Missing In Action: New York City’s Minority Law Partners

New York City is one of the most diverse metropolitan areas in the world: Sixteen percent of the population is Hispanic, Asians represent 6.5 percent, and African Americans represent 17.5 percent.¹ Yet, the partnership of local law firms is mostly white and male; there are still firms with neither minority associates nor partners.

---

Several New York law firms have joined forces with local bar associations and corporate counsel to address the shortage of partners of color. Others have enacted formal, structured programs to include and develop minority attorneys, but have repeatedly been frustrated by high attrition rates among all attorneys. The dearth of diversity at the top persists.

In 13 years, the representation of minority partners at New York City law firms has increased from 2.55 percent in 1993 to 4.54 percent in 2005. Despite the steady increases in the numbers of minority associates and law students, there are still 29 firms (or 19.3 percent of 150 metropolitan area law firms) who do not have any minority partners and eight who have no minority attorneys at all.² When compared to other areas of the country where people of color have been promoted into partnership at higher numbers, the statistics seem even worse.³ Using data from the National Association of Legal Placement (NALP), Diversity & the Bar® identified the firms in New York City with no minority partners and interviewed several to find out their explanations for the lack of diversity. The results suggest that New York law firms differ in terms of their level of commitment to inclusiveness; some have formal, well-developed programs with built-in accountability, while others show little initiative to increase the number of people of color and women. Hiring junior attorneys and associates of color does not seem to be the problem; retaining and promoting them is the issue.

To find out which firms had no minority partners, Diversity & the Bar used NALP’s 2006–07 Directory of Legal Employers, available at www.nalpdirectory.com. The information is taken from questionnaires submitted by more than 1,700 private firms nationwide, including 150 offices in New York, N.Y. The questionnaire includes demographic data for partners, of counsel, associates, senior attorneys, staff attorneys, and summer associates. For purposes of this report, only the total number of partners and associates are reflected; the report does not include contract attorneys, of counsel, or senior counsel. To confirm the data, Diversity & the Bar called each firm that was identified as having no minority partners and checked their websites to confirm the gender and ethnicity of their attorneys with the data submitted to NALP. In some cases, the numbers shown reflect data gathered from a review of their websites, NALP data, or information gleaned through telephone follow-up.

The Current Status

Data from NALP, released in 2006, shows that there are 6,371 partners in New York City, of whom 4.54 percent are minorities and 14.83 percent are women—numbers that lag behind the national numbers of 4.63 percent and 17.29 percent for people of color and women, respectively.⁴ The diversity of the partnership is not consistent with that of law schools, where the student population is generally 20 percent minority and between 40 and 50 percent female.⁵

According to NALP, there are 29 law firms in New York City that have no minority partners. Seven of these firms also have no associates of color.

Table 2 below shows the list of law firms in New York City with five or more partners that have no minority partners. Emphasis is added to those firms that have neither minority partners nor associates. Most of these firms have women partners, but a few did not. For example, the New York City offices of Wiggin and Dana, LLP; Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP; Venable, LLP; and Jenner & Block, LLP have neither women nor people of color as partners. Their partnerships are made up exclusively of white men.

---

Table 2. New York Firms With No Minority Partners⁷

Firm Name	Total Partners	Women Partners	Minority Partners	Total Associates	Women Associates	Minority Associates
Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP1	13	0	0	28	5	3
Anderson, Kill & Olick, P.C.	52	4	0	32	11	8
Andrews & Kurth, LLP2	11	2	0	13	4	0
Becker, Glynn, Melamed & Muffly, LLP2	10	1	0	8	2	1
Blank & Rome, LLP	51	7	0	39	22	5
Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP2	15	1	0	12	2	0
Brown Raysman Millstein, Felder & Steiner, LLP4	72	11	0	88	38	20
Foley & Lardner, LLP2	6	1	0	6	3	0
Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman, LLP	24	5	0	23	9	5
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP	46	6	0	100	47	22
Hahn & Hessen, LLP2	22	3	0	22	10	0
Harris Beach, LLP	13	3	0	18	5	2
Heller Ehrman, LLP	40	3	0	54	24	5
Herrick & Feinstein, LLP	57	7	0	60	20	9
Jenner & Block, LLP1	10	0	0	7	3	4
Katten, Muchin, Rosenman, LLP	75	12	0	87	44	9
Littler Mendelson2	15	2	0	6	5	0
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo, P.C.	38	2	0	31	9	5
Mound, Cotton, Wollan & Greengrass	37	2	0	41	18	3
Olshan, Grundman, Frome, Rosenzweig, Wolosky	25	2	0	19	3	2
Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston, & Rosen, P. C.	23	2	0	25	9	2
Satterlee, Stephens, Burke, & Burke, LLP	28	1	0	23	15	2
Schiff Hardin, LLP	17	2	0	4	2	2
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, LLP	19	2	0	30	14	7
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.2	11	2	0	6	5	0
Vedder, Price, Kaufman, Kammholz, P.C.	18	2	0	10	2	1
Venable, LLP1	15	0	0	9	2	2
Vinson & Elkins, LLP	17	2	0	24	9	4
Wiggin and Dana, LLP3	5	0	0	3	3	0

