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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT