Yet even the most progressive firms exhibit trends in hiring related to diversity. Law firms’ hiring of diverse attorneys follows patterns according to whether the new hire is an entry-level attorney, a lateral associate, or a lateral partner. On the whole, as mentioned above, firms do better in meeting diversity objectives with entry-level hires, who are lower on the social hierarchy in firms, than with any type of lateral hire.
Comparatively, it is easier for diverse attorneys to get hired at the entry level than at the lateral level. In my experience, law firms hiring at the lateral level, and especially at the partner level, are little concerned about diversity. There are various reasons why firms are more likely to hire diverse candidates at the entry level.
There are more people involved in entry-level hiring. Entry-level attorneys typically are hired to work in the firm generally, not to work for one specific partner or attorney. Later, when attorneys become established in a firm, then they are tracked toward specific senior attorneys.
Entry-level attorneys are interviewed by a mix of associates, partners, and others—all of whom weigh in on whether to hire the person, so homophily comes into play to a much lower degree in the interviewing process. It is less about one person liking the attorney and more about the firm deciding whether the attorney is qualified. Also, the law firm’s hiring and management committees can consider the importance of diversity and other factors that affect the firm’s reputation in the legal community when making hiring decisions.
|Partners||Associates||Total Lawyers||Summer Associates|
Table 6.1 Women and Minorities at Law Firms, 2009–2016. Source: The NALP Directory of Legal Employers
A close watch is kept on law firm hiring. The National Association for Law Placement (NALP), law schools, attorneys, and potential summer associates, among others, closely watch law firm hiring practices at the entry level. NALP, an influential professional association that advises legal professionals, from law students and attorneys to law firms and law schools, champions diversity and inclusion. It operates under the beliefs that “all law students and lawyers should benefit from a fair and ethical hiring process . . . [and] a diverse and inclusive legal profession best serves clients and our communities.” It serves its members by collecting and publishing legal employment data. (See Table 6.1.)
Firms are under pressure to appear diverse by hiring a diverse class of summer associates. Law firms that do not put together a diverse class of summer associates can come off as being discriminatory in their hiring practices, whether that is true or not. Law firms seek to hire diverse attorneys at the entry level because they know NALP is tracking these hires and they want to present the best possible face to the public.
Even though entry-level hires are unproven commodities, a firm’s investment in them is comparatively minimal. If the attorney does not do good work, the law firm can write off many of his or her hours. The firm can also give the attorney busywork to do until the attorney leaves. Major national law firms often have large institutional clients with ongoing unsophisticated work (document reviews, due diligence, discovery) that low-skilled entry-level attorneys can do without too much risk to the law firm.
The law firm can send a message—directly or indirectly—to an entry-level attorney who is not a good fit that it makes sense for the attorney to move on, and the attorney often is able to find a new job quickly.
Clients may give law firms marching orders to assemble diverse teams to work on their matters. Partners consider hiring diverse teams when they have a large case or matter to be staffed, and diversity requirements can be met with diverse entry-level attorneys, who are relatively low-risk hires. Placing entry-level attorneys on low-risk matters is not likely to hurt a firm’s business substantially. However, the most powerful partners representing the largest companies may not be willing to change their hiring criteria to be more inclusive of diverse employees despite their marching orders for diversity.
At the lateral level, more than at the entry level, law firms operate like meritocracies, where talented people are chosen to move ahead based on their ability. Law firms are open to including diverse attorneys at the lateral level, but they do not change their hiring qualifications out of diversity concerns:
- At the lateral associate level, almost all law firms hire based on the attorney’s qualifications: education (the quality of the attorney’s academics and law school); strength of current employer (the quality of the law firm the attorney is coming from); practice area (the type of work the attorney is doing and the law firm’s need for that specialization); presumed commitment to the type of work the attorney is interviewing for (whether the law firm believes the attorney will stick around); presumed fit with the culture of the firm; and diversity of the attorney.
- At the lateral partner level, most law firms hire based on the amount of business an attorney brings. I have seen only a few rare instances when law firms have hired a partner for diversity reasons—law firms simply do not hire partners who do not have substantial business (unless the partner’s business is in a very niche practice area that the firm cannot service on its own).
As in society, the further up the social hierarchy you go, the less diversity you find, partly as a result of higher-status partners perpetuating a system of hiring that started out not including diverse attorneys.
Most large law firms know that their hires are likely to stay only for the short term. Associates are short-term “investments” because they are likely to leave (or be asked to leave); very few stick around to become partners. Partners are guilty of “short termism,” too, because they stay with a law firm only as long as they are paid what they want, are happy, and the firm recruits the best talent for them to work on their matters.
