Welcoming Gay Attorneys: Law Firms with Domestic Partner Benefits

Domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples are becoming more commonplace in law firms.

The practice started in the early 1990s at high-tech companies in Silicon Valley: the offering of domestic partner benefits for same-sex partners of employees. It seemed an obvious place to begin the trend, as San Francisco was widely known to have a large gay population and California's liberal laws were in many ways considered "gay friendly."

But today, large and small companies throughout the country are offering domestic partner benefits for same-sex—as well as, in many companies, opposite-sex—couples. After all, according to a 2000 U.S. Census statistic quoted by the non-profit gay and lesbian advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), there are gay and lesbian households living in 99 percent of the country's counties. Businesses, including law firms, have recognized this fact as well. In the last 10 years, the number of Fortune 500 companies that have these benefits has increased more than tenfold: in 1995, there were 21 and in 2005, there are 240, according to data compiled by the HRC.

Many law firms over the past 15 years have also begun to offer domestic partner benefits. HRC has tracked more than 200 law firms from states including California, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Texas, and Virginia (see sidebar) whose gay and lesbian attorneys can enroll their domestic partner in their benefits program. Like their non-legal-industry counterparts, law firms, too, are responding to the changing needs of the workforce and staying competitive, says Daryl Herrschaft, deputy director for HRC's Workplace Project.

"Domestic partner benefits have permeated the corporate landscape, and that includes law firms," he explains. "Companies are increasingly left out of the labor market and the marketplace if they don't offer them."

Companies and law firms, Herrschaft adds, recognize that the sense of equality and fairness inherent in offering the benefits for same-sex partners "is good for productivity, good for recruitment, good for retention, and ultimately good for the bottom line."

The number of employees who take advantage of the benefits typically is one to three percent of a company's population, says Todd Solomon, an employee benefits partner at McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago and co-author of Domestic Partner Benefits: An Employer's Guide.1 "But many employees who would never enroll a domestic partner in the plan may feel strongly about the availability of domestic partner benefits as a fairness issue," he explains.

As explained by Solomon, many companies and law firms have internal nondiscrimination policies that include marital status and/or sexual orientation. "To comply with their own internal policies, they may wish to offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners."

Because domestic partners are not recognized as tax dependents by the federal government, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says that the amounts employees have withheld from their paychecks for their domestic partners' medical, dental, and vision insurance cannot be paid with pre-tax dollars. Also, the value of the domestic partner's benefit is taxed as additional income, explains Philip Adkins, benefits manager at Arnold & Porter LLP. So if someone pays $100 per pay period for health insurance coverage for himself and his spouse, that $100 comes out of his paycheck pre-tax. If that same person had a same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partner and he pays $50 for his own coverage on a pre-tax basis and $50 for his partner's, the $50 for his partner is on a post-tax basis. In addition, the actuarial value of the coverage is treated as taxable income.

Herrschaft stated that the HRC is working on a federal bill to eliminate that taxation. "Domestic partners are not treated the same as spouses by the IRS, and we think taxation is a disincentive for people to get health insurance," he says. "The businesses we're working with—many of them Fortune 500—agree that maintaining different administrative systems is unfair and should be eliminated."

But the IRS taxation is not a disincentive for law firms to offer domestic partner benefits. Managing partners, human resources professionals, and benefits managers at several law firms agree that competitiveness is one reason they offer health care, vision, dental, and long-term care, as well as maternity, adoption, and bereavement leave to domestic partners. But they also point to other factors: the individual law firm's culture of inclusiveness; the sense of fairness and equality on which the legal industry is built; and the sense that not offering benefits would mean the firm would miss out on talent.

"For those whom it affects, it's a big deal. People are very thankful we have them," says Michelle Albert, benefits manager of Winston & Strawn LLP, which has about 1,700 employees eligible for benefits, with about eight people taking advantage of same-sex domestic partner benefits.

With such a tiny number of enrollees, why have the benefits at all? Albert's answer echoes those of other law firm representatives: "Even though it's a small number, they are just as significant as the rest of our employees," she says. "To exclude them would be a huge omission."

A Litmus Test

In the early 1990s, Arnold & Porter LLP, which is based in Washington, DC, introduced health insurance for domestic partners. "A few law firms had started to do it," says Jim Sandman, managing partner, who has been at the firm for 28 years. "We thought this was something we should be doing and we didn't want to be behind on it." Sandman explains that domestic partner benefits was a sign of whether a firm was "gay friendly" or not. "It was something of a litmus test," he adds. "It was still unusual at the time. It was an indicator of whether or not your firm offered a welcoming environment."

He also adds that like most firms that offer domestic partner benefits—which now include areas other than health insurance—Arnold & Porter tries to make them "indistinguishable" from benefits offered to married heterosexual attorneys. "If there is any kind of benefit available to a spouse, our goal is to make the same benefit available to domestic partners of the same or the opposite sex."

That includes the standard medical, dental, and vision plans, but also long-term care coverage for both the domestic partner and his or her parents and/or grandparents, according to benefits manager Adkins. Arnold & Porter also offers bereavement leave and adoption leave, as well as other benefits covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act. "We treat domestic partners the same way as a spouse or other immediate family member," Sandman explains.

About 1,300 employees—including attorneys and non-legal staff—are covered under the company's benefits plan. About 20 of those employees take advantage of the domestic partner benefits, for both same-sex and opposite-sex partners, according to Adkins.

Brenda Jackson-Cooper, a third-year associate, enrolled her partner of 10 years when she first joined the firm out of law school. Jackson-Cooper says she was looking for a firm that offered domestic partner benefits but could not find one in Nashville, Tenn., where she went to Vanderbilt Law School. She heard about Arnold & Porter's benefits through a gay and lesbian law student group on campus. "It says something about the firm's culture, treating all employees equally to the extent possible and being blind to a person's sexual orientation," she says.

While Jackson-Cooper says the domestic partner benefits are not her sole reason for staying at the firm, the fact that they are available plays a role. When she signed up for benefits, Jackson-Cooper recalls, she had to fill out a form stating that she had been living with someone for at least six months and that they shared expenses. Then the form had to be notarized. "They took the time to explain everything to me," she says about the benefits department employees at Arnold & Porter. "Nobody raised their eyebrows or thought anything about it."

Jackson-Cooper says she thinks more law firms will be offering domestic partner benefits in coming years. "There's more of a demand for it, and people aren't as reluctant to be out during the recruiting process when they know there are some firms that offer the benefits," she says, adding that gay law students and attorneys see the benefits as a sign of their acceptance into the workforce.

Managing Partner Sandman says domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples are just part of the overall culture of the firm that helps it retain employees. "It would be unusual for any employee to point to a particular benefit and say, ‘This is what makes this institution a good place for me,'" he explains. But, he adds, "It would be far more likely that a gay lawyer could feel more comfortable being out at a firm that has domestic partner benefits than at a firm that does not."

Right Thing to Do

At Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC, domestic partner benefits do play a role in recruitment and retention, says Dani Barnard, director of lateral recruiting. "We've gotten candidates interested at the onset strictly because we have this policy," she says. "It speaks to the culture of the firm, the fact that it's an accepting and non-judgmental place and that we're interested in highly qualified attorneys of all backgrounds and persuasions."

According to Barnard, Mintz Levin was one of—if not—the first Massachusetts firms to offer these benefits in the early 1990s. Of the nearly 800 candidates she has spoken to during her six years at the firm, Barnard says everyone has been "pleasantly surprised" that domestic partner benefits are offered. "They are impressed it's something we did so early because it was the right thing to do before it was the popular thing to do," she adds.

The firm has grown from about 200 attorneys to about 500 attorneys and opened four offices since Barnard joined. "This policy and other policies have played a big part in helping us expand because it's one more thing we offer that some other firms do not," says Barnard. "The domestic partner benefits policy is part of the reason they stay. It's just one of the things we do to make it an equal opportunity environment and to keep people on board."

Since Massachusetts is the only state in which gay marriage is legal, the benefits have recently been altered to include opposite-sex couples as domestic partners, explains Laurie Cappello, Mintz Levin's human resources benefits manager. In the past, the benefits only applied to same-sex partners. "A lot of companies were saying that now that couples of the same gender can marry in Massachusetts, we no longer need domestic partner benefits because if they are legally married, they can legally be covered," she explains. "But because we have offices in other states that don't offer that legality, we thought we'd be more generous rather than take something away." Cappello believes that adding opposite-sex domestic partners to the policy proves that Mintz Levin is concerned about all types of diversity in the workplace. "We pride ourselves on being really forward-thinking in terms of embracing all types of lifestyles, and we want to create an environment that expresses that," she explains. To qualify for the benefits—for both same- and opposite-sex partners—the staff member must complete an affidavit saying the partner is their sole spousal equivalent and intends to remain so indefinitely, that they are not married to anyone else, are not related by blood, have been living together for at least the past six months, and are "jointly responsible for each others' common welfare and financial obligations," Cappello explains.

