In March 2024, Leopard Solutions, a leading legal intelligence provider, and Above the Law, a prominent legal news outlet, collaborated on a Diversity survey focusing on Big Law firms. The findings were startling. A significant portion of respondents, a third (32%), reported instances where they were invited to participate in client pitches but were subsequently excluded from the related work assignments. What is more, in 85% of these cases, the work pertained directly to their practice area. Particularly concerning was the disproportionate impact on Black-identifying attorneys, with 39% experiencing this treatment, six percentage points above the average.
This phenomenon, often called “window dressing,” is not new within the legal industry. Still, its prevalence has yet to be quantified. When asked to elaborate on these experiences, respondents provided insightful comments. One respondent noted that such occurrences were typical: “The client has diversity requirements or might be Black, so they want a Black person in the meeting to secure the work. The work comes in, I don’t know about it, and it goes elsewhere, usually to a non-diverse person.” Another respondent recounted a demeaning incident where a white male partner expressed annoyance when interacting with a client after being asked specific questions.
The survey uncovered a surprising practice in the form of ‘box-checking’ exercises conducted by firms prior to RFPs. Many lawyers were taken aback to find their images included on pitch decks without their prior knowledge. Furthermore, the lack of compensation for their contributions to winning business, despite their frequent trips as part of ‘pitch teams,’ was a recurring theme. These findings underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in addressing diversity and inclusion within the legal profession.
The irony of firms actively skirting diversity requirements, despite advocating for clients to be the primary agents of change in the legal industry, is stark. One respondent shared their experience at a midsize regional firm that faced criticism for its lack of ethnic diversity. In response, the firm hired African American and Hispanic individuals. However, when it came to allocating work, these diverse hires were often excluded from client files, highlighting the firm’s contradictory actions.
Contrary to merely serving as token representations to secure client work, 29% of survey participants reported being assigned tasks due to client requests for increased diversity. Notably, black lawyers led this trend, with 37% acknowledging such requests.
The survey was intentionally designed to capture responses from lawyers belonging to underrepresented groups, utilizing Leopard’s comprehensive database to identify potential participants based on key diversity indicators. The survey received 643 unique responses, representing a diverse array of demographics.
When asked to share additional thoughts on being an attorney from an underrepresented background within a law firm, responses varied between rejecting victimhood and advocating for self-empowerment and condemning performative DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. However, a recurring theme among both perspectives was the acknowledgment that the profit motive often serves as the great equalizer within big law. As one respondent said, “Big law is pretty white, but honestly, the great equalizer is profiting motive.” If you bill enough, no one thinks twice.” This sentiment underscores the role of billing performance in mitigating stereotypes and prejudice within law firms.
To get the complete analysis of the survey results, register for the webinar: Diversity in Law: Attorneys from Underrepresented Backgrounds Detail Experiences on the Ground at BigLaw