Usually, law firms hire lateral associates to work with a specific attorney in the law firm. This attorney (generally, a partner) simply hires the person with the best qualifications and with whom the partner is most comfortable. The law firm cannot influence the hiring attorney to hire one candidate over another on the basis of diversity because the law firm’s role is to provide a service to the hiring attorney, who needs work done. Unless the hiring attorney is being pressured by clients to hire for diversity, it is unlikely diversity will factor much into the hiring decision—other than where diversity intersects with homophily and hierarchy, which usually results in a hiring process that overlooks or dismisses diverse candidates on the basis of various misperceptions. (See “Preconceptions about Diverse Attorneys” later in this book.)
Large law firms are often made up of hundreds of small businesses, with each partner’s business contributing to the whole. Partners can get up and go anywhere at any time. A fluid lateral market means that law firms must hold on to their business generators and the attorneys who bring in business. Firms are not interested in undertaking initiatives that can potentially dilute profits or displease partners and make them go away. Likewise, business generators have no incentive to build for the future of the firm because they are motivated by their individual needs rather than by societal concerns about increasing diversity. This is not to say that law firms and partners do not share the interest in diversity of their clients and society but that they are more motivated by their business interests (money) than by the common good.
Because of the short-term-thinking, dog-eat-dog world of the law firm, calculations about diversity often do not factor into lateral hiring decisions. Whereas Human Resources can ensure a steady inflow of diverse attorneys at the entry level, it is much more difficult at the lateral level, where individual partners do so much hiring and have so many preconceptions about what they want and do not want.
The following subsections discuss why law firms are less likely to hire diverse candidates as the lateral level.
A substantial portion of attorneys enter law firms and find that law firm life is not for them. Attrition is a major issue with all attorneys—regardless of diversity—but retention issues are exacerbated for diverse attorneys, and thus law firms assume a greater risk hiring them at the lateral level.
Work in a law firm can be extremely difficult. According to one attorney:
I lasted five years, and once my student loans were paid off, I got the hell out. It was demoralizing, working like a dog doing mundane work and my vitality was slipping day by day. The hours and stress were killing me.
I got into the office at 8:00 am and left at 10:00 pm every day, plus I would also work one day on the weekends. I would work about 70–80 hours a week. The stress was unbelievable, especially coming from senior associates and partners in the firm. Everyone was biting each other heads off to get ahead. The senior associates viewed you as competition to become a partner and they would treat new associates like slave labor.
[Before I joined] my law firm showed us brochures with smiling associates, promised us interesting work, and the infamous “work life balance” bullshit. It was shocking because you are their slave and then they send you back to your old law school to recruit new people.
Potential for Dead Weight
Law firms are afraid of hiring unproductive or untalented associates who may not work out. At the entry level, associates are put on assignments that are less consequential, and the law firm can write off the hours of entry-level associates who do not do good work. If they are asked to leave a firm, entry-level associates typically have other job options.
After a year or two, attorneys are expected to be more efficient. At this point, law firms are exposed to serious risks if the attorney does not do good work. The firm can lose the money, time, and resources it expended to train the new hire, can face a lawsuit, or can expend further resources if the attorney stays longer than the firm wants.
Law firms are most interested in attorneys with fewer than five years of experience who have not switched firms more than a few times during that period. Once an attorney has more than five years of experience or has switched firms more than a few times, it becomes very, very difficult for that attorney to find a new position. When a law firm lets a lateral attorney go, it gives the impression there is a problem with the attorney’s performance, and it becomes difficult for the lateral attorney to find another job. If a lateral attorney is let go, the law firm also knows there is a risk the attorney may bring a lawsuit against the firm. Hiring a lateral attorney involves much more risk than hiring an entry-level attorney.
Law firms seem to have different standards for letting go of diverse and nondiverse attorneys. In my opinion, law firms are more inclined to fire nondiverse attorneys than diverse attorneys. I have encountered diverse attorneys who were told to start looking for a new job over a year earlier but who were still with their law firms. In contrast, when nondiverse attorneys are fired, they are usually let go immediately or given three to six months to find a new job.
Although these may be isolated examples, they point to a tendency in law firms to carry the extra baggage of fired diverse attorneys longer and at greater expense than that of nondiverse attorneys they have fired, which can make them wary of hiring diverse attorneys in the first place.
Concerns with Work Product
Law firms are skeptical about diverse attorneys’ work product. This is often completely unfounded, of course. But law firms do question the level of training attorneys received at their previous jobs, whether attorneys were initially hired because of their diversity as opposed to their talent, and whether some attorneys will need more supervision that other attorneys. Many law firms expressed concern to me that diverse lateral attorneys may not have any substantive experience because previous law firms did not put them on important assignments, for example. Black attorneys, in particular, suffer from the misconception that they will need more supervision, even at the lateral level, and it works against them in hiring consideration.
Concerns of Individual Partners
Partners decide whom they hire. Regardless of their own diversity, partners want to hire people they believe will work out the best with their particular clients and who will work the hardest and help them produce the most revenue. Because law firms cannot control the diversity of who individual partners hire, a self-reinforcing loop may occur.
Some of the issues regarding partners’ failure to hire black or diverse attorneys at the lateral level may be the result of aversive racism. As opposed to overt racism (and sexism), which is characterized by demonstrated hatred and discrimination, aversive racism is more subtle, characterized by ambivalence toward members of another group that is often expressed through avoiding interaction with the other group members and appealing to stereotypes to explain the avoidance.
People who exhibit the behaviors of aversive racism “sympathize with victims of past injustice, support the principle of racial equality, and regard themselves as non-prejudiced, but at the same time possess negative feelings and beliefs (which may be unconscious) about” members of other groups. People tend to view those of their class and ethnic group more positively than they view others who are not. “People respond systematically more favorably to others whom they perceive to belong to their group than to different groups.” A white attorney may unconsciously believe that a black attorney does not deserve the same employment opportunities, training, and mentorship as white attorneys do.
In my recruiting practice, I have found it more difficult to place black attorneys. I have worked with many black attorneys who were coming from major American law firms, who were graduates of third- and fourth-tier law schools, and who had next-to-impossible times getting even a single interview. These attorneys were penalized even more than typical white attorneys who had not attended top-tier law schools. When I work with attorneys from similar backgrounds, I have noticed that the black attorney is almost always more difficult to place than the white attorney. I am not sure why this is. Black attorneys tend to get fewer interviews and get placed less often than white attorneys. The lack of success is almost palpable.
Recently, I worked with several black women who were unemployed even though they had excellent qualifications in all respects. They had attended eminent law schools like Harvard and Michigan and had worked in major law firms in major markets like New York City. They were in practice areas like corporate, and corporate has been in high demand. I could place none of the attorneys.
One attorney called me and apologized after bombing several interviews. She said she was worried she might have harmed my reputation. “I’m sure law firms did not appreciate you sending a fat black woman out to interview,” she said.
I was astonished. Several times she said she should just give up—and she did. Despite what she viewed as her limitations, for the life of me, I could not understand what prevented her from being hired but I wondered if aversive racism or sexism might have contributed.
Partners generate the business that sustains law firms; therefore, it behooves law firms to hire attorneys who please partners. Partners want to work with qualified attorneys with whom they’re comfortable and with whom they identify culturally, in other words, attorneys who share the same social markers, hobbies, experiences, and tastes.
Hiring partners also want to hire attorneys who can do the job, who can be managed, and who will stay with a firm for the long term. Yet their methods of judging and forecasting an attorney’s ability to do the job are wrapped up in a perspective that effectively results in hiring practices that disfavor diverse attorneys. Moreover, the business culture in law firms perpetuates an environment that challenges diverse attorneys’ ability to persist over the long term.
Attorneys who might be inclined to resist a divisive culture are not hired in the first place because they are perceived to be unmanageable types. Therefore, there used to be no one inside firms who would agitate for change (now diversity coordinators and committees are working to change traditional hiring practices). Law firms likely will not embrace true diversity until the benefits of diversity can somehow be realized alongside what partners want and the business realities of law firms.
If diversity is important, firms can assume the responsibility of nurturing diverse attorneys early in their careers and countering the negative impact of the factors discussed here. Law firm diversity efforts work better when they align with what partners and law firms want.
Contributors to the Diversity Gap in Law Firms
Law firms are continuously held up as examples of institutions that are not meeting diversity goals:
- The Washington Post slams lawyers for “not doing enough” to change the fact the legal profession is the least diverse.
- The New York Times paints “a bleak picture for women trying to rise at law firms.”
- Stanford Graduate School of Business published an article explaining why law firms are “failing” at diversity.
- An article from Above the Law laments that “despite two decades of extensive efforts, gender and other diversity at the partner and [general counsel] level is essentially unchanged.”
