Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: Iceslip on February 22, 2007, 10:02:53 AM

Title: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: Iceslip on February 22, 2007, 10:02:53 AM
So...the statistics on minorities making partner or even senior-level position is quite staggering right; I mean, just consider Skadden for example, with ~800 lawyer in the NYC office, like ~175-200 partners/senior people, and literally, only 4-6 of these partners/senior level people are minorities (even more staggering considering that many associates are minorities).

What is the typical path then after 7 years at these places?  I mean, I suppose they're so prestigious that all minorities who don't make partner can go work for smaller boutique firms, possibly in-house counsel for corporations...but then what about for those of us who probably won't work at these places, work at smallar firms...after the partner track expires there, what do most minority associates do?
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: Special Agent Dana Scully on February 22, 2007, 03:54:34 PM
the attrition rates for minorities is very high (for many reasons)...that's probably the main factor.
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: Iceslip on March 09, 2007, 10:02:33 AM
the attrition rates for minorities is very high (for many reasons)...that's probably the main factor.


eeeehhhh...is it really taht  significantly higher than for white associates?  and if so, that statistics alone corraborates what I'm saying; why would minority biglaw firm rates be so high?  I'm guessing it has a lot to due with the racial relations, behavior, etc.

Of course, this isn't to say that all partners and senior members are racist or something obviously, but just a matter of the ettiquette; both my friends and I have worked at large firms during undergrad and it's all quite amusing, just trying to interact with the (mostly jewish) senior partners at these firms...I mean, it's quite hilarious actually cause if one is a minority, ALL you are thinking as this person tries to talk to you is, "GOD you're white...WOW."

haha;

Jewish Senior Partner: "So J, you hear about that ramadan thing.  Mohammed is taking off tomorrow."
J: "Yeah...yeah, I've heard of it..."
Jewish Senior Partner: "Ramadan...you probably know all about that right J [told in a totally non-racist, I'm trying to relate and be light and humorous way]"
J: "No, actually I'm hindu."
Jewish Senior Partner: "Right."
J: "Yeah...they're different religions, actually."
Jewish Senior Partner: ".........right.  Um, Right."

---awkward silence--------
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: rekopter on May 29, 2007, 09:43:57 PM
This topic is addressed at considerable length in a recent Law Review article by Richard Sander (UCLA Law Prof)

It can be found here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/NorthCarolina/sander.pdf

Here's the abstract:

Quote
THE RACIAL PARADOX OF THE CORPORATE LAW FIRM
RICHARD H. SANDER∗

Although nonwhites now account for nearly one-fifth of new attorneys, they still make up less than four percent of the partners at large law firms. Most commentators have blamed some combination of firm discrimination and minority disinterest for this disparity. In this Article, the author uses several new sources of data to explore this phenomenon, finding significant support for the following findings. Each of the major nonwhite groups (Asians, Hispanics and blacks) are as interested during law school in careers with large firms as are whites. Large law firms use very large hiring preferences for blacks, with the result that blacks are overrepresented among firm hires (relative to their numbers among
law graduates) and tend to have much lower grades than their white counterparts. The large preferences are plausibly linked to a variety of counterproductive mechanisms that cumulatively produce very high black attrition from firms and consequently low partnership rates. Similar patterns, on a less intense scale, affect Hispanics entering large firms. While many questions are open, the author concludes that aggressive racial preferences at the law school and law firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and may, in the end, contribute to the continuing white dominance of large-firm partnerships.
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 29, 2007, 10:28:58 PM
lol, rekopter is a Sander troll!   ;D
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: rekopter on May 29, 2007, 11:09:39 PM
Not exactly a Sander troll. He writes interesting and provocative material that's hard to ignore when discussing race/affirmative action in law school.

Also... his paper addresses the exact topic of this post.
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: Hank Rearden on May 29, 2007, 11:14:54 PM
Not exactly a Sander troll. He writes interesting and provocative material that's hard to ignore when discussing race/affirmative action in law school.

Also... his paper addresses the exact topic of this post.

Hah, yeah.  I was just kidding you.  I only saw you posted something else by him. 
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: DDBY on May 31, 2007, 12:27:22 PM
Making partner requires that the current partners want to share thier profits with you. Why should they further dilute thier stake unless you bring significant value.  Significantly beyond what the other 7th years bring.

If you want to make partner, start you own firm.  F*ck the rest of them. 
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: HtownsFinest on July 09, 2007, 06:47:12 PM
This topic is addressed at considerable length in a recent Law Review article by Richard Sander (UCLA Law Prof)

It can be found here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/NorthCarolina/sander.pdf

Here's the abstract:

Quote
THE RACIAL PARADOX OF THE CORPORATE LAW FIRM
RICHARD H. SANDER∗

Although nonwhites now account for nearly one-fifth of new attorneys, they still make up less than four percent of the partners at large law firms. Most commentators have blamed some combination of firm discrimination and minority disinterest for this disparity. In this Article, the author uses several new sources of data to explore this phenomenon, finding significant support for the following findings. Each of the major nonwhite groups (Asians, Hispanics and blacks) are as interested during law school in careers with large firms as are whites. Large law firms use very large hiring preferences for blacks, with the result that blacks are overrepresented among firm hires (relative to their numbers among
law graduates) and tend to have much lower grades than their white counterparts. The large preferences are plausibly linked to a variety of counterproductive mechanisms that cumulatively produce very high black attrition from firms and consequently low partnership rates. Similar patterns, on a less intense scale, affect Hispanics entering large firms. While many questions are open, the author concludes that aggressive racial preferences at the law school and law firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and may, in the end, contribute to the continuing white dominance of large-firm partnerships.


So basically, TCR is that AA is to blame. The playing field has been leveled at almost every point (ugrad, grad, oci), and the PC crowd just wants more.
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: Judgie Poo on July 10, 2007, 10:53:58 PM
This topic is addressed at considerable length in a recent Law Review article by Richard Sander (UCLA Law Prof)

It can be found here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/NorthCarolina/sander.pdf

Here's the abstract:

Quote
THE RACIAL PARADOX OF THE CORPORATE LAW FIRM
RICHARD H. SANDER∗

Although nonwhites now account for nearly one-fifth of new attorneys, they still make up less than four percent of the partners at large law firms. Most commentators have blamed some combination of firm discrimination and minority disinterest for this disparity. In this Article, the author uses several new sources of data to explore this phenomenon, finding significant support for the following findings. Each of the major nonwhite groups (Asians, Hispanics and blacks) are as interested during law school in careers with large firms as are whites. Large law firms use very large hiring preferences for blacks, with the result that blacks are overrepresented among firm hires (relative to their numbers among
law graduates) and tend to have much lower grades than their white counterparts. The large preferences are plausibly linked to a variety of counterproductive mechanisms that cumulatively produce very high black attrition from firms and consequently low partnership rates. Similar patterns, on a less intense scale, affect Hispanics entering large firms. While many questions are open, the author concludes that aggressive racial preferences at the law school and law firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and may, in the end, contribute to the continuing white dominance of large-firm partnerships.


So basically, TCR is that AA is to blame. The playing field has been leveled at almost every point (ugrad, grad, oci), and the PC crowd just wants more.

TI, IT, TCR

Having an equal playing field doesn't equal having an adjustable finish line.
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: biomed engineer on July 11, 2007, 02:51:12 AM
To be honest, it wouldn't really bother me if I didn't make partner right away.  The average starting salary for a lawyer is above $100,000 per year in some cities (See http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/othercities/kansascity/stories/2007/07/02/story10.html?b=1183348800%5E1484463 ).

What's the big deal about not making partner right away if the salary is well above $100,000 for a new associate?  I grew up on an Indian Reservation with a lot of extreme poverty.  I wouldn't get paranoid if I didn't make partner right away.  Like other managerial/senior positions, making partner might not necessarily make someone happy either.  I'll bet the extra stress and responsibilities could lead to a divorce or heart attack.  I've seen that happen among business executives.  The job security and salary above $100,000 would be more than enough for me because I have seen the cruelty of the engineering job market, which suffered from massive layoffs in the recession of 2001 and outsourcing of engineers to other countries (i.e. India).  It's like the movie "Office Space."

However, if a minority has been an associate for a very long time (e.g. 15+ years) and had not made much progress in seniority, then that would be a cause for concern.  But as long as one works hard and remains patient, then that should count for something at some law firms.  My goal is to develop a niche in legal writing because technical writing has been my strength as an engineer.  I routinely write documents in excess of 500 pages in length.  If I learn to parlay that to legal writing, then that should help with career growth.
Title: Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
Post by: HtownsFinest on July 11, 2007, 04:44:11 PM
This topic is addressed at considerable length in a recent Law Review article by Richard Sander (UCLA Law Prof)

It can be found here: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/NorthCarolina/sander.pdf

Here's the abstract:

Quote
THE RACIAL PARADOX OF THE CORPORATE LAW FIRM
RICHARD H. SANDER∗

Although nonwhites now account for nearly one-fifth of new attorneys, they still make up less than four percent of the partners at large law firms. Most commentators have blamed some combination of firm discrimination and minority disinterest for this disparity. In this Article, the author uses several new sources of data to explore this phenomenon, finding significant support for the following findings. Each of the major nonwhite groups (Asians, Hispanics and blacks) are as interested during law school in careers with large firms as are whites. Large law firms use very large hiring preferences for blacks, with the result that blacks are overrepresented among firm hires (relative to their numbers among
law graduates) and tend to have much lower grades than their white counterparts. The large preferences are plausibly linked to a variety of counterproductive mechanisms that cumulatively produce very high black attrition from firms and consequently low partnership rates. Similar patterns, on a less intense scale, affect Hispanics entering large firms. While many questions are open, the author concludes that aggressive racial preferences at the law school and law firm level tend to undermine in some ways the careers of young attorneys and may, in the end, contribute to the continuing white dominance of large-firm partnerships.


So basically, TCR is that AA is to blame. The playing field has been leveled at almost every point (ugrad, grad, oci), and the PC crowd just wants more.

TI, IT, TCR

Having an equal playing field doesn't equal having an adjustable finish line.
You lost me on TI,IT,TCR.... I typically use TI, OC, TCR if I want to draw it out. 'Splain yosef!