Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?  (Read 3811 times)

Iceslip

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
    • Email
Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« on: February 22, 2007, 01:02:53 PM »
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?

Special Agent Dana Scully

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8991
  • aka MCB
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2007, 06:54:34 PM »
the attrition rates for minorities is very high (for many reasons)...that's probably the main factor.
Columbia 3L

Iceslip

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2007, 01:02:33 PM »
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--------

rekopter

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2007, 12:43:57 AM »
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.

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2007, 01:28:58 AM »
lol, rekopter is a Sander troll!   ;D
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

rekopter

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2007, 02:09:39 AM »
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.

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2007, 02:14:54 AM »
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. 
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

DDBY

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2007, 03:27:22 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. 

HtownsFinest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2007, 09:47:12 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.

Judgie Poo

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 190
  • Nulli Secundus
    • View Profile
Re: Minorities DON'T Make Partner at BigLaw?
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2007, 01:53:58 AM »
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.
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down.