The first step for any organization that is sincere about its commitment in this realm is to gather as much information as possible about best practices for achieving diversity and inclusion objectives. There are many ways to gain knowledge sufficient to craft a substantive and effective approach. For example, some law firms and corporate legal departments hire diversity management consultants to perform needs assessments, provide guidance on important structural issues like creating a diversity committee, and give direct training to attorneys and staff. Another approach is to take advantage of well-developed educational programming, such as the Creating Pathways to Diversity Conference which the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA)—an organization whose stated mission is to advocate for the expanded hiring, retention, and promotion of minority attorneys in corporate law departments and the law firms that serve them—sponsors annually.

The ABA And State Bar Associations Set A Good Example

In addition to the typical array of services bar associations provide to their members, these organizations not only can validate the importance of the legal profession’s involvement in the diversity issue but also can educate their members and the legal community at large about the latest developments in this area. At the national level, a wonderful example was set by the American Bar Association (ABA) in 1986 when it adopted Goal IX as a part of its mission statement: “to promote the full and equal participation in the legal profession by minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and persons of differing sexual orientation and gender identity.” The ABA’s mission statement was amended at the 2008 Annual Meeting so that Goal IX, now Goal III, reads, “[e]liminate bias and enhance diversity.“

State and local bar associations have emulated the ABA’s embrace of diversity. One of the earliest efforts to foster greater diversity emerged from the Philadelphia Bar Association when, in 1993, it adopted a Statement of Goals of Philadelphia Law Firms and Corporate Legal Departments for Increasing Minority Representation and Retention. This Statement was a call for firms and in-house counsel to take specific steps to improve their record on hiring, retaining and advancing minority attorneys within their ranks.

In recent years, the Pennsylvania Bar Association, under the auspices of its Minority Bar Committee, developed a new program, which has both broadened the scope of the conversation about diversity and inclusion within the state and enhanced the quality of the discourse. During a meeting of the Minority Bar Committee in the spring of 2006, Prince Thomas, Special Counsel at Fox Rothschild LLP, first proposed the creation of a Diversity Summit, a forum which he envisioned would serve multiple purposes. First, it would allow organizations from different parts of the state, which had in place or were in the process of instituting diversity initiatives, to share information in a public forum about their experiences, successes and challenges. Another was to foster dialogue and mutual support among these organizations in furtherance of their common goal. Third was to produce a “report card”—essentially a progress report—on diversity efforts within the Commonwealth’s legal community, which could be updated on an annual basis and used between Summits as a blueprint for ongoing discussion of best practices and methodologies for promoting diversity and inclusion.

The Minority Bar Committee embraced Mr. Thomas’ vision and moved quickly to convene a Diversity Summit Planning Committee charged with converting the vision into reality. Samuel T. Cooper, III, partner at Dilworth, Paxson & Kalish LLP, agreed to serve as the Chairperson. Other members of the Minority Bar Committee volunteered to assist with this effort. In fact, the Diversity Summit Planning Committee itself was a testament to the value of diversity since it was made up of individuals from different parts of the Commonwealth who practice law in firms large and small, state and local government agencies, public interest organizations, and as solo practitioners. The agenda spoke to the unique set of circumstances lawyers across the state encounter on a daily basis due to, among other things, geographic location, local customs and traditions, and changing demographics of the counties in which they practice.

Diversity Efforts Coalesced In The Creation Of The Diversity Summit

The Planning Committee decided that the Summit would unfold as a series of panel discussions over the course of one day. They selected as a theme “Overview of Diversity in the Legal Profession: Making It Real in Pennsylvania.” The group invited key leaders from across the state to serve as speakers on panels representing five sectors of the legal community: State and Local Bar Associations; Minority Bar Associations and Committees; the Judicial, Legislative and Executive Branches of Pennsylvania Government; Educational Pipeline Programs; and Law Firms and Corporate Counsel.

The inaugural Diversity Summit took place in Philadelphia on November 29, 2006. More than 200 lawyers and judges attended. A networking reception that followed the panel discussions allowed attendees to share personal reactions to the Summit, debate some of the issues raised, meet some of the speakers, exchange contact information and otherwise get to know one another.

The second Diversity Summit, which was held in Philadelphia on October 23, 2007, built upon lessons learned from the first. Its theme was “Pathways to Legal Careers: Best Practices for Hiring and Retaining a Diverse Legal Workforce.” The format, slightly revised to ensure that the voices of all sectors of the legal community were expressed, included panels on Public Interest and Legal Services. Coincidentally, that year Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network (PLAN), an organization which funds and supports the Commonwealth’s legal aid programs, was celebrating the 15th anniversary of its Martin Luther King, Jr. Summer Internship Program, a pipeline diversity endeavor. The Summit Planning Committee and PLAN’s leadership decided to join forces and incorporate elements of this celebration into the lunchtime segment of the Summit agenda. By mutual agreement, the featured speaker for the luncheon was Juan Williams, renowned journalist from National Public Radio and author of Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965. Mr. Williams not only shared a wealth of knowledge about current affairs but also provided an important historical perspective on diversity from the vantage point of the Civil Rights Movement.

The 2007 Summit’s afternoon sessions basically mirrored those from the previous year. In response to demands for more audience participation, the final panel of the day was made up of individuals who had earlier served as moderators. They fielded audience questions and answered them on the spot, or cited potential resources, which might be of assistance. This allowed for a candid, free-flowing conversation.

The Third Annual Diversity Summit once again was convened in Philadelphia on October 2, 2008. “Diversity and Inclusion: What Works?” was the chosen theme, emphasizing tried and true methods for promoting diversity and inclusion. Essentially, the same topical panels formed the core of the program although for the first time, the afternoon panel about law firms directed attention to diversity and inclusion issues which solo, small, and mid-size firms typically confront. In addition, audience members had more time to ask questions. To further one of the Summit’s major goals, five law students from Pennsylvania schools were invited to serve as scribes; their job was to capture the essence of the panel presentations by taking notes throughout the day and converting them into brief reports for submission to the Planning Committee. This was the first step toward developing a progress report on statewide diversity efforts. The students also were asked to share their personal reactions to the Summit so that the Planning Committee could gain a better understanding of the next generation’s viewpoint.

The Conversation Continues

By all accounts, the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Diversity Summits have enhanced statewide interest in and dialogue about diversity and inclusion within the legal community. As a result, local bar associations that are just beginning to develop diversity initiatives are communicating with and emulating the methods of those with successful programs already in place. Furthermore, ever mindful of the fundamental tenet that top-down commitment to embracing diversity and inclusion is critical to the success of any organization’s diversity effort, the Planning Committee is most grateful that all of the individuals who served as president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association over the past three years—Kenneth J. Horoho, Andrew F. Susko and C. Dale McClain—actively demonstrated their support for the Summit by their presence and by making substantive welcoming remarks.

Even though each Summit focused for the most part on activities occurring across the state, each keynoter shared information about current developments in the field of diversity from a national vantage point. In 2006, the business case for diversity was explored by Doug Gaston, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Comcast Cable. In 2007, Lydia Hernandez-Velez, then Community Relations Executive and Senior Vice President at Wachovia, provided an insider’s view of policies and practices adopted by Wachovia in furtherance of its diversity objectives. Luke Visconti, co-founder of DiversityInc magazine, opened the 2008 summit with comments about diversity’s cross-industry, global application and explained its connection to other important public policy issues.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Minority Bar Committee believes that the annual Diversity Summit has expanded the breadth, scope and depth of conversation about diversity and inclusion across the state and looks forward to sponsoring this event for years to come.

Post from: The Complete Lawyer

No related posts.

In his latest bestseller Outliers: The Story of Success (Little, Brown and Company, 2008), Malcolm Gladwell leans on the Biblical verse, “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath” (Matthew 25:29). Malcolm calls this the “Matthew Effect.”

During these difficult economic times, law firms need to wrap their minds around this concept if they are to retain quality associates who want to become successful partners. Unfortunately, firms do not seem to have a clue.

Mentoring Is An Essential Function

One of the most significant reasons why associates leave firms is lack of mentoring. This is especially true of women and minority associates. By failing to provide mentoring, law firms fail to fulfill one of the quintessential purposes of their existence. Besides providing quality service to their clients, law firms exist to educate and train or mentor their junior and senior associates and junior partners; and to be of service to the community: only after fulfilling these functions should they worry about their net profits per partner. Yet today, we read and hear about law firms cutting costs to save their profits. Associate development, diversity and other non-revenue generating activities are being shredded for the sake of greed.

Economic Downturns Are Times For Reevaluation

Given these unprecedented economic conditions, law firms cannot put mentoring, diversity and inclusion on the back burner. If law firms were ever serious about retention, now is the time to prove it. Instead of hoarding billables for themselves, partners with time on their hands should use this period to boost their individual mentoring skills and help develop different associates who may be the future client base of tomorrow. There really is no substitute for intergenerational legacy transference. Nurturing and honing the skills of new and young associates is the best investment a law firm can make in tough financial times.

Smart law firms know the economic stimulus being rolled out will assure that women and minorities are not left out of this bailout bonanza. During the failed S&L debacle of the 1990’s, explicit provision was made so that a broad cross section of the legal profession could get a piece of the action. Given the disposition of President Obama and Congress, I don’t doubt that law firms will find that it makes good business sense to invest in the training and development of women and minorities.

Law firms that are still in the process of becoming more diverse and inclusive (this includes almost all of them) need to bring women and minority lateral partners on board at this time so that they can attract women and minority associates in the future. Diverse associates don’t stay because there are no diverse partners with any clout, or significant business at these law firms. Women associates leave because they see few if any women partners who reflect a “balance of life” success story. Instead, they see variations of the theme—the male model with lipstick. What they need to see is a sea change in attitude about part-time partnership opportunities. Cultural change has to occur at those law firms that wish to retain talent, and this cultural change has to be preceded by a discussion of managing differences in the workplace, discussions which are simply just not happening at most of these firms.

This is the best of times for mentoring. It’s also a great time for law firms to rethink billable hours and its implications, especially as these concepts impact minorities. The less work there is to divide up, the greater the chance that unconscious bias rather than merit is the determining factor. I’m not suggesting that we discard the entire notion of the billable hour, rather that we assess it for its fairness in the workplace and institute changes accordingly.

This is the worst of times to be concerned about increasing profits, when most people and businesses can’t even stay afloat. Corporate greed caused the present predicament and law firm greed will cause many law firms to fold or merge. Beware, however, of mergers; they can be contagious and/or costly.

No doubt law firms will survive, but the question is whether they will be successful at retaining talented professionals who aspire to become members of their peer group, or whether the attempt to curb attrition and maintain retention will fall by the wayside. This is not a question of money; it’s a question of integrity and commitment to a profession, which by definition is not merely a trade association.

Post from: The Complete Lawyer

No related posts.

I had the unique opportunity to work directly with the managing partner and members of the management committee on a regular if not daily basis to forge the firm’s diversity mission. This degree of contact was necessary: without it, the firm could not have attempted to change its culture, as well as its demographic composition.

At the firm’s management meetings, diversity was always the first item of business. I worked with every office’s administrative partner on its office’s particular goals and objectives. I also worked with the chief officer for professional development and recruitment on acquiring a diverse workforce and then putting into play a comprehensive professional development program with a structured mentoring component. We hired two full-time lawyers, as professional development coordinators who, along with me, went to every office and worked with all the associates on their development plans and competencies for their yearly progress, encouraging them to grow as individuals within the firm. I also worked with a specialist on work/life balance issues.

We were also the first firm to hire a full-time Director of Professional and Personal Life Integration, with firm-wide responsibilities. We started a Wellness Program within the diversity initiative that was available to all employees to ensure a healthy, competent staff. Minority and women attorneys became increasingly engaged at K & L; they went on to hold management positions and became practice group heads and leaders in their respective communities.