Last year, Cappello points out, about 15 of the firm's employees took advantage of the domestic partner policy. "Even though it's a small number of people, it represents 15 employees of the firm who are able to take advantage of a benefit they may not otherwise qualify for, and we try to offer the same benefits across the board," she explains. "We want to be fair with our offerings."

Times are Changing

Like most firms interviewed who offer the benefits, Fish & Richardson publishes information about them and other benefits in employee and recruiting materials, and on its web site, says Jean Fashant, benefits and human resources information systems manager at the firm. Domestic partner benefits, introduced to the firm in 1999 (health) and 2000 (dental), are treated as just part of the package. "We don't see it as something we should pat ourselves on the back for. Offering domestic partner benefits to our employees is just the right thing to do."

Peter Devlin, managing partner at Fish & Richardson, conveyed that they are presented as any other benefits. "It's not something people have to raise their hands to get," he says. "It's part of the fabric of the firm and we make it clear."

Fish & Richardson began offering the benefits because, Devlin explains, "We were seeing more gay and lesbian candidates and they were asking about them. We thought, ‘Times are changing, people are more open about this, and we want to make sure we're not only aware of, but responding to, the changing needs of our employees.'"

According to Fashant, the firm has 850 employees in its benefits programs. Of those, 15 enrolled domestic partners in the health plan and 17 enrolled them in the dental plan. It's a small number, but it speaks volumes, Fashant emphasizes. "There's no reason why we should differentiate between partners who happen to be legally married versus partners who have chosen not to have a signed piece of paper or who have a partner who is the same sex."

That is how the two firms who formed Bingham McCutchen in 2002 felt as well. Before McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen in San Francisco and Bingham Dana in Boston merged, both firms had domestic partner benefits, says Trent Norris, a partner at Bingham McCutchen's San Francisco office. Norris states that there was little difference between what the firms offered separately. But when they came together, management made sure everything offered to heterosexual married couples also was offered to same-sex domestic partners.

Norris was part of a group of gay associates at McCutchen Doyle in the mid-1990s that presented the idea of domestic partner benefits to human resources. "We thought this was a simple matter of equity," he says. "Obviously, health benefits are valuable and there was no way to cover your domestic partner." When the human resources team presented the idea to the partnership, Norris says there was only one question: "Why didn't we do this sooner?" While in the past, domestic partner benefits were rare, gay and lesbian law students expect them today, says Marijane Benner Browne, national hiring partner of Bingham McCutchen. "When I talk to students today, it's something they almost assume will be there," she says, adding that of the 26 summer associates in the Boston office, five are gay or lesbian.

What law firms are looking for, she points out, are good lawyers. "Law firms are conglomerations of people with talent. If we do anything to limit the access to great, thoughtful, smart people who might come in and be our lawyers, we are hampering our ability to be effective as a law firm," Browne adds, echoing many legal professionals on the issue of domestic partner benefits. "We want to be open and hospitable to all talented people out there. If there is a group that might think they are not welcome because of something as fundamental as benefits, it seems to me we'd be doing ourselves a disservice by not offering them."

Melanie Lasoff Levs is a freelance writer based in Atlanta, Ga.

LAW FIRMS WITH DOMESTIC PARTNER HEALTH BENEFITS

Effective Organization Name	City	State	Date
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP	Dallas	TX
Allen & Overy	New York	NY
Alston & Bird LLP	Atlanta	GA	01-Jun-01
Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.	New York	NY
Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn	Washington	DC	01-Dec-95
Arnold & Porter	Washington	DC	01-Jan-96
Arter & Hadden	Cleveland	OH	01-Jan-98
Baker & McKenzie	Washington	DC	01-Jan-97
Ball Janik LLP	Portland	OR
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC	Chicago	IL
Bingham, Dana & Gould, LLP	Boston	MA
Briggs & Morgan	Minneapolis	MN	01-Aug-04
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison	San Francisco	CA	01-Jan-98
Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon	San Francisco	CA	01-Nov-95
Brown & Bain P.A.	Phoenix	AZ
Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP	New York	NY
Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer	Boston	MA
Bryan Cave LLP	St. Louis	MO	01-Jan-01
Buchanan Ingersoll	Harrisburg	PA
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft	New York	NY
Cahill Gordon & Reindel	New York	NY
Carlton Fields	Tampa	FL
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough	San Francisco	CA
Chadbourne & Parke	New York	NY	01-Jan-96
Chapman & Cutler	Chicago	IL
Choate, Hall & Stewart	Boston	MA	01-Jan-99
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton	New York	NY	01-Jan-96
Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells	Washington	DC
Cooley, Godward & Castro	San Francisco	CA
Coudert Brothers	New York	NY	01-Jan-96
Covington & Burling	Washington	DC	01-Jan-94
Cravath, Swain & Moore	New York	NY
Crowell & Moring	Washington	DC	01-Jun-95
Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP	Madison	WI	01-Dec-04
D'Ancoma & Pflaum	Chicago	IL
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP	Denver	CO
Davis Polk & Wardwell	Menlo Park	CA
Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C.	Des Moines	IA	01-Dec-03
Davis, Polk & Wardwell	New York	NY
Day, Berry & Howard	Hartford	CT
Debevoise & Plimpton	New York	NY	01-Dec-95
Dechert	Philadelphia	PA
Dewey Ballantine	New York	NY	01-Jan-96
Dickinson Wright PLLC	Detroit	MI	01-Nov-99
Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky	Washington	DC
Dorsey & Whitney	Minneapolis	MN
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson	Washington	DC	01-Dec-95
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP	Florham Park	NJ
Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon	Portland	ME
Duane, Morris & Heckscher	Philadelphia	PA	01-Dec-98
Edwards & Angell Boston MA
Faegre & Benson	Minneapolis	MN
Farella, Braun, & Martel	San Francisco	CA	01-Apr-96
Fenwick & West L.L.P.	Palo Alto	CA	01-Jan-97
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner	Washington	DC	01-Dec-95
Fish & Richardson	Boston	MA
Foley & Lardner	Milwaukee	WI
Foley, Hoag & Eliot L.L.P.	Boston	MA
Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC	Seattle	WA
Fried, Frank, Haris, Shriver & Jacobson	New York	NY	01-Dec-94
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP	Los Angeles	CA
Gardner, Carton & Douglas	Chicago	IL	01-Jan-98
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP	Los Angeles	CA
Golsten, Storrs	Boston	MA
Goodwin Procter LLP	Boston	MA
Gordon & Rees	San Francisco	CA
Goulston & Storrs	Boston	MA
Graham & James	San Francisco	CA
Gray, Cary, Ware & Friedenrich LLP	San Diego	CA
Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger	Los Angeles	CA	01-Feb-96
Hale & Door	Boston	MA	01-Oct-93
Hale and Dorr LLP	Boston	MA
Hancock Rothert Bunshoft LLP	San Francisco	CA
Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy LLP	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-97
Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP	Rochester	NY
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-96
Hill & Barlow	Boston	MA
Hodgson Russ Attorneys, LLP	Buffalo	NY
Hogan & Hartson	Washington	DC
Holland & Knight	Miami	FL	01-Dec-97
Howard & Howard Attorneys, PC	Kalamazoo	MI	01-Dec-02
Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP	Washington	DC	01-Dec-95
Hughes Hubbard and Reed	New York	NY	17-May-00
Hunton & Williams	Richmond	VA
Irell & Manella LLP	Los Angeles	CA
Jackson, Tufts, Cole & Black	San Jose	CA	01-Dec-97
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro	Los Angeles	CA	01-Apr-99
Jenner & Block LLP	Chicago	IL	01-Jan-97
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue	Cleveland	OH
Kahn, Howrey	Chicago	IL
Karr Tuttle Campbell	Seattle	WA
Katten Muchin Zavis	Chicago	IL	01-Jan-98
Kaye, Scholer, Fireman, Hays & Handler	New York	NY	01-Jul-97
Kelley, Drye & Warren	New York	NY
King & Spalding	Atlanta	GA	01-Dec-03
Kirkland & Ellis	Chicago	IL
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart	Pittsburgh	PA
KMZ Rosenman	New York	NY
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP	New York	NY
Latham & Watkins	Los Angeles	CA
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae	New York	NY
Legal Aid	Elmira	NY	01-Mar-91
Leonard Street and Deinard	Minneapolis	MN
Lewis and Roca	Phoenix	AZ
Lillenthal, Fowler	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-88
