for Diversity” (Sep. 2011), the most plausible explanation for these fi ndings is that teams with members from diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives avoid “group- think,” whereas non-diverse teams approach problems from the same angle.
COMPANIES THAT DON’T DIVERSIFY FACE GREATER EXPOSURE
Diversity not only holds great potential to increase law fi rm profi tability; openness to candidates from diverse back- grounds—for employment, raises, bonuses, equity, etc.—is essential to minimizing a law fi rm’s exposure. In December 2012, Sanford Heisler LLP, which had won
46
a massive judgment against Novartis for gender discrimina- tion, announced that it was representing Francine Griesing, founder of Griesing Law LLC, in a discrimination suit against Greenberg Traurig LLP, where she had previously been a partner. Griesing claims that Greenberg Traurig offi cials denied her the compensation, promotions, and support that the fi rm accorded to less-productive partners. Sanford Heisler is seeking class action certifi cation for the 215 current and former female Greenberg Traurig partners who could join the lawsuit. T e lawsuit followed a multiyear investigation by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that con- cluded, according to a Sanford Heisler news release, that there is “reasonable cause to support class-wide claims of gender discrimination in compensation” and “reasonable cause to support claims that women are treated less favor- ably in the terms and conditions of their employment.”
Griesing’s lawsuit should be a wake-up call to law fi rms
engaging in discriminatory practices. A great many law fi rms fall into that category. While just under one-third of lawyers reported in the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) Directory of Legal Employers are women—32.67 percent in 2012—female lawyers make up only 15 percent of equity partners, and female equity partners are paid 86 percent of what their male peers are, according to a study of the nation’s 200 largest fi rms conducted by the National Association of Women Lawyers and the NAWL Foundation using data provided by law fi rms. T e numbers are worse for women of color. NALP said women of color made up a mere 2.16 percent of law fi rm partners in 2012. When they added male attorneys of color the numbers improved, but were still not representa- tive of minorities’ numbers in law fi rms. Minorities account for 6.71 percent of partners in the nation’s major law fi rms whereas they “make up 12.91 percent of lawyers reported in the NALP Directory of Legal Employers.” On average, law fi rms are failing to promote women and minorities to partnership in representative numbers, and law fi rms are paying those that are equity partners less than their white, non-diverse male counterparts. I minimize companies’ exposure to employment and
general liability matters for a living. A great way companies can lower their exposure is by implementing practices to correct these discrepancies. Law fi rms should conduct internal audits and actively work to lessen the chance women and minorities will be passed over for opportunities they deserve or treated less favorably in other terms or conditions of their employment. From corporate America to American law fi rms, the
TEAMS WITH MEMBERS FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS, EXPERIENCES, AND PERSPECTIVES AVOID “GROUPTHINK,” WHEREAS NON-DIVERSE TEAMS APPROACH PROBLEMS FROM THE SAME ANGLE.
DIVERSITY & THE BAR® MAY/JUNE 2013
business case for diversity is overwhelming. Law fi rms that hold women and minorities back from their full potential not only expose themselves to liability, they prevent themselves from poten- tially multiplying their customer base and earning greatly increased profi ts. T ey lose out on the great fi nancial competitive advantage that diversity and inclusion represents. D&B
Sheryl L. Axelrod is president of T e Axelrod Firm PC, a four-attorney, certifi ed woman- owned law fi rm in Philadelphia. T e fi rm is a member of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF).
MCCA.COM
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