How do you add diversity?

[Malthus]

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.

Yup - and moreover, was the advice for mitigating risks actually helpful and practical with an eye to the business realities of the particular business they are engaged in (rather than an excessively "law-y" analysis).

It is hardly "merely salesmanship", though of course a certain amount of that is necessary to get clients in the first place.

If having a diversity program sells in getting clients - then by all means have one; so far, at least, I haven't seen much evidence that the clients I work for would be particularly impressed by such a thing - not because they hate minorities, but because they would regard it as an irrelevant cosmetic frill. What they want to know is whether you can help them solve pressing problems and keep them in business, not whether you are in favour of gay pride parades or care deeply about the rights of Tibetians.

[Malthus]

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.

That's not true at all. 

Over the course of a business relationship possibly lasting years, it very quickly becomes evident whether your advice is useful and correct or not.

In my business, if the advice I give is incorrect, it leads to Health Canada issuing compliance orders, which are sort of obvious.

Edit: I should add, "when I didn't properly assess the risk that this was a possible or probable outcome of what they were doing".

[Martinus]

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

Unless the case is very complex or very niche, you can get that kind of service everywhere. So it becomes a matter of being able to provide something extra.

It's similar to putting your hobby on your cv.

[Martinus]

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

I can't name names but you are wrong.

Do your clients value being condescending?

[Malthus]

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

Unless the case is very complex or very niche, you can get that kind of service everywhere. So it becomes a matter of being able to provide something extra.

Most businesses have a "niche". The food manufacturing business isn't the same as the medical device manufacturing business isn't the same as the electronic manufacturing business.

While there are thousands of lawyers, the actual competition at the high end is among those who know the business and have years of experience in the field. If you want top advice that is (a) local to the jurisdiction, (b) knows the particular industry you are in and (c) has experience, the field is generally not that open.

That's why we can charge the big bucks.

[Malthus]

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

I can't name names but you are wrong.

Do your clients value being condescending?

I charge extra for that. 

[Barrister]

Yup - and moreover, was the advice for mitigating risks actually helpful and practical with an eye to the business realities of the particular business they are engaged in (rather than an excessively "law-y" analysis).

It is hardly "merely salesmanship", though of course a certain amount of that is necessary to get clients in the first place.

Please note I did not use the word "mere".  Legal salesmanship is a very important and powerful skill.

But I tend to disagree with you.  There are many lawyers and firms that could do the same kind of work you do.  But through good client service and building up the reputation as being an expert you are able to keep client and charge the "big bucks".

Some lawyer at a small shop away from downtown might be twice the lawyer you are even in your specialized area, but doesn't have all those other factors.  And there'd be almost no way for the client to know.

Of course I'm not saying that you can be incompetent and succeed.  Clearly not.  But the legal business is nowhere near as meritocratic as you make it out to be.  Once you have a certain level of competence it is other factors, not pure legal skills, that determines success.

[Malthus]

Yup - and moreover, was the advice for mitigating risks actually helpful and practical with an eye to the business realities of the particular business they are engaged in (rather than an excessively "law-y" analysis).

It is hardly "merely salesmanship", though of course a certain amount of that is necessary to get clients in the first place.

Please note I did not use the word "mere".  Legal salesmanship is a very important and powerful skill.

But I tend to disagree with you.  There are many lawyers and firms that could do the same kind of work you do.  But through good client service and building up the reputation as being an expert you are able to keep client and charge the "big bucks".

Some lawyer at a small shop away from downtown might be twice the lawyer you are even in your specialized area, but doesn't have all those other factors.  And there'd be almost no way for the client to know.

Of course I'm not saying that you can be incompetent and succeed.  Clearly not.  But the legal business is nowhere near as meritocratic as you make it out to be.  Once you have a certain level of competence it is other factors, not pure legal skills, that determines success.

There is no way that a small lawyer away from downtown would have the same experience in the business. How are they to acquire it, if no manufacturer knows who they are?

They may be twice as smart and all that, sure; but they will not (and cannot) know the business, which is the result of simply doing hundreds or thousands of files over more than a decade specific to that line of business.

For example: I have participated in the only New Drugs Committee proceeding (a specialized administrative process used when Health Canada strips a drug of its NOC) since 1968 (and we won). That doesn't make me any smarter than your hypothetical unknown but smart lawyer, of course; but if a drug company was facing being stripped of its NOC, who are they going to go with? The guy who has a decade of experience in the field and who has *done that very thing before*, or a guy (or gal) who says s/he is real smart, has a great diversity program?

I do not doubt the importance of salesmanship. You are I think underrating merit. Salesmanship only gets you so far - it will not retain sophisticated business clients who can well understand the quality of product they receive, as they see the results and the impact over months and years.

[DGuller]

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

I hope so, we need more diversity among religions.

[stjaba]

I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.

[Martinus]

I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.

Indeed. Plus bigger, global lawfirms are actually changing their behavior by becoming more like corporations than traditional lawfirms, too. Some are even starting to delegate management to people who are actually trained to do so, rather than just other lawyers - something that had been previously unheard of.

Coming to think of it, it's bizarre how nonsensical some stuff about law firm management really is. I mean, it's like having the best guy at designing cars being put at the head of General Motors.

[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.

I hope you said that in your personal statement. 

Who actually tells the truth in their personal statement? It's all bullshit.

[Malthus]

I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.

Well, sure: to a big retailer like Wal-mart, lawyers are pretty well interchangable - they probably employ hundreds of 'em.

I don't think it has anything to do with "tradition" or "conservatism", as with the realities of political pressure.  Wal-Mart is a target for criticism, which they will be anxious to forestall by "diversity programs". Whether these are any more than window dressing is of course another story.

Most businesses are not as open to the same sort of political pressure.

[alfred russel]

I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.

Well, sure: to a big retailer like Wal-mart, lawyers are pretty well interchangable - they probably employ hundreds of 'em.

I don't think it has anything to do with "tradition" or "conservatism", as with the realities of political pressure.  Wal-Mart is a target for criticism, which they will be anxious to forestall by "diversity programs". Whether these are any more than window dressing is of course another story.

Most businesses are not as open to the same sort of political pressure.

It isn't just Wal Mart and it isn't just employees. He is talking about reviews of outside firms and their diversity programs.

Yes, Wal Mart is a target for criticism, and that is probably the motivation for moving down the path. But take a gander at the Fortune 100--many if not most of them are subject to the same sorts of pressures as Wal Mart.

[Malthus]

I think diversity is a bigger issue among corporations than law firms- law firms being more traditional, conservative institutions. But, at least according to one of my professors, some large corporations are beginning to put pressure on firms for some level of diversity. He cited specifically Walmart as one corporation that requires outside law firms to have some level of diversity. Obviously, if you have a big client like Walmart demanding something, you're probably going to throw them a diversity bone.

Well, sure: to a big retailer like Wal-mart, lawyers are pretty well interchangable - they probably employ hundreds of 'em.

I don't think it has anything to do with "tradition" or "conservatism", as with the realities of political pressure.  Wal-Mart is a target for criticism, which they will be anxious to forestall by "diversity programs". Whether these are any more than window dressing is of course another story.

Most businesses are not as open to the same sort of political pressure.

It isn't just Wal Mart and it isn't just employees. He is talking about reviews of outside firms and their diversity programs.

Yes, Wal Mart is a target for criticism, and that is probably the motivation for moving down the path. But take a gander at the Fortune 100--many if not most of them are subject to the same sorts of pressures as Wal Mart.

I don't doubt that some large US firms face this kind of pressure (though again, how much besides lip service is paid to it, I dunno).

What I *am* saying, is that in my professional career I've never once encountered it. It simply is not a factor here in Canada. Clients do not ask for 'diversity'. Proposals to clients do not mention 'diversity'. I've done work on occasion for Hudson's Bay, and we were not quizzed on 'diversity'. I've worked for the US government, and they did not ask about 'diversity'. Our firm  has a "diversity policy". No-one ever, to my knowledge, refers to it or asks to see it. It is mere verbiage at this stage.

Make of that what you will. I'm not really arguing, I'm simply making an observation.

My observation is backed up with facts, though. a search of Canadian Lawyer Magazine reveals this article:

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Dont-ask-dont-tell.html

The government of Canada's legal agent program — wherein you're a lawyer or law firm and do work for the federal government — clearly states that all service providers must have workplace equity programs in place.

"It is also the policy of the Department of Justice to encourage respect for, commitment to, and implementation of the principles of employment equity by lawyers and law firms appointed as agents of the Attorney General of Canada. To this end, agents must, as a condition of their appointment, comply with the requirements set out in this policy," states the government's workplace equity policy for legal agents.

It would seem pretty cut and dried that law firms paid to do legal work by the federal government would have to abide by the policy as it states: "This policy applies to lawyers and law firms in Canada appointed as agents of the Attorney General of Canada."

But in reality, it's not clear, or rather what's not clear is whether law firms are adhering to the policy.

The policy has two levels; one for law firms with 20 or fewer lawyers and a more comprehensive one for those with more than 21 lawyers.

For smaller firms, these are the criteria:
•    "to make a commitment in writing to respect the workplace equity principles set out above;
•    to communicate their commitment to all staff within the law firm; and,
•    to report on the representation of designated group members among lawyers within the firm at the request of

     the Department of Justice."

The larger firms must also "have and implement a workplace equity policy and action plan" that meets Justice's criteria; and "collect and record information on the representation and employment status of designated group members within the firm in terms of hiring, promotion, and termination in relation to other employees, and on the measures taken by the firm to achieve workplace equity goals."

The reality is, however, that most law firms don't seem to be aware that they have agreed to this as standing agents of the Crown — even though the policy has been in place since 1996.

Canadian Lawyer contacted many of the outside counsel that received the most money for their work for the federal government in 2008 (See Law Times article from June 29, 2009). The firms at the top of that list include Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP in Toronto, Calgary-based Macleod Dixon LLP, Lang Michener LLP's Ottawa office, and Calgary's Code Hunter LLP. None of them, including the larger firms lower down on the list, collected statistics on visible or sexual minorities, aboriginal people, or lawyers with disabilities.

A few said they had written diversity policies, but the majority did not have equity policies of any kind. Of those with policies, a handful had programs aimed at women but nothing regarding equity in a broader sense.

In conducting research for Canadian Lawyer's special report on diversity, it became clear that most law firms did not think the federal government's equity policies even applied to legal agents.

The government itself is not doing much to change that commonly held belief.

According to Karen Beasleigh, program officer with Justice Canada's litigation practice management centre, they "have not routinely requested" equity information from law firms and therefore the government does not have any diversity statistics from its legal agents.

When firms sign on as legal agents, they agree to the employment equity policy but Beasleigh says essentially the DoJ has "relied on the integrity of firms to comply" with it.

In other words, the DoJ's workplace equity policy for legal agents is Canada's own version of "don't ask, don't tell."


So far, that system doesn't seem to be working to encourage commitment to the equity policies the government espouses.

Which sort of exactly corresponds to my observations ...