Diversity Needs To Be Supported By Top Management

Large law firms all over the country now are hiring diversity professionals. Their ranks have swelled to such an extent that the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals (ALFDP) was founded in 2006. Its mission is to promote, retain and advance diversity in the legal profession. This year, ALFDP and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) sponsored a survey (conducted by The Flourishing Company, a national workplace consulting firm) to determine the roles and responsibilities of these professionals in promoting and accomplishing diversity initiatives. The survey not only included members of ALFDP, but also the Am-Law 200 firms.

The survey concluded that large law firms are turning to diversity professionals as the norm, rather than as the exception these days. The study also is the first to authoritatively establish that the best diversity method in practice today is creating leadership at the management level for sustained diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

Evidence that diversity officers are effective in accomplishing inclusion and retention goals is supported in an article by Alexandra Kalev, Frank Dobbins and Erin Kelly, entitled Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.1 The authors conclude that there are three generally accepted methods of obtaining diversity: establishing organizational responsibility for diversity, attempting to moderate bias in the workplace through training and feedback, and reducing the social isolation of minorities and women in the company.

Law firms have been following the corporate diversity model for the last 10 to 15 years because of corporate pressure to become more diverse and inclusive or lose business. This trend began in the 1990s when Charles Morgan, the former General Counsel of BellSouth, issued a Statement of Principles on Diversity, and continued when Rick Palamore, former general counsel to Sara Lee, issued his Call To Action. As a result, large law firms have almost universally accepted that the first step towards diversity is to create a diversity committee. The 2008 Law Firm Diversity Professional Survey showed that all but one respondent had a diversity committee—and that this firm was creating a committee this year; it also indicated that 78% of those surveyed had a diversity professional, many of whom had been hired within the last several years.

Of the diversity professionals surveyed, almost 19% were practicing attorneys with their law firms, 44% were non-practicing attorneys within the firm and 34% were non-attorneys. Most of the diversity professionals were either members of their firms’ diversity committees, or the chairs of these committees.

Diversity Officers Encourage Change

Diversity professionals at these law firms perform a myriad of functions, including defining what diversity means to the culture of their firm, launching and coordinating the firm’s diversity mission and goals, promoting diversity programs, articulating both within and outside of the firm what the diversity program consists of, and maintaining the metrics and deliverables which reflect the firm’s progress towards diversity and inclusion. These professionals also act as liaisons to the firm’s management and as confidantes for the minority and female lawyers. They also facilitate relationships between individuals at the firm and the leading diversity organizations outside of the firm at the local, state and national levels.

The importance of the role of the Chief Diversity Officer has even filtered down to state and local bar groups as well. California appointed Ruthie Ashley as its first Chief Diversity Officer last year. Pennsylvania is considering creating the position of Chief Diversity Officer for its state bar. And the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco have Diversity Directors, as does the City of New York Bar Association.

I believe that the best way to bring about diversity and inclusion is to hire a full time, management level executive to direct and implement a cultural change within the firm. At K & L, I had the opportunity to make diversity permeate the firm’s culture, creating a dynamic and enriched organization, where diversity was valued and not just tolerated as an add-on to the firm’s social fabric. The evidence is clear: without organizational accountability at the very top of the firm, no lasting or meaningful change will occur.

FOOTNOTE

1. Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies, by Alexandra Kalev, Frank Bobbin and Erin Kelly. American Sociological Review, 2006, Vol.71 (August:589-617)

Post from: The Complete Lawyer

No related posts.

Here are more disturbing statistics from the American Bar Association Report, “Women of Color in Law Firms–Visible Invisibility”:

• 62% of minority women lawyers at law firms felt they had been excluded from networking opportunities
• 49% felt they had been subjected to demeaning comments or harassment
• 44% said they had been denied desirable assignments.

Additionally, firms had a total minority representation of 18.07%, with women of color making up more than 10.07% of that total in the associate ranks. Yet at the partnership level, only 1.65% out of 5.40% of all minorities were women of color. What makes these numbers so astounding is that women of color outnumber minority men in law schools by a two to one margin. Among African Americans, women outnumber men by a three to one margin.

Faced with these appalling statistics, the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia held a summit on March 19, 2008, entitled, “Women of Color in Law Firms: Pathways to Success for All.” It was hosted by Howard University Law School from which the first African-American women law students were graduated in the 19th century.

The organizers began with this question: “How do we, as a diverse and unique legal community, win the talent battle for women attorneys of color?” They designed a three-pronged approach. First, they gathered input from their Advisory Board composed of experts in the field of diversity. Next, they held a one-day conference/summit, which brought together the best minds on the subject to discuss ways to identify solutions. Along with speakers and panel discussions on issues such as recruitment for both entry level positions and lateral hires, participants attended breakout sessions to talk about the complex issue of retention and talent management. As a third step, they are drafting a post conference report to guide their bar association and others that are struggling to acquire and retain women of color in law firms.

Firms Sponsor Summits On Diversity But Don’t Attend

White attorneys—both men and women—were noticeably absent from the summit. Some attribute the failure of white women to participate in discussions like this because of the “whitewashing phenomenon,” an assumption white women make that women of color have no distinctive differences from majority women. The reality, of course, is that women of color encounter all of the problems that white women face in law firms in addition to the problems of race.

White men—managing, equity and junior partners—were also conspicuously absent. Many white male lawyers routinely assume that a summit on women of color has nothing to do with them, even though until the problem is solved, it will continue to be one of their most nagging concerns. At this point, even clients are increasingly frustrated by their law firms’ inability to sustain diversity in their ranks and to promote minorities to positions of partnership and leadership.

Despite the absence of white men, however, their law firms were visible sponsors of the summit. Law firms need to realize that sponsoring summits and conferences that they neither attend nor engage in won’t solve the increasingly vexing problem of minority lawyer attrition and retention. If everyone isn’t at the table, those who do attend end up preaching to the choir.

Diversity Needs To Get Beyond Numbers And Qualifications

Many people acknowledged that diversity has been successful in the sense that different racial, ethnic and gender groups are now represented in many law firms. However, representation is often interpreted, first, as hiring “the right number” of members of these different groups. Law firms then focus on finding “qualified” minorities to hire. That this is an issue speaks to a much larger problem. Coming to a firm as a “qualified” associate means that you must continuously overcome assumptions about your competency; no matter how often you demonstrate proficiency in your skill set, you still must qualify to stay with the firm. And only minority associates and minority partners have to qualify time and again at law firms. In “Confronting Race,” a 2007 article from Chicago Lawyer, Phillip Harris argues that even at the partnership level, “too often senior colleagues unwittingly convey a belief that black partners do not posses an equal capacity for intellectual excellence.” Since the days of Abraham Lincoln, Harris continues, “we have not come to terms with what racial equality means in terms of our attitudes and beliefs about intellect.” Beliefs about blacks and by extrapolation other minorities, which are unwittingly conveyed throughout society, form a barrier which confronts women of color. This barrier is a deeply ingrained bias permeating law firm culture, which, unless confronted, will remain inextricably tied to the causes of attrition for minorities and women.

Operational Policies Hurt Minorities

Minorities are inherently disadvantaged in those law firms that operate according to a “sink or swim” mentality or use a “market model” for work assignments. It is not only a best practice to have a formal mentoring program when trying to diversify your workforce, it is also indisputable that the main reason minorities leave firms is because they are not mentored and do not see any chances for advancement. It’s foolish for firms to not structure an associate’s formative years, but it’s especially foolish to neglect structure when hiring different people with different cultural norms and expectations.

This becomes critically important in firms in which there are few (if any) minorities on site when the new associate arrives on his or her first day, whether as an entry level first year associate or a lateral fourth year senior associate. Using a market model for assignments will invariably exacerbate the situation since senior associates as well as junior and senior partners will look for new associates to do their work, or work with those associates who most resemble them.

As a minority woman, the chances of being selected for good (or any) assignments becomes very problematic. As a result she may find herself becoming the firm’s “document queen.” Seeing no light at the end of the tunnel, women who end up in this position often leave quickly.

“Losing the Race,” an article in The American Lawyer, noted that “African-Americans reported experiencing greater race-related barriers to obtaining challenging work, direct client contact and adequate mentors than did any other racial group.” The article went on to report that minorities, especially African-Americans, experience what has been labeled the “prejudice of low expectations”—the presumption that they can’t do the work. This type of subconscious bias affects people of color and women in the legal profession to the extent that these expectations can be self-fulfilling. As a result, minorities do not get good work and end up leaving not because of one big issue but because of a million little things that add up. As one woman said, “First you get lousy work assignments; then they say that everything you do is wrong, and finally they say, ‘You can’t write.’” Once that threshold is reached, the game is over; it’s just a matter of time before lawyer and law firm agree to part ways.

Women Of Color Face Multiple Barriers

Unfortunately, women of color not only have to face the race barrier, they also face the gender barrier which begins to stalk them as soon as they decide to have a family and becomes even more onerous once they try to balance firm and family. Most women are then forced to make a choice between career and childcare. Although most law firms today boast that they have a balance of life, or a work/life program in operation, less than 6% of the women in law firms take advantage of this option, which they see as a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Facing these twin handicaps, women of color have good reason to leave law firms by their eighth year.

Bias is the single most insidious virus embedded in law firm culture. It starts at the recruiting stage and continues throughout the process, reaching into equity partnership and firm leadership. Bias trumps merit.

Though we rarely admit it, we all have biases. Many are unconscious, implicit and unintended; if we were to be confronted with them, we would sincerely and even convincingly deny them at the conscious level. But conscious bias is not standing in the way of diversity and inclusion. It’s our silent, unspoken biases, which sink our efforts to sustain diversity precisely because we do not talk about them and won’t confront them or understand how they are operating.

Law firms were created to serve white men. When they were forced to open their doors to minorities and women, and then to other “protected group members,” they did the rational rather than the right thing: they adapted as little as they needed to in order to save their institution in the form that they had come to enjoy. Newcomers were told to “assimilate,” not integrate into their institutions. The difference is profound. Assimilation is like a merger. One entity loses its total identity and assumes the identity of the greater, more powerful entity. Integration is a change in the culture of the institution. Most firms are unwilling to take this step. Conferees at the summit were challenged to get law firms to acknowledge the existence and impact of bias in the workplace and then to engage in constructive discussions on how to manage bias on a daily basis and prevent it from affecting decisions which cause attrition of women of color and ultimately, all personnel in the workforce.

Post from: The Complete Lawyer

No related posts.

This past February 28th and March 12th, the Law School Admission Council, in partnership with Pennsylvania Law Schools and law firms from across the state, hosted the first Minority Pre-law Conference for high school students in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, respectively. This pipeline program was significant because the more than 400 students who participated in the conference had all demonstrated an interest in law. They will be tracked into college and then on to law school by LSAC, or its designee.

A local judge delivered the keynote speech. This was followed by breakout sessions dealing with how to get into college, how to maximize performance on the SAT and ACT tests, and how to finance college and law school. Sessions were also held on how to get into law school, including preparation for the LSAT and what scores are needed to get accepted. Financial assistance for this educational experience was also discussed. At an informal lunch, the students mingled with local lawyers from various law firms who discussed why they became lawyers and what they do. Finally, the students engaged in an interactive round table discussion of a criminal law problem dealing with the Jena 6 trial in Louisiana.

Pipeline programs such as the Pennsylvania Pre-Law Conference need to be held all over the country. Why?

Demographics Indicate A Growing Problem

Despite the fact that racial and ethnic minorities make up approximately 30% of the U.S. population, they compose less than 15% of the practicing attorneys in this country. This disparity will continue to increase given expectations that by 2050, the country will nearly be a “majority of minority“ citizens and the Latino population will exceed all of the other minority groups combined. A Harvard University report by the Civil Rights Project found that of all students graduating high school in 2004, 74.9% were white, but that only 50.2% of blacks and 53.2% of Latinos graduated. Asian students had the highest graduation rate at 76.8%. College graduation rates for 2002-03 indicated that 70% of degrees went to white students while 18.7% went to black students. Graduation rates for Hispanic and Asian students were even lower: 6.3% and 6.2% respectively.

