Shiva is the Hebrew word for Judaism’s week-long mourning period for the deceased’s relatives. With the “off with their heads” attitude of the new administration, many of us, regardless of religious affiliation, are in mourning for the killing off of DEI initiatives.
So many questions. Is DEI dead? Seems that way. If two absolutely equally qualified lawyers interview for the one vacant position, who gets it? Female or male? Majority or minority? Women lawyers have not been as successful as men in the rainmaking aspect of the profession. With the ever-increasing emphasis on business development, what does that mean in choosing that successful candidate? You tell me.
If the law schools are now majority women, what does this order do to all those women and minority lawyers looking to succeed and finding that doors may once again be hard to pry open. Do firms and corporate legal departments continue to observe DEI principles but on a sub rosa basis? Or do they choose to not continue DEI efforts concerned about antagonizing those in power and those who can and do control where legal business goes? What does this say about the lack of appetite for speaking truth to power? And what does this say about how the administration views efforts to level the playing field for those who weren’t even allowed on the field for so many years?
Efforts by the ABA and state and local bar associations to increase diversity? What happens to them? What about the Mansfield Rule that requires women and minority attorneys, along with disabled and LGBTQ+ attorneys be considered for leadership roles? There’s been some wordsmithing about the Mansfield certification at the Diversity Lab website.
What about the Rooney Rule? Since NFL football is the quintessential “old boys club,” will Roger Goodell and the league get a pass? (Pun intentional)
Cynical about all this? Yup. One example: MCLE programming, which 30 years ago, was exclusively all white men as speakers. When pressed as to why no women or minorities were on panels, the lame excuse was that they couldn’t find any. Really? It was only when women lawyers started jumping up about the lack of panel diversity that speakers became more diversified. Nothing is worse than a panel of homogeneous speakers who drone on in the same monotonous tones. So are program chairs now free to ignore DEI in putting panels together? Is there no longer any need or desire to put panels together that resemble the changing face of this country? And like it or not, our face is indeed changing.
What about law schools? What happens to their DEI efforts/programs? If DEI efforts are being dismantled, then how will law schools react? Since women now make up the majority of incoming law school classes, what happens now? Will the federal student loan program look at law school composition and decide that it won’t lend to students at certain schools because the law schools pride themselves as diverse student classes?
Businesses now wimp out on their purported promises for diversity and equal opportunity. Is “equal opportunity” an oxymoron? Think about it. How can you have equal opportunity if you’re not even allowed in the room? How do you change the mindset of cultures that backslap the old boys network and ignore changing demographics? The field is once again tilted in favor of those who have always had the deck stacked in their favor. It’s not back to the future, it’s back to the past, a past that many of us dinosaurs would prefer to not relive.
On another topic perfect for ranting, AI is imperiling the work of the junior puppies. Remember those hours and days of necessary drudge work that we all did as a rite of passage as new lawyers? Learning how to write motions, craft discovery and responses thereto, researching the law for that one case the partner knew was out there. And then the partner cutting the hours that she could bill on that case because that junior puppy took way too long to find the answer? It looks as if AI (aka ALSP — Alternative Legal Service Providers) may soon have even a lock on the grunt work we all did. DEI initiatives are in tatters, and jobs for new associates may be even tougher to come by. Not an appetizing future for women who comprise more than 50% of incoming law school classes and certainly no better for minority attorneys.
So between the death of DEI and the ever increasing prominence of AI, why would anyone want to navigate law school, the bar exam, and student loans? Would a career performing frontal lobotomies with ice cream scoops be a better career path?
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
The post Sitting Shiva For DEI And Junior Lawyers appeared first on Above the Law.
Shiva is the Hebrew word for Judaism’s week-long mourning period for the deceased’s relatives. With the “off with their heads” attitude of the new administration, many of us, regardless of religious affiliation, are in mourning for the killing off of DEI initiatives.
So many questions. Is DEI dead? Seems that way. If two absolutely equally qualified lawyers interview for the one vacant position, who gets it? Female or male? Majority or minority? Women lawyers have not been as successful as men in the rainmaking aspect of the profession. With the ever-increasing emphasis on business development, what does that mean in choosing that successful candidate? You tell me.
If the law schools are now majority women, what does this order do to all those women and minority lawyers looking to succeed and finding that doors may once again be hard to pry open. Do firms and corporate legal departments continue to observe DEI principles but on a sub rosa basis? Or do they choose to not continue DEI efforts concerned about antagonizing those in power and those who can and do control where legal business goes? What does this say about the lack of appetite for speaking truth to power? And what does this say about how the administration views efforts to level the playing field for those who weren’t even allowed on the field for so many years?
Efforts by the ABA and state and local bar associations to increase diversity? What happens to them? What about the Mansfield Rule that requires women and minority attorneys, along with disabled and LGBTQ+ attorneys be considered for leadership roles? There’s been some wordsmithing about the Mansfield certification at the Diversity Lab website.
What about the Rooney Rule? Since NFL football is the quintessential “old boys club,” will Roger Goodell and the league get a pass? (Pun intentional)
Cynical about all this? Yup. One example: MCLE programming, which 30 years ago, was exclusively all white men as speakers. When pressed as to why no women or minorities were on panels, the lame excuse was that they couldn’t find any. Really? It was only when women lawyers started jumping up about the lack of panel diversity that speakers became more diversified. Nothing is worse than a panel of homogeneous speakers who drone on in the same monotonous tones. So are program chairs now free to ignore DEI in putting panels together? Is there no longer any need or desire to put panels together that resemble the changing face of this country? And like it or not, our face is indeed changing.
What about law schools? What happens to their DEI efforts/programs? If DEI efforts are being dismantled, then how will law schools react? Since women now make up the majority of incoming law school classes, what happens now? Will the federal student loan program look at law school composition and decide that it won’t lend to students at certain schools because the law schools pride themselves as diverse student classes?
Businesses now wimp out on their purported promises for diversity and equal opportunity. Is “equal opportunity” an oxymoron? Think about it. How can you have equal opportunity if you’re not even allowed in the room? How do you change the mindset of cultures that backslap the old boys network and ignore changing demographics? The field is once again tilted in favor of those who have always had the deck stacked in their favor. It’s not back to the future, it’s back to the past, a past that many of us dinosaurs would prefer to not relive.
On another topic perfect for ranting, AI is imperiling the work of the junior puppies. Remember those hours and days of necessary drudge work that we all did as a rite of passage as new lawyers? Learning how to write motions, craft discovery and responses thereto, researching the law for that one case the partner knew was out there. And then the partner cutting the hours that she could bill on that case because that junior puppy took way too long to find the answer? It looks as if AI (aka ALSP — Alternative Legal Service Providers) may soon have even a lock on the grunt work we all did. DEI initiatives are in tatters, and jobs for new associates may be even tougher to come by. Not an appetizing future for women who comprise more than 50% of incoming law school classes and certainly no better for minority attorneys.
So between the death of DEI and the ever increasing prominence of AI, why would anyone want to navigate law school, the bar exam, and student loans? Would a career performing frontal lobotomies with ice cream scoops be a better career path?
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at [email protected].
