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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

    2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

    3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

    4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

    5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

    ADVERTISEMENT