Diversity rankings

May 11, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Minority Law Journal released its annual diversity scorecard for the 250 largest and highest-grossing law firms in the country and the three Indiana firms on the list ended up closer to the bottom than the top in their rankings.

Baker & Daniels and Barnes & Thornburg were close on the list, coming in at 175 and 177 respectively. Ice Miller cracked the top-200 at 199.

Just like U.S. News and World Report, Minority Law Journal changed its methodology this year, leading to dramatic jumps or drops for some firms. The journal added each responding firm’s percentage of minority attorneys to its percentage of minority partners to come up with the firm’s diversity score. Previously, it just counted how many total minority attorneys were at the firm.

It’s worth a note that not every firm contacted by the journal participated, including Taft Stettinius & Hollister. The complete listings and methodology can be found here.

According to the survey, a little more than 6 percent of all of Baker & Daniels U.S. attorneys are minorities; 5 percent are partners. Barnes & Thornburg has a bigger percentage of minority U.S. attorneys at 7.6 percent, but has 3.4 percent as partners. Ice Miller faired the lowest of the three Indiana firms on the list, with 5.7 percent of all U.S. attorneys being minorities and 1.7 percent of partners being minorities.

In terms of the diversity of the diversity, again, Baker had the most with at least one partner represented from each of the listed minorities in the survey: African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American, and other minority/those who identify themselves as multiracial. Barnes & Thornburg has African-American and Asian-American partners and Ice Miller has African-American partners.

So what does this all mean? As always, you have to take these surveys with a grain of salt. It’s hard to compare an Indiana firm to one in California or New York, which typically has a more diverse population and larger cities. In fact, the top firms on this list come from San Francisco, Irvine, Calif., New York City, and Los Angeles. The number one ranked firm is from Palo Alto, Calif. Firms that came in with comparable or lower rankings than the Indiana firms typically were in markets of comparable or smaller sizes than Indianapolis, where all three Indiana firms are based.

But that doesn’t mean our firms can’t learn from their rankings and use it as another tool to increase diversity here. Indiana firms still have a way to go until they are more representative of the general population. Granted, there are typically more white attorneys than other races here; however, they are more minority attorneys than what is represented by the partner ranks in our state’s firms, or even the associate numbers.

Bottom line is Indiana firms aren’t the worst in the country but we still have room for improvement.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I disagree that these types of surveys should be taken with a grain of salt. I think there are valid reasons as to why the three Indiana firms noted in the survey are at the bottom of the list, and I don\'t think you can dismiss those reasons by citing how other cities have more diverse populations. Indianapolis has a sufficient number of minority attorneys for these firms to have better diversity numbers. This is evident by looking at the recruiting results of these firms, as at least two of these firms have had a critical mass of diverse attorneys in recent years. However, the problem is that although the firms do a decent job of recruiting diverse attorneys, they fail to implement measures to retain these attorneys. Perhaps firms in more diverse cities do a better job of retaining diverse attorneys because those firms have a culture that is more accepting and inclusive of diverse attorneys, rather than a culture that perpetrates the good \'ole boys club, as is the case with many Indianapolis firms.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT