How do you add diversity?

[Eddie Teach]

So, is there an inner city free clinic in your future, Fate?

[Fate]

So, is there an inner city free clinic in your future, Fate?

Fuck no, I'm in it for the money. The school I'm going to is one of the whitest in the nation and serves a (relatively) rural community.

[Faeelin]

Fuck no, I'm in it for the money. The school I'm going to is one of the whitest in the nation and serves a (relatively) rural community.

I hope you said that in your personal statement. 

[grumbler]

On the other hand, consider the marketing implications from a Law Review that has an all white, predominantly male student body.

I would say that you have a serious problem then, given that women make up about half a given law school class.  if the problem is that your law school doesn't admit women (or admit qualified women), then this isn't the Law Review's problem.  If an "objective, gender-neutral" Law Review selection process passes up highly qualified women in favor of less qualified men (or, worse, highly qualified women do not apply for the Law Review) then the serious problem is yours.

In any case, the answer isn't to break the broken system in a new way, but to fix it.

[Faeelin]

On the other hand, consider the marketing implications from a Law Review that has an all white, predominantly male student body.

I would say that you have a serious problem then, given that women make up about half a given law school class.  if the problem is that your law school doesn't admit women (or admit qualified women), then this isn't the Law Review's problem.  If an "objective, gender-neutral" Law Review selection process passes up highly qualified women in favor of less qualified men (or, worse, highly qualified women do not apply for the Law Review) then the serious problem is yours.

The majority of the journal's members are women.

[The Minsky Moment]

The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not. 

But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases.  And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.

[Martinus]

Indeed. I am also surprised by Malthus's claim that he has never heard about diversity (and similar issues) being important - this seems to be like a constant thing being touted around for the last 2-3 years - along with pro bono work, commitment to human rights etc. that we have been using for several years now in pitches for clients.

In fact some clients (like government institutions or NGO organizations) have been asking for that kind of data when organizing a pitch.

[Martinus]

I think a big part of it is to build non-remuneration-related employee satisfaction (and also a safeguard against potential discrimination lawsuits, I guess). For example over the last few years, my firm has done the following in the GLBT area (I remember it the best since obviously I am personally interested in it): started a GLBT employee network, sent official representation to London and New york pride parades, started to participate in the HRC review (and got 100% rating), sponsored the London GLBT film festival and a bunch of gay-related art exhibitions in London and America etc.

[Barrister]

The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not. 

But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases.  And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.

Even in people who do go to court, trying to determine who gets results can be very difficult for even lawyers to determine, never mind laypeople.  The facts of a case go 90% of the way to determining the outcome, so you can find a lot of very mediocre lawyers who are able to point to good results by only taking on favourable cases, and a lot of very good lawyers that actually have very poor records in court because they like to take on very difficult cases.

So in the end it still comes back to salesmanship.

[derspiess]

I think a big part of it is to build non-remuneration-related employee satisfaction (and also a safeguard against potential discrimination lawsuits, I guess). For example over the last few years, my firm has done the following in the GLBT area (I remember it the best since obviously I am personally interested in it): started a GLBT employee network, sent official representation to London and New york pride parades, started to participate in the HRC review (and got 100% rating), sponsored the London GLBT film festival and a bunch of gay-related art exhibitions in London and America etc.

  Woo-hoo, diversity.  Is it me or is Diversity becoming some sort of religion?

[Malthus]

The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not. 

But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases.  And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.

Of course. But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.

I mostly do regulatory work; I'm almost never in court. That doesn't mean that the stuff I do can't be judged fpr usefulness.

[Malthus]

Indeed. I am also surprised by Malthus's claim that he has never heard about diversity (and similar issues) being important - this seems to be like a constant thing being touted around for the last 2-3 years - along with pro bono work, commitment to human rights etc. that we have been using for several years now in pitches for clients.

In fact some clients (like government institutions or NGO organizations) have been asking for that kind of data when organizing a pitch.

Committment to human rights? Our clients would die laughing. 

I suspect it stongly depends on who you do work for. If you do work for some UN NGO, sure, their bread and butter is stuff like "diversity" and "human rights". That's the sort of thing they work with.

Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.

[Malthus]

The law and medicine aren't about "pleasing" anyone, but in general are about getting results. The law in particular is ruthelessly Manichean in this respect - you either win a court case or you do not. 

But law firms are full of people who never handle court cases.  And of course lawyers who work for companies almost never do.

Even in people who do go to court, trying to determine who gets results can be very difficult for even lawyers to determine, never mind laypeople.  The facts of a case go 90% of the way to determining the outcome, so you can find a lot of very mediocre lawyers who are able to point to good results by only taking on favourable cases, and a lot of very good lawyers that actually have very poor records in court because they like to take on very difficult cases.

So in the end it still comes back to salesmanship.

If you work for companies, you can't pick and choose what cases you get. You get what they give you to do - sometimes hard or impossible "dog files". 

[crazy canuck]

Work for someone who actually makes stuff, not so much.

I agree, but it isnt so much the winning and losing as did you give good advice as to the risks of same and further give good advice as to how to best mitigate those risks.

[Barrister]

Of course. But lawyers who work for companies must still do stuff like provide legal opinions on situations - which are either helpful and correct, or not.

I mostly do regulatory work; I'm almost never in court. That doesn't mean that the stuff I do can't be judged fpr usefulness.

It's very difficult for a client to assess how correct or useful your advice is.  It tends to come down to how you sell your advice, not how 'correct' it is.