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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

    2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

    3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

    4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

    5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

    ADVERTISEMENT