- The 2017 Law360 Glass Ceiling Report found that “women [saw] another year of slow gains at law firms.” (See Table 6.2.)
Table 6.2 Women and Minority Partners in Law Firms in 2016-2017. Source: The 2016-2017 NALP Directory of Legal Employers.
|By # of Lawyers Firm-wide:|
|100 or fewer||3,471||22.01%||6.68%||2.42%||1,818||42.08%||17.05%||8.80%||114|
|Ft. Lauderdale/W. Palm Beach||186||23.12||4.84||2.69||109||44.95||15.60||9.17||9|
|Kansas City, MO||439||23.46||4.10||1.14||244||42.21||17.21||9.43||6|
|Los Angeles area||2,042||23.46||15.18||5.53||2,282||46.41||31.33||17.57||77|
|New York City||6,340||18.86||8.45||2.73||11,387||45.20||26.74||15.19||102|
|Northern NJ/Newark area||505||18.61||4.75||1.78||410||42.93||18.29||10.00||10|
|Orange Co., CA||524||17.18||13.74||4.39||520||40.38||28.85||12.88||20|
|Salt Lake City||180||12.78||5.00||1.11||123||29.27||8.13||3.25||8|
|San Jose area||792||20.33||17.30||5.56||1,388||44.09||40.63||20.46||40|
|Other areas in California||238||28.57||11.76||5.04||148||47.30||20.27||8.78||9|
|Other areas in Connecticut||357||24.93||2.80||2.24||199||50.75||17.09||11.56||8|
|Other areas in Florida||699||23.18||8.87||3.58||309||42.39||14.89||6.47||22|
|Other areas in New Jersey||221||20.81||7.69||2.71||120||41.67||17.50||7.50||7|
|Other areas in New York State||744||21.64||3.63||0.67||420||44.52||11.19||5.48||10|
|Other areas in Texas||152||15.79||9.21||1.32||137||45.26||13.87||5.11||7|
Regarding diversity in law firms, backers of the following groups believe they need preferential treatment in hiring and advancement:
- Women attorneys. According to the 2017 Law360 Glass Ceiling Report, women are 50.3 percent of current law school graduates but make up just under 35 percent of lawyers at law firms. Additionally, women made up 20 percent of equity partnerships, which is where the highest pay and most prestigious leadership positions are located.
- Gay attorneys. A Gallup poll published in January 2017 by Gary J. Gates of the Williams Institute at UCLA Law found that 4.1 percent of U.S. adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Among Millennials—those born between 1980 and 1998—7.3 percent identify as LGBT. However, the 2016 NALP report on diversity in law firms found that, at respondent law firms, only 2.5 percent of lawyers identified as LGBT.
- Black attorneys. A 2016 NALP report showed that only 1.81 percent of partners at reporting law firms were black partners, while 4.11 percent of associates at the reporting law firms were black. In 2016, black women made up 0.64 percent of law firm partners and 2.32 percent of law firm associates. At the associate level, the number of black women lawyers at law firms peaked in 2008, just before the financial crisis, at 2.97 percent. According to Paula T. Edgar, president of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association in New York City, a lot of black women leave BigLaw firms because “the firm culture is not conducive to success for people of color or people of color who are women.” Additionally, according to a survey conducted by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, black lawyers leave firms at a higher rate than members of other minority groups, with black women leaving even more frequently than black men, by a margin of 17 percent to 15 percent, respectively.
- Latino attorneys. In 2016, Latino associates made up 4.42 percent of the attorneys at law firms reporting to the NALP, while 2.31 percent of partners were Latino. The Vault/MCCA survey showed that “for the first time since 2008 . . . new attorney hires included more Hispanic women than men and nearly half of the Hispanic lawyers who made partner in 2015 were women.” Latinos made up 3.6 percent of respondents in the survey. Although not as high as attrition for black men and women, 10 percent of Latino attorneys and 13 percent of Latina attorneys left their law firms.
However, Latina attorneys seemingly face a more difficult law experience than men in the “forms of gender bias and discrimination that work together to create inhospitable workplaces and limit opportunities for their career success and advancement.” Some examples of these experiences are being subjected to sexism by male attorneys (including Latinos), stereotypes regarding “roles and qualifications of women in the workplace, especially regarding their appropriateness for leadership positions.” Also, “the dual role of being a mother and lawyer adds an additional gender-related barrier to Latinas in their legal careers,” which is “consistent with research that suggests having significant child care responsibilities is one of the more critical barriers to career advancement facing women in the profession.” For Latina attorneys, this is made even more difficult by cultural expectations that their role is as mothers with the primary goal of taking care of the family, which leads to their careers being viewed as secondary to those of men.
