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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

    2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

    3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

    4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

    5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

    ADVERTISEMENT