      1 = no women or minority partners
      2 = no minority partners or associates
      3 = no women or minority partners; no minority associates
      4 = Brown Raysman recently announced its merger with Thelen Reid. Numbers are pre-merger.

---

How different are these firms from other law firms nationwide? Research shows that 40.3 percent of all 1,700 law firms in the United States surveyed by NALP have no partners of color, 21 percent have no minority associates, and 12 percent of firms have no women partners.⁶ Still, there are cities where people of color do make up a more significant percentage of the partnership. For example, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, attorneys of color in 2005 made up six to eight percent of the partner pool. Miami was in a class by itself, with a partnership base that currently boasts the highest percentage of minority partners—26 percent—a number that is even higher than the women partners in that city (23.69 percent).⁸

Despite regional differences that track population patterns, the demographic representation of the city does not always seem to impact the percentage of diverse partners at local law firms. For example, in Washington, DC and Atlanta, only 5.46 percent and 5.74 percent, respectively, of the partnership are people of color, despite the fact that over half of the population is African American.⁹ In New York City, 39 percent of the city is non-white, yet people of color represent only 4.54 percent of the partnership at metropolitan law firms.¹⁰ Apparently, New York City firms are slower to take advantage of the large numbers of people of color in the local area and of the 14 metropolitan area law schools that can boost the diversity of the firms at the top.

Why are There Firms in New York With No Minority Partners?

So how do these firms explain themselves? Several firms declined to comment. One firm that has received diversity awards for its efforts in other offices located in different cities commented that it has had a hard time promoting minority partners from within. Recent growth has been through acquisition and hiring laterally. This firm offers a diversity scholarship for minority law students, a pipeline project to encourage high school students to consider careers in law, mandatory diversity dialogues for all attorneys, a diversity speaker series, and events that celebrate African American history and women’s history. In addition, the firm recruits at law schools with higher numbers of people of color, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities such as Howard University and Hampton University. The firm also created a formal diversity committee and a position to staff and execute the initiatives specified in the firmwide diversity plan. Despite all these efforts and the diverse partners in other offices, the firm has never promoted a person of color to partnership in the New York office. Why not?

When contacted, the firm remarked that while it has always been socially progressive, it did not make a formal commitment to diversity until 2001. Since then, it has had a top-down commitment from senior partners to enact structured diversity programs and tie the results to the compensation of partners. Despite having solid management support and participation firmwide in formal programs, the firm recruits associates who end up leaving after only three or four years, especially people of color. To counter that, the firm has invested in minority attorneys with formal mentoring programs, business development opportunities, and scholarships. The New York office sponsors a special diversity mentor panel program for people of color, where they are paired with a senior attorney who will help them with networking and business development. As a result, the number of minority attorneys has increased, but the firm has yet to recruit or promote a partner of color. Firm leadership is hopeful that this will change in the future. This is not the only firm to have a structured, formal diversity program yet lack any partners of color.

At a different firm, Ken Doran, managing partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, says, “We care very deeply about improving diversity at the firm and have made recruiting and retaining diverse attorneys a top priority for the firm. We have initiated several programs on this front, including relationship-building with key law student groups, more organized mentoring, and adding a manager-level staff position dedicated to diversity. We have a very active diversity committee in New York and firmwide that is very focused on making the firm the employer of choice for all lawyers. We are confident that we have achieved progress and will continue to do so. On the recruiting front, diversity is up significantly in our summer class—27 percent of the 2007 summer class is diverse—and on the retention front, we have several strong diverse candidates in the partnership pipeline in the next couple of years.”

The situation at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher is not unique. Several firms listed in Table 2 had formal diversity programs and had achieved a modicum of success at promoting people of color in other offices, but still struggle to do so in their New York offices. Littler Mendelson, for example, has won several diversity awards and been listed in diversity surveys as one of the best places for minority and women lawyers to work.

Its website reflects commitment to attorneys of color and women lawyers; it includes a diversity video and several press releases about the recruitment of diverse legal counsel, in addition to a statement about firmwide efforts to include people of color and women. While the New York office’s partnership is still all white, regional locations in San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta have made progress. This illustrates a central problem in national law firm efforts—local differences in diversity despite a formal, well-funded diversity program for the firm at large.

What about the others? When questioned, most firms replied that there are few minority lawyers who meet the high standards of New York City law firms. In fact, there is no shortage of diverse legal talent with good credentials. In 2003, women represented 50.3 percent and minorities constituted 14.0 percent of the graduates of 14 New York metropolitan area law schools.¹¹ Of the 13,329 New York associates, 44.07 percent are women and 19.36 percent are people of color.¹² The pipeline looks promising, as 26.48 percent and 47.38 percent of the 2005 group of New York summer associates were minorities and women, respectively.¹³ While they are making slow progress, minorities are not promoted to partnership at rates that are commensurate with their representation at the associate level. Thus, the relatively low numbers of diverse partners at New York City law firms is not due to a lack of minority law students or associates.

According to research done by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (ABCNY), there are plenty of worthy candidates for partnership. Minorities represent seven percent of the 284 promotions to partner in 2004, while women were 20 percent.¹⁴ Twenty of the 105 racial/ethnic minorities from the class of 1996 were promoted to partner (19 percent), compared to 264 of the 445 whites in that class (59 percent).¹⁵ New York City firms also hired 219 lateral partners, of whom only 5.5 percent are people of color and 12.8 percent are women.¹⁶ These findings suggest that time alone is not sufficient, as the new class of partners does not reflect the diversity of the available group of senior-level associates, nor are they recruiting minorities through lateral hires.

ABCNY found that the composition of the pre-partner pool is significantly diverse enough that it should have had a higher percentage of minority partners promoted in 2004. Assuming an average eight-year tenure track, the remaining members of the 1996 class of entering associates would be the best place to look for upcoming diversity in senior management. Of those who still work at their original firm, one-third of the entering class of 1996 are women and 10 percent are people of color.¹⁷ Still, the percentage of those who made it to partner is smaller than their representation among the associates within the law firm and only slightly better than their extant amount in the partnership.

The representation of people of color and women at the partnership level is not commensurate with that at the associate level. This finding suggests that New York City firms are not taking advantage of the diversity of the associates to promote people of color to partnership. It is clear that even in firms where there is no diversity at the top, there may still be formal programs to address the dearth of minority lawyers. Some metropolitan firms are very active in addressing diversity, yet they face obstacles that have prevented them from having a partner of color. Many say their lack of diversity is not because of lack of effort but due to the very competitive market for a limited pool of minority partners and experienced senior associates. For other firms, there is still a need for more structured diversity programs that have built-in accountability mechanisms. DB

Scott Mitchell is a freelance writer based in Washington, DC.

---

NOTES

1. See U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Facts, at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html.
2. This information is derived from the 2005–2006 NALP Directory of Legal Employers, the annual compendium of legal employer data published by the National Association for Law Placement (NALP). These facts come from data supplied by the firms themselves for NALP’s annual law firm ­questionnaire, which NALP makes available online (www.nalpdirectory.com) and on paper for students and others looking for jobs in law. Members of NALP filled out 1,689 questionnaires, listing everything from practice areas and hiring attorneys, to the number of summer associates who are offered positions, to annual salaries. The 2006–2007 Directory consists primarily of large firm listings and includes demographic information for about 126,000 partners, associates, staff attorneys, senior attorneys, and summer associates in over 1,700 law offices nationwide. 
3. National Association of Legal Placement, “Minorities and Women Continue to Make Small Gains at Large Law Firms,” Nov., 2005.
4. Id.
5. American Bar Association Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity, “Miles To Go: Progress of Minorities in the Legal Profession,” 2005.
6. National Association of Legal Placement, “Minorities and Women Continue to Make Small Gains at Large Law Firms.” Nov., 2005.
7. See 2005 – 2006 NALP Directory of Legal Employers.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. See U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Facts, at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html.
11. See Association of the Bar of the City of New York, “Diversity Benchmarking Study: A Report to Signatory Law Firms,” Nov., 2004.
12. National Association of Legal Placement, “Minorities and Women Continue to Make Small Gains at Large Law Firms,” Nov., 2005.
13. Id.
14. See Association of the Bar of the City of New York, “Diversity Benchmarking Study: A Report to Signatory Law Firms,” Nov., 2004.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.

---

Sidebar: Bar Initiatives

What are New York City firms doing to address the issue of retention and promotion of minority and women attorneys? Local metropolitan bar associations are some of the most active advocates for diversity in law firms. They are now working with corporations to place more pressure on New York City law firms to change what is traditionally viewed as a very conservative, elitist legal market. 

In his article “Law Firms Lag in Promoting Minorities” (Crain’s New York Business, April 1997), Frederick Gabriel reported that in 1991, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (ABCNY) challenged the city’s largest law firms to make minority lawyers 10 percent of their new hires by the beginning of 1997.¹ Nearly all of the firms met or exceeded that challenge.² He also noted that 2.5 percent of New York’s 5,194 partners that year were minorities and that only nine of the 173 associates (or five percent) elected to partnership in 1991 were people of color.³ The research further found that seven of the firms had not promoted any minorities to partnership status during 1991–1996.⁴ These numbers have not changed much since 1996: In 2005, just 4.54 percent of the partnership in New York City law firms were people of color. Minorities represented only seven percent of the elected partnership in 2004. The lack of progress forced bar associations to focus on the real problem: retention and promotion of minorities to partnership. 

At the end of 2003, the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) and ABCNY rolled out new diversity initiatives that were enthusiastically endorsed, with almost 70 signatories each.⁵ In 2005, NYCLA brokered a formal agreement with 60 law firms that decided to report to their corporate clients the composition of the assigned legal teams by race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual preference.⁶ This step represents firms taking a bolder step behind their noble aspirations expressed in 2003. In-house counsel were also signatories to the NYCLA statement, including Bank of New York, the Coca-Cola Company, Merrill Lynch & Co., Prudential Securities, and TIAA-CREF, not to mention 65 bar organizations, such as the Nigerian Lawyers Association and the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association.⁷

According to the NYCLA agreement, law firms that fail to adequately diversify legal teams assigned to client matters could possibly lose the relationship to more progressive companies. This agreement also suggests that the numbers reported by each firm one day might be publicized in either an annual report or to the media. The NYCLA initiative follows the 2002 Report on “Diversity in the Legal Profession,” which offered practical recommendations for law firms and in-house counsel in nine areas: recruitment, retention, promotion, mentoring, quality of life, training, support groups, best practices, and specific proposals for future actions. NYCLA has taken steps to put more pressure on firms to increase the number of women and people of color, and its report provides solid insight and practical guidance to organizations that are serious about creating a diverse partnership.

ABCNY has also made definite steps to ameliorate the lack of partners of color. In 2003, ABCNY published a statement entitled “Statement of Diversity Principles,” which currently has more than 70 signatories, including corporations and major law firms. In 2005, the bar association published the Diversity Benchmarking Study: A Report to Signatory Law Firms, which contained statistics on the recruitment, retention, and promotion of minorities and women in law firms in New York City. In 2006, the association honored three outstanding diversity champions at its Third Annual Diversity Symposium on May 16, and it continues to attract more signatories to its “Statement of Diversity Principles.”

These bar association projects focus on retention, whereas the previous ones were focused on recruitment. The agreements between in-house departments, law firms, and bar associations to increase the pressure to diversify can lead to a partnership that reflects the available talent pool. By tracking the number of attorneys of color and women who stay, the associations hope to shed light on why firms are losing large numbers of minority attorneys and where they are going.  Given the high number of firms (29) who have no minority partners and the eight who have no lawyers of color, there is a lot of work to do. The challenge is to stop the revolving door and take advantage of the incoming classes of associates that are more diverse than ever before (19.4 percent are people of color and 44 percent are women). A focus on retention and recognition of the factors that compel women and attorneys of color to leave New York City law firms should result in a more diverse partnership. 

---

NOTES

1. Frederick Gabriel, “Law Firms Lag in Promoting Minorities,” Crain’s New York Business (April, 1997).
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Thomas Adcock, “Law Firms Agree to Give Clients Diversity Data on Legal Teams,” New York Law Journal (2005).
6. Id.
7. Id.

---

From the January/February 2007 issue of Diversity & The Bar^®