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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT