best picture? (Once for me, but the moment was intense and fraught with anger.) [Madisonian]

* His world may have collapsed, but his lung won’t. [MSN]

* They probably weren’t staying together for the kids. [Judicial Reports (third item)]

* Some African-American college students are, in fact, just African. Another way to summarize this “finding” is that “Not All [insert color here] People Are the Same” (or, as many a clever columnist would no doubt call it, the “Barack Theory”). [Althouse]

* I’m not sure what constitutes innovation in law practice management, but I wouldn’t nominate Sullivan & Cromwell. [Adam Smith, Esq]

* No need for a state-funded “Inner Change Program." After they get stabbed by a pick fashioned out of a bed spring and gang-raped in the shower, inmates usually turn to God of their own will. [ACSBlog]

* Be careful when deciding what to call your party on Sunday night. [Overlawyered]

* AG Gonzales: Federal judges are unqualified to make national security decisions. [MSNBC]

* AG Gonzales: Federal judges should be making national security decisions. [MSNBC; Washington Post]

* Affirmative action takes center stage at Boalt. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Dahlia asks, "Have the Supreme Court's opinions become suggestions in Texas?" [Slate]

* Linda discusses the Texas death penalty cases as well. [New York Times]

* Former Cendant Chairman Walter Forbes get sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison, on accounting fraud charges. The prosecution was handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey; Forbes was represented by Williams & Connolly. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Picking a jury for the Scooter Libby trial in D.C., the biggest small town in America: it ain't easy. [Washington Post]

* Affirmative action not gone quite yet for Michigan schools. [AP via How Appealing]

* Convicted debutante killers not so happy at sentencing. [CNN]

* Nebraska corporate farming ban violates dormant commerce clause; Nebraska will appeal to the Supreme Court. [Jurist]

* Dracula Jr.'s a lawyer. [WSJ Law Blog]

* 13 States and DC sue EPA to get them to, you know, protect the environment. [MSNBC]

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases concerning the use of race as a factor in assigning students to public schools: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1, out of the Ninth Circuit, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, out of the Sixth Circuit.

It appears that SCOTUS virgin Teddy Gordon, representing the petitioners in Meredith, did just as badly as many members of the snooty SCOTUS bar expected. For a blow-by-blow account of his ill-fated argument, see this reader comment.

Our commentary on the arguments, plus links to audio-casts and written transcripts, after the jump.

In response to this post -- about the low partnership rate for minority lawyers at large law firms, the subject of a recent New York Times piece -- an ATL commenter wrote:

[UCLA law professor Richard] Sander relies too heavily upon grades as predictors of law firm performance. All of us know scores of brilliant law students who turn out to be terrible lawyers -- because they lack social skills, common sense, etc. These people go on to become law professors.

If you'd like to read an entire article devoted to this rather banal proposition -- namely, that partnership decisions aren't based on how well a lawyer did back in law school -- click here.*

So Jonathan Glater's Week in Review piece may not be terribly interesting or amusing. But check out some of the reader comments on Adam Liptak's original article; a few are real winners. Like this one:

I am sixty years old, and have gone to Law School with Blacks and think the proiblem is simple.

Blacks have lower standards for being accepted at law schools.... Then, while in Law School, my impression was that less was expected oif [sic] Black students while in Law School. Finally, when they are recruited, they are recruited to fill a quota or some diversity goal at the firm or company.

Blacks for a variety of reasons have not had the cultural background to develop as fully as they one day will....

Those Blacks -- with whom we are quite familiar, since we went to Law School with them -- just don't have the "cultural background" to succeed in Biglaw. Clients and judges have such a hard time understanding Ebonics....**

* Yes, we're being a bit glib. There's an issue of causation versus correlation here. Obviously partners aren't picked because they did well back in law school (which is the straw man that Glater's piece knocks down).

But law school performance may correlate with certain skills that ARE the basis for partnership decisions. Professor Sander cites research showing a correlation between law school grades and how long lawyers remain at a firm. This in turn correlates with how many lawyers make partner, given the usual "up or out" system at most big firms. (But ATL is not the ideal forum for getting down into the academic weeds on this subject, so we will stop here.)

** We are NOT saying that anyone who subscribes to Professor Sander's theory -- which is supported by a wealth of research and data -- is "racist." We just think this particular commenter expressed himself rather inelegantly, that's all.

Straight ‘A’ Student? Good Luck Making Partner [New York Times]
Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms [New York Times]

Earlier: How Long Will It Take...

for this thought-provoking article -- "Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms," by Adam Liptak, one of our favorite legal affairs writers -- to hit the New York Times "Most E-mailed Articles" list?

(Our prediction: By the close of business tomorrow, November 29, it will be in the top 10.)

Update: It happened even faster than we expected. The article cracked the top 10 by 9:35 AM.

We may blog about it more later. At the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, we attended a spirited panel discussion on law firm hiring practices and diversity, featuring Professor Richard Sander (at right). So minority lawyers and the world of Biglaw is a subject that's been on our mind lately.

In the meantime, feel free to opine in the comments.

Lawyers Debate Why Blacks Lag at Major Firms [New York Times]