Lillick & Charles	San Francisco	CA
Lindquist & Vennum PLLP	Minneapolis	MN
Littler Mendelson PC	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-02
Long & Levit	San Francisco	CA
Lord, Bissell & Brook	Chicago	IL
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP	Los Angeles	CA	01-Dec-99
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw	New York	NY
Mayer, Brown & Platt	Chicago	IL	01-Jul-97
Mayor, Day, Caldwell & Keeton L.L.P.	Houston	TX	01-Jan-97
McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP	Honolulu	HI
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen	San Francisco	CA
McDonough Holland & Allen	Sacramento	CA
McKenna & Cuneo	Washington	DC
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP	Madison	WI
Milavetz, Gallop, and Milavetz	Minneapolis	MN
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, & McCloy	New York	NY	01-Dec-92
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo	Boston	MA
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP	Washington	DC	01-Dec-02
Morrison & Foerster LLP	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-93
Munger Tolles & Olsen	Los Angeles	CA
Munro, Nelson, Pearl & McCown	San Francisco	CA
Nixon Peabody LLP	New York	NY
Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot	Los Angeles	CA
O'Melveny & Meyers	Los Angeles	CA	01-Dec-98
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-93
Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti	Denver	CO
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP	New York	NY	01-Jan-95
Patton Boggs L.L.P.	Washington	DC
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker	Los Angeles	CA	01-Jan-96
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison	New York	NY	01-Dec-95
Peabody & Arnold	Boston	MA
Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz	Philadelphia	PA
Pillsbury Winthrop LLP	McLean	VA
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-92
Piper Rudnick	Baltimore	MD
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP	Cleveland	OH	01-Dec-03
Post & Schell PC	Philadelphia	PA
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, LLP	Washington	DC	01-Dec-01
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P.	New York	NY	01-Dec-94
Quarles & Brady	Chicago	IL
Reed Smith	Philadelphia	PA
Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti	Morristown	NJ
Robinson & Cole LLP	Hartford	CT
Robinson Silverman et al.	New York	NY
Rogers & Wells	New York	NY	01-Jan-97
Ropes & Gray	Boston	MA
Rudnick & Wolfe	Chicago	IL
Sachnoff & Weaver	Chicago	IL
Schiff, Hardin & Waite	Chicago	IL	01-Dec-93
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP	San Francisco	CA
Schulte, Roth & Zabel L.L.P	New York	NY	01-Dec-95
Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson	Chicago	IL
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge	Washington	DC	01-Dec-95
Sherman & Sterling	New York	NY	01-Dec-94
Shipman Goodwin LLP	Hartford	CT
Sidley & Austin	Chicago	IL	01-Dec-96
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood	New York	NY	01-Jul-97
Silverstein & Mullens	Washington	DC
Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett	New York	NY	01-Jan-98
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom	New York	NY	01-Jan-95
Smith & Hawken	Acton	MA
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal	Chicago	IL
Spriggs & Hollingsworth	Washington	DC
Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-01
Steefel Levitt & Weiss	San Francisco	CA	01-Dec-01
Steptoe & Johnson	Washington	DC	01-Jan-95
Stoel Rives L.L.P	Portland	OR
Stroock, Stroock & Lavan	New York	NY
Sullivan & Cromwell	New York	NY	01-Jan-94
Sullivan & Worcester LLP	Boston	MA
Susman, Rosenfeld & Meyer LLP	Beverly Hills	CA	01-Dec-96
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP	Atlanta	GA
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman LLP	Washington	DC
Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault L.L.P.	Boston	MA	25-Sep-95
Thelen Reid & Priest LLP	Los Angeles	CA
Thelen, Marin, Johnson & Bridges	San Francisco	CA	01-Jan-96
Tonkon Torp LLP	Portland	OR
Townsend and Townsend and Crew	Palo Alto	CA	01-Jan-96
Troop, Steuber, Pasich, Reddick & Tobey	Los Angeles	CA
Troutman Sanders LLP	Atlanta	GA	01-Dec-03
Venable Baetjer Howard & Civiletti	Washington	DC
Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand	Washington	DC
Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P	Houston	TX	01-Dec-95
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz	New York	NY	01-Dec-94
Weil, Gotshal & Manges	New York	NY
White & Case	New York	NY	01-Dec-95
White & Williams	Philadelphia	PA
Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon	Chicago	IL
Wiley, Rein & Fielding	Washington	DC	01-Dec-95
Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher	New York	NY
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering	Washington	DC
Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati	Palo Alto	CA
Winston & Strawn	Chicago	IL	01-Jan-98
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts	New York	NY	01-Dec-97
Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen L.L.P.	Philadelphia	PA	01-Dec-97

---

From the November/December 2005 issue of Diversity & The Bar^®