Diversity and inclusion in the ranks of large firm lawyers

 I am retired from the practice of law in a large law firm, but I keep my eye on issues law practice. This morning I read an article in the ABA Journal online titled "Demographics as destiny: Making the case for law firm diversity and inclusion." It reports:

"in 2009 . . . women made up about 16% of [large] firms’ equity partners. Ten years later, that figure had risen only to 21%. It is a dreary gain, given the fact that more than 54% of law students at ABA-accredited law schools nationwide are women. . . . people of color made up 9% of equity partners and women of color only 3%. LGBTQI+ individuals were about 2% of all equity partners, and persons with disabilities were about 1%. The figures for these latter two groups are less certain, however, since many firms do not collect data on disabled or LGBTQI+ individuals. . . . . [Moreover, the] attrition rate among women, and particularly women of color, is high."

And yet clients are demanding it, and the business rationale that supports diversity and inclusion--increased business for the law firm!--has been consistently validated. The conclusion is clear to me. 

The article is here: 

https://www.abajournal.com/columns/article/demographics-as-destiny-making-the-case-for-law-firm-diversity-and-inclusion?utm_medium=email&utm_source=salesforce_412079&sc_sid=00170575&utm_campaign=monthly_email&promo=&utm_content=&additional4=&additional5=&sfmc_j=412079&sfmc_s=46054306&sfmc_l=1528&sfmc_jb=1005&sfmc_mid=100027443&sfmc_u=11905062

I endorse the AHA Joint Statement on Legislative Efforts to Restrict Education about Racism in American History (June 2021)

 Here are key sentences of this statement from the American Historical Association:

"Knowledge of the past exists to serve the needs of the living. In the current context, this includes an honest reckoning with all aspects of that past. Americans of all ages deserve nothing less than a free and open exchange about history and the forces that shape our world today . . . ."

https://www.historians.org/divisive-concepts-statement?fbclid=IwAR2JgNfO-IGwYDuFLZC_2stm4uRZMXJnDLgFhNVzD4qOkwHAG7eIWxJGb5M

Rudy Giuliani and the historic element of honesty in lawyering (about which I have written)

I have to confess that I find this an object lesson. Rudy Giuliani has been suspended from the practice of law in New York by the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, for his dishonesty:

"we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee."

Attorney Grievance Committee v. Rudolph W. Giuliani, Case No. 2021-00506 (June 25, 2021).

In my 2017 article "Am I a 'Licensed Liar'? An Exploration into the Ethic of Honesty in Lawyering . . . and a Reply of 'No!' to the Stranger in the La Fiesta Lounge,"  7 St. Mary's J. on Malpr. and Legal Ethics 32, I walked backward through U.S. history to examine the specific requirement of honesty applicable to lawyers, and I found that the requirement has been a consistent mainstay of legal ethics since the earliest days of our Republic.

My article is here:  https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej/vol7/iss1/2/

Legal ethics are not foolproof and are not self-executing. But in a sufficient number of cases the machinery of the bar organization works, most of the time, to apply the honesty ethic to challenged conduct and to grant and enforce penalties against offenders such as Giuliani.

 

"'What I Said Was Here Is Where I Cash In': the Instrumental Role of Congressman Hatton Sumners in the Resolution of the 1937 Court-Packing Crisis":

 My article has just been published by the John Marshall Law Review:

"'What I Said Was Here Is Where I Cash In': the Instrumental Role of Congressman Hatton Sumners in the Resolution of the 1937 Court-Packing Crisis", 54 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 379 (June 11, 2021).

It is available here: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol54/iss2/1/

I am continuing to work on the biography of Sumners.