Minorities and Indiana firms

October 3, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Vault and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association compiled data from more than 250 firms around the country on the hiring and retaining of women and minority groups. I took a look at the three largest firms based in Indiana – Baker & Daniels, Barnes & Thornburg and Ice Miller. Every data field under Ice Miller has an “N/A” for 2010. The firm had participated in the past.

B&D has more male minority associates than in 2009, but less minority female associates. B&T has fewer male minority associates, but more female minority associates. Minority equity partners are down at B&D as compared to 2009. B&T has two more male minority equity partners and the same amount of minority female equity partners.

Overall, minorities are increasing as non-equity partners at B&D and B&T, except for the number of female minority non-equity partners at B&T. The firm has none. More minorities have been hired by both firms, but in 2010, B&D said they hired no female minority lawyers.

As far as openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people at these firms, there are very few attorneys. B&T reported the most in 2010 - two non-equity partners, a male equity partner, and a female associate. There is a male of-counsel at B&D who is openly GLBT.

B&T is the only one of these firms to report having any attorneys with disabilities for 2010.

One thing to note is the data is broken down into percentages and the actual numbers of attorneys. When you go from 9 out of 120 associates being female minorities to 10 out of 113, it makes it look like a bigger jump than it really is.

Something else one can glean out of this information is how the economy has hit the firms over the years. Just from 2007 to 2010, you can see the number of new hires and attorneys decrease at the firms. In 2007, B&D hired 44 attorneys; B&T and Ice Miller each hired 46. In 2009, B&D had only 25 new hires and Ice Miller had just 13. B&T bucked the trend by hiring 76 attorneys that year. Non-equity partners have increased at the firms over the years, and equity partners have fluctuated. The number of associates at the firms has also decreased since 2007 as well as summer associates.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • AA head count discrimination against whites
    This kind of affirmative action bean counting is disgusting to me. The bottom line of each such grouping is that it's presumed to be a good thing when opportunties are taken away from white-males and now too white-male heterosexuals, the gays having joined the ranks of the aggrieved and thusly entitled. Why do we presume this? I dont share this presumption and probably neither do most other white-male-heterosexuals. Who have foolishly been silent about the kind of sneering, implicit, cultural-deconstructive discrimination we are shown in academia, government, and mass media.

    On the other hand, these big law firm positions are such a rarefied stratum, or put differently, such a thin slice of the profession, it probably doesnt matter that much, not for most workers nor even most professionals nor most lawyers. Nevertheless as a white male heterosexual I object to the presumption that it is better for my kind to be less represented.

    Forgive me for using a fake name on this post-- I dont want the thought police enforcers to tar me up due to my exercise of free speech here.
    • Great comments
      I will use my real name since I have already been burned at the stake for holding to such old fashioned ideas, John. Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. My burning in the political correctness furnace faces oral argument in Chicago (7th cir) on Oct 20. More details at www.archangelinstitute.org I am a canary in Indiana's legal coal mines. Take heed.

    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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

    2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

    3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

    4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

    5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

    ADVERTISEMENT