Big business plans to use more minority- and women-owned law firms

July 5, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If a commitment by large corporations across the country comes to fruition, law firms owned by minorities and women will see a lot more business this year.

Members of an Inclusion Initiative – which is administered by the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms – announced this month they want to increase the commitment they’ve made to hire outside law firms owned by minorities and women so that more than $139 million is spent in 2012.

There are 25 members of this initiative, which includes AT&T, Coca Cola, Microsoft, and Prudential.  

If the 25 companies meet their goal, the businesses will have spent more than $250 million with minority- and women-owned law firms in three years. The initiative was launched in 2010. It came about following studies that found a marked drop since the late 1980s in the number of minority-owned law firms serving corporate America.

The companies use their normal processes for selecting outside counsel but take additional measures to ensure that diverse law firms are among the pool of firms considered for the work and actively seek out minority- and women-owned firms, according to NAMWOLF’s website.

Prudential Senior Vice President and General Counsel Susan Blount said in a release, “Inclusion is a basic social justice issue. Women are 50 percent of law school graduates but they have a higher rate of attrition and failure to make partner than their male counterparts. The situation is even more profound for African-American and other minority attorneys.”

Even though NAMWOLF administers the initiative and works with the companies to identify best practices to maximize relationships with minority- and women-owned firms, the law firms the companies use do not have to be NAMWOLF firms.

Four firms in Indiana belong to NAMWOLF, including Indianapolis firms DeLaney & DeLaney LLC and Smith Fisher Maas & Howard P.C.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Good for goose, good for gander
    What if a corporation stated that it was going to prefer white male lawyers, since they are more traditional?
  • sure, sure
    Nearly all publically traded corporations care nothing for social justice. This hiring of "more women and minorities" is window dressing. Instead of filling quotas - which is tantamount to paying a bribe to certain interest groups not to bother them-- they might consider what in their business practices actually promotes and advances, or retards, social justice. In some cases like the big zombie banks probably the only thing they could do to advance social justice would be to shut down their operations and go away, permanently.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT