of a merger with Winston & Strawn, more and more key Howrey partners continued to defect, including intellectual property rainmaker and vice chairman Henry Bunsow, who went to Dewey & LeBoeuf. In early March, the fi rm decided that it could not


survive. On March 9, 2011, Howrey’s executive committee announced that, after a vote of the remaining partners, it would dissolve the fi rm eff ective March 15 and commence an orderly wind down of its aff airs.


HOWREY’S DEMISE HAD AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON DOZENS OF WOMEN AND MINORITY PARTNERS WHO REALIZED AS THE FIRM ENTERED A DEATH SPIRAL IN EARLY 2011 THAT THEY HAD TO FIND NEW PLACES TO PRACTICE LAW.


Many law fi rm observers have noted that once a critical


mass of partners has left even the largest of fi rms, the death spiral can commence with lawyers continuing to defect in small groups, making their own arrangements, and taking their practices to diff erent fi rms. If partners believe that their present law fi rm is not viable, they can create a self-fulfi lling prophecy by leaving, thus endangering the fi rm’s future. As business restructuring and reorganization specialist


Jonathan Landers told the Post, “Nobody wants to be the last person left to turn out the lights.”


SHOCKWAVES Howrey’s rapid downfall sent shockwaves through the D.C. legal community, where the fi rm was long regarded as a mainstay and, not coincidentally, as an innovator in areas such as marketing and diversity. Many observers say, and T e American Lawyer magazine


has reported, that the untimely death of Venezuelan-born Cecilia Gonzalez, the co-chair of the fi rm’s intellectual property practice, marked a severe blow to the fi rm. Gonzalez died of breast cancer in 2009 at age 53. Her pass- ing and that of vice chairman Mark Wegener in 2008 at age 59 were both said to have contributed to internal communi- cation problems at the fi rm, T e American Lawyer reported in 2010. Gonzalez was considered a major rainmaker at Howrey and a fi rm leader.


MCCA.COM


Gonzalez was not the only woman to hold a position


of power at Howrey. In recent years, women headed the offi ces in Paris, Southern California, and Palo Alto, and women either chaired or co-chaired the fi rm’s hiring, associate evaluation, pro bono, and attorney development committees and its insurance recovery, environmental, and mass torts practices. T e 2003 MCCA award was not the only honor that


Howrey earned for its diversity eff orts. In 2007, the fi rm was selected by Working Mother magazine and Flex-Time Lawyers LLC as one of the “Best Law Firms for Women” in the United States because of its record of retaining and promoting women and the fi rm’s assurance of balance between work and life. T e fi rm also had a strong commitment to diversity in


the broadest possible defi nition. Laura Shores, who was the fi rm’s hiring partner for four


years in the 2000s, says that Howrey made a “tremendous eff ort to hire diverse candidates for its summer program. “T at was very important to us,” Shores says, “and it


was not simply formulaic. At every meeting, I would hear people incorporate diversity of all sorts into the decision- making. And of the summer associates whom we selected, at least 95 percent went on to become regular fi rm associ- ates.” Shores is now a partner at Pepper & Hamilton LLP. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, Howrey ranked fi rst among


D.C. fi rms on the Minority Law Journal’sDiversity Scorecard, an annual survey that ranks the diversity eff orts of the leading 240 law fi rms in the country. Of those 240 fi rms, Howrey ranked 11th nationwide for diversity in 2006. Minority lawyers made up 19.5 percent of its legal force. In 2005 and 2007, Howrey sponsored diversity summits


featuring leading attorneys in the in-house corporate coun- sel world as well as law partners to address diversity issues such as “What are the barriers to diversity?” and “How do we overcome those barriers?” “Howrey made considerable eff orts in the diversity area,”


says Edward Han, who was a Howrey attorney for almost 20 years and is now a partner at Arnold & Porter. “Overall, the atmosphere was conducive to having people from very diverse backgrounds. T ere was chemistry that made it very easy for people of diff erent backgrounds to mix easily.” One lesson from the Howrey experience is to be aware


that law fi rms are sometimes little more than aggregations of individual and small group practices. It doesn’t take a lot to start the spiral that can lead to a fi rm’s demise and to its attorneys scattering to dozens of fi rms. Younger attorneys, therefore, would do well to select


a well-connected mentor, and stay plugged into internal networks to avoid being left standing alone. D&B


JULY/AUGUST 2011 DIVERSITY & THE BAR® 27


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52