Unseen: Diverse Attorneys Detail Imbalances In Biglaw

Back in March, ATL partnered with our friends at the leading legal intelligence provider, Leopard Solutions, on a survey of diverse attorneys at Biglaw firms. The survey netted 643 unique responses, spanning demographics, and the results were illuminating. On June 6 at 12 p.m. ET, there will be a webinar devoted to exploring and analyzing the survey’s findings. Register here.

The survey specifically sought responses from lawyers in underrepresented groups, leveraging Leopard’s extensive database to reach the target audience.* Participants identified as 59% female and 39% male. Other demographic details:

• Black or African American attorneys made up the largest bloc of respondents (31%)
• Asian or Asian American lawyers were the second largest group (29%)
• Hispanic or Latino/Latinx attorneys represented 17%
• Eight percent identified with two or more races
• A majority of the survey pool were associates (60%), while 29% were partners (almost evenly split between equity and non-equity)

Overall, 62% of responding lawyers reported encountering bias at an Am Law 200 firm, though it is worth noting that only two-thirds of the attorneys surveyed answered this question. Among those who did respond, women were more likely than men to encounter bias: 66% compared to 58%. Black or African American lawyers reported the highest level of racial bias (67%), followed by Asian or Asian American respondents (62%) and Hispanic or Latino/Latinx lawyers (59%).

“My diversity was used to win the pitch, but then the work never followed.”

When asked to share examples of biases encountered, responses ran the gamut from implicit bias to marginalization to exclusion from plum assignments. One manifestation of this reported bias was the phenomenon of “window dressing,” where diverse attorneys are asked to sit on a client pitch and then not assigned to the accompanying work.

Nearly a third of respondents (32%) attested to having had this experience. In 85% of these instances, the work concerned their respective practice area. Black-identifying attorneys experienced this at a disproportionate rate (39%), six percentage points above the average. This “window dressing” phenomenon is not new to the industry, but its pervasiveness has not previously been quantified.

When asked to elaborate on these disappointing experiences, answers were illuminating:

Happens all the time. 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.

Firm “box checking” ahead of an RFP was a recurring theme among open-ended responses, where several lawyers revealed that their image had been included on a pitch deck without their prior knowledge. They also voiced concerns about frequent travel as part of pitch teams, highlighting the lack of compensation for their contributions to winning business.

At times, client pressure does have a positive impact on the work available to diverse lawyers: 29% of survey-takers said they were aware of being assigned work as the result of a client request for more diverse representation. Among those surveyed, Black lawyers led this field, with 37% answering “yes” to the question.

Nevertheless, those calling for the onus to be on the clients to be the agents of change in the industry might be surprised to discover that some firms are circumventing client requests. “I was previously at a midsize regional firm that was severely lacking in ethnic diversity,” one respondent reported. “The clients called them out on it, so they began to hire African Americans and individuals who identified as Hispanic. However, when the work came in, they would not allow those diverse individuals to work on the files.”

For more insights into diverse attorneys’ experiences in Biglaw, please join us on June 6 at 12 p.m. ET for the webinar, “Diversity in Law: Unraveling Diverse Attorneys’ Impact on the Industry.”

__________

* The survey used Leopard Solutions’ sophisticated tools to vet the probability of diversity through several key determinants.