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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

    2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

    3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

    4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

    5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

    ADVERTISEMENT