The following groups are often left out of diversity discussions:
- Asians (including Indians). According to NALP, in 2016, Asian associates represented more than 11 percent of minority associates in major firms. However, NALP finds that Asian Pacific Americans represent 3.13 percent of all partners in big firms. Compared with other ethnicities, Jean Lee, head of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, states, “Asians are leaving [firms] at the highest numbers.” No data could be found separately on Indians, who may or may not be included in the numbers with other Asian attorneys.
- Native Americans. Whereas Native Americans are accounted for in the overall minority percentages of the 2016 NALP report, they were not reported separately. However, 2015 research conducted by the National Native American Bar Association found that there are only 2,640 Native American attorneys in the United States. That is approximately 0.2 percent of the 1.2 million attorneys in the nation. The study also found that approximately 40 percent of Native American respondents “reported experiencing demeaning comments or other types of harassment based on their race, ethnicity, and/or tribal affiliation.” Similarly, about 34 percent reported experiencing discrimination, and 30 percent “reported that they felt that they had been treated differently from their peers” because of their Native American associations.
- Middle Easterners (males—but not females). NALP reports diversity statistics for “minorities,” which it defines as “those whose race or ethnicity is Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and those of multi-racial heritage.” Thus, it is unknown whether Middle Easterners are included in these numbers.
- People with disabilities. The 2016 NALP report on diversity stated that 0.33 percent of partners self-reported as having a disability, while the same percentage of associates self-reported the same. However, the number of lawyers with disabilities is hard to determine because there is little reporting on them. Some attorneys with disabilities report that status, whereas others do not consider it relevant to their work experience.
- White attorneys from lower-class backgrounds. There is minimal discussion regarding class backgrounds of attorneys, especially those of white attorneys. Because they are white, these attorneys are grouped with the majority—other white attorneys. Associations like NALP consider race/ethnicity exclusively when calculating diversity at law firms.
- White immigrant attorneys of European descent. There seems to be no distinction, as far as diversity is concerned or calculated, between white immigrant attorneys of European descent and white attorneys.
One group that experiences a massive amount of discrimination, in my opinion, is Middle Eastern males. If a Middle Eastern male has an ethnic-sounding last name and is seeking a job in New York, for example, he will have an extraordinarily difficult time finding a position. I have seen this time and time again. Similarly, people who are blind, deaf, wheelchair bound, or otherwise disabled have a very difficult time. Perhaps the group most discriminated against in the legal profession is older attorneys without business. If an attorney has more than five or six years of experience and no business, a law firm becomes a very unwelcoming place for that attorney.
Other groups that are not technically “diverse” but that face difficulties getting hired (by law firms or other employers) include these:
- Short men. A 2004 study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology showed that height is strongly related to success for men, and that as a man’s height increases, it corresponds to an increase in income.
- Unattractive people. An article in New York Magazine cites a book by Daniel S. Hamermesh that explains that attractive people make $230,000 more than unattractive people over the course of a lifetime. It goes on to explain that “unattractive women earn 3 percent less than average-looking women, while unattractive men’s take-home is reduced a whopping 22 percent.”
- Overweight people. The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA), a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to ending size discrimination in all of its forms, states in a fact sheet that size discrimination is as prevalent as racial discrimination. It cites various examples, including: “fat people can be terminated or suspended because of their weight, despite good job performance”; “fatter people suffer up to 6 percent less earnings than thin people in comparable positions”; and “1 of 3 children has experienced weight bias from a teacher,” while “2 of every 3 children has experienced it from a classmate.”
- People with disabilities. Employment for disabled people fell from about 50 percent in 1990 to about 41 percent in 2010. Disabled workers also “earn about $9,000 less a year than a non-disabled workers, according to Census data on median earnings.”
- People from lower-class backgrounds. A 2012 study published in the journal Psychological Science found that stress caused by social class discrimination was potentially an important factor in negative consequences on health. Additionally, a 2016 study published in the journal American Sociological Review found that “biases related to social class and gender skew employment opportunities toward men from privileged backgrounds.”
At the same time that certain groups appear to be largely ignored in diversity discussions, other groups appear to merit special attention, especially in the law firm context. There are numerous examples of law firms and other groups creating initiatives dedicated to assisting these groups in hiring and retention:
- Female black attorneys. Both Los Angeles and New York (the two largest markets for lawyers) have associations dedicated specifically to black female attorneys: the Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles and Association of Black Women Attorneys (ABWA) in New York. The ABWA advertises that its “members are successful women in the New York Metro area, practicing in a variety of areas at law firms, in solo practice, at city, state and federal government agencies, in finance, teaching and the judiciary.” Cahill, Gordon, & Reindel, a large international law firm, has provided pro bono and/or financial support to the Association of Black Women Attorneys.
- Male black attorneys. Though no association or group directly targets black male attorneys, some focus on the black attorney community as a whole. For example, the mission of the California Association of Black Lawyers (CABL) is “to promote reform in the laws and the administration of justice as [they] continue [their] quest for equality and empowerment.” Some firms have initiatives designed to assist black attorneys. For example, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, the tenth-ranked firm in the Vault Law 100, has a Black Attorney Affinity Group that “embodies the talents and strengths of black attorneys across the Firm, focusing on mentorship and networking, recruitment and retention, pro bono initiatives, business development and client outreach.”
- Latino and Latina attorneys. Winston & Strawn, a global law firm with offices across five continents, has a Latina/Latino Lawyer Alliance set up as one of its Affinity Groups, which “play a critical role in the hiring, advancement, retention, and promotion of . . . minorities.”
- LGBTQ attorneys. Kirkland & Ellis, the eighth-ranked firm in the country, according to the Vault Law 100, has initiatives targeting members of the LGBT community. According to the firm’s website, to be able to recruit and retain the most talented attorneys, “part of this commitment includes fostering an environment in which all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) attorneys have the greatest opportunities to thrive.”
- Women attorneys. The American Bar Association has a Directory for Women Lawyers that provides “listings of national, state, local, international, and multicultural organizations for women attorneys. The directory also includes information on gender bias task forces and committees, where available.” The most prestigious law firm in the country (according the to the Vault Law 100), Cravath, Swaine, & Moore, even has a women’s initiative that “helps . . . women lawyers develop professional relationships and foster conversations about topics of particular interest to women attorneys.”
There can be no doubt that law firms lacked a great deal of diversity in the past—just as most professions in the United States did. But I am not sure what is going on when society and law firms single out certain groups as being more in need of inclusion than others, but this is the way it is currently working. A real struggle for power is happening.
The pressure to hire people other than white males is something that law firms are experiencing from many quarters. But law firms do not reward diversity the way schools and many businesses can because they are made up of hundreds of individual partners who are each accountable to clients—and not society at large. These partners are more likely to care about their self-interest in the short term, and this means they want the best attorneys they can find who can provide what they and their clients need. Moreover, law firms are accountable to their partners because, if their partners are not generating significant revenue, the law firm will not survive.
Law firms are run by what makes good business sense. The law firm is a business and is operated like a business, which means the needs of clients are put first. It also operates in a competitive marketplace, and to succeed among such fierce competiton, a law firm does what its clients demand and are willing to pay for. To work in the law firm context, diversity efforts must align with the underlying business realities and needs of law firms.
About Harrison Barnes
Harrison Barnes is the founder of BCG Attorney Search and a successful legal recruiter. Harrison is extremely committed to and passionate about the profession of legal placement. His firm BCG Attorney Search has placed thousands of attorneys. BCG Attorney Search works with attorneys to dramatically improve their careers by leaving no stone unturned in job searches and bringing out the very best in them. Harrison has placed the leaders of the nation’s top law firms, and countless associates who have gone on to lead the nation’s top law firms. There are very few firms Harrison has not made placements with. Harrison’s writings about attorney careers and placements attract millions of reads each year. He coaches and consults with law firms about how to dramatically improve their recruiting and retention efforts. His company LawCrossing has been ranked on the Inc. 500 twice. For more information, please visit Harrison Barnes’ bio.
About BCG Attorney Search
BCG Attorney Search matches attorneys and law firms with unparalleled expertise and drive, while achieving results. Known globally for its success in locating and placing attorneys in law firms of all sizes, BCG Attorney Search has placed thousands of attorneys in law firms in thousands of different law firms around the country. Unlike other legal placement firms, BCG Attorney Search brings massive resources of over 150 employees to its placement efforts locating positions and opportunities its competitors simply cannot. Every legal recruiter at BCG Attorney Search is a former successful attorney who attended a top law school, worked in top law firms and brought massive drive and commitment to their work. BCG Attorney Search legal recruiters take your legal career seriously and understand attorneys. For more information, please visit www.BCGSearch.com.