This crisis in the education pipeline into the legal profession continued in disproportionately lower application, enrollment and graduation rates of minorities from U.S. law schools. In 2004, white students made up 65% of all applicants to accredited law schools. Black applications to law schools hovered around 10.6%, Asian applicants composed 8.6% and Hispanics were the smallest group with 7.9%

In 2003-04, the percentage of African-Americans enrolled in law school dropped for the second consecutive year (a two-year drop had not occurred in nearly 30 years) bringing the percentage of African-Americans in law school back down to 1992-93 levels. Hispanic student numbers also dropped in the same period.

Stakeholders Need To Collaborate To Find Solutions

As a result of these dramatic shifts, in 2005 the American Bar Association hosted Embracing the Opportunities for Increasing Diversity Into the Legal Profession: Collaborating to Expand the Pipeline (Let’s Get Real) Conference in Houston, Texas. Other sponsors included LSAC, law schools, colleges, law firms, corporations, teachers from K-12th grade and members from the Bar Examiner’s Association. The purpose of the conference was to bring all of the stakeholders together to address the leaks in the pipeline into the legal profession. The Honorable Janet Reno, the Conference Keynote Speaker commented, “Diversity in the (legal) profession is essential if law is going to be truly accepted by all the people—and it is imperative that lawyers participate in efforts to ensure diversity…But we are not going to have a pipeline with sufficient numbers of people in it unless we work together with others in the community…Lawyers should be using their problem-solving skills to address these issues…” As a result of this conference, the ABA created a Pipeline Diversity Directory at www.abanet.org/op/pipelinedir/home.html,
a one-stop shop on the Web for finding projects, programs and initiatives from across the country that enhance diversity in the educational pipeline into the legal profession.

Pipeline programs in various forms have been around for 40 years, since the Council On Legal Education Opportunity (CLEO) focused on preparing minority, low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students to become members of the legal profession. A project of the Fund for Justice and Education of the American Bar Association, CLEO has helped nearly 8,000 pre-law students gain entry into law schools. During the 1980-90’s the numbers of minorities and women in law schools rose to all-time highs. Starting in the early 2000s, the numbers have begun to drop for all groups, but especially for African-Americans and specifically, African-American males.

Notwithstanding all these pipeline programs, progress for minorities in the legal profession has proceeded with “all deliberate speed,” as in the Brown v. Board of Education case, and left us with “Miles To Go” as reported by the ABA report with the same title. Indeed, our educational system today is more unequal and more segregated than at the time of the Brown decision.

Today, our goal must be to develop Pipeline Project Tool Books/Kits to distribute to law schools, local bar associations, law firms, corporate legal departments, the judiciary and other potential stakeholders in the education and training process. This will assist them in their collaborative efforts to patch up the pipeline at the local level. It is essential that we begin the education process in elementary schools if we are serious about correcting the problem at its root. You cannot start children off at a disadvantage and then expect them to make it up and succeed with fewer resources. The education gap is just too wide and the local environment is not conducive to more than an exceptional child not being left behind. Most will be left at the starting gate.

The Expand the Pipeline conference is a beginning. The organizers know that follow-up is essential if the program is to have a lasting impact. The planners promised a three- and five-year report monitoring the sustainability of the initiative. 2008 is the year for just such a follow-up by the ABA and others.

_________________________
FOOTNOTES & RESOURCES

1. Embracing the Opportunities for Increasing Diversity Into the Legal Profession-Collaborating To Expand The Pipeline (Let’s Get Real) Conference
Hosted by: American Bar Association Presidential Advisory Council on Diversity in the Profession, Comment by: Evett Simmons, Chair.
Primary Co-Sponsor: Law School Admission Council.

2. Pipeline Diversity Directory: www.abanet.org/op/pipelinedir/home.html,
A one-stop shop for finding projects, programs and initiatives from across the country that enhance diversity in the educational pipeline into the legal profession.

Post from: The Complete Lawyer

No related posts.