Winter 2005 Survey of Law Office Diversity Programs
Executive Summary
The survey findings are in two parts, Part 1 in the February 2005 issue of Professional Development Quarterly and Part 2 in the May 2005 issue.
I. Survey Respondents
Number and type of responding organizations:
31 law offices responded to our survey: 2 state government agencies and 29
private law firms (27 US, 1 Canada, 1 UK).
Organization size ranges from a little over 100 lawyers to
over 3,000. In all, the respondents represent over 18,000 practicing lawyers.
Geographic scope: The responding organizations have anywhere
from 2 offices to more than 50. The 2 state agencies and 10 of the US law
firms practice only in this country; the remaining 19 firms have offices
in anywhere from two countries to more than 30.
Persons completing the survey questionnaire: People in the
following types of positions submitted the survey questionnaires on behalf
of their organizations:
• Human resources, legal personnel,
professional development, recruitment, and/or training officers (in several
cases two of those functions are combined in one position) (19)
• Diversity managers/directors/officers
(5)
• Law firm partners who gave no other
title (3)
• Diversity committee chairs (2)
• Development/marketing officers (2)
Respondent Subsets
In analyzing the survey data, we looked at three subsets of respondents to
see what noteworthy differences emerged:
1. We grouped all respondents into three subsets by organization
size:
■ over 700 lawyers (9 respondents);
■ 300-700 lawyers (11 respondents);
and
■ under 300 lawyers (11 respondents).
2. The second grouping is geographic, based on various
reports that in the U.S., nontraditional lawyers seem to prefer major coastal
cities over other locations. So we compared the programs and results of:
■ 12 “Central” law offices in which
at least 2/3rds of the lawyers practice in the U.S. interior (based on NALP
Employer Directory statistics by office) – that is, in the states arcing
west and south from Ohio to Arizona, and
■ 16 “Coastal” law offices in which
at least 2/3rds of the lawyers practice in the states along the U.S. east
and west coasts.
Law offices that did not fit either category were not
included in the comparisons.
3. We also grouped selected respondents into two subsets
by target personnel – that is, by significant differences in the categories
of personnel the respondents are seeking to diversify:
■ 12 offices whose diversity efforts
target only the lawyers (11 of these are targeting both partners/senior lawyers
and associates/junior lawyers, and 1 is targeting – “for now,” they noted
-- only associates/junior lawyers), and
■ 7 offices whose programs are targeting
all categories of personnel for diversity – that is, all lawyers, other legal
staff, managers/administrators, and support staff.
Our expectation here was that narrow vs. broad target
objectives might play out in differences in both the strategies adopted and
the results achieved.
II. Survey Findings
There was a wide range of variation on every aspect of the
survey topics – as to both the responding organizations themselves and the
programs they have implemented or are in the course of developing. Those
differences are explored in some detail in the various sections of the survey
report. In those sections we also look at the similarities and differences among
the three different respondent subsets described above.
Here, however, is a profile of the “average” or typical survey respondent,
compiled from numerical averages of the quantitative items and the most common
responses (50% or more of respondents) on the qualitative ones:
1. The organization is a US-based law firm with 581 lawyers practicing
in 10 offices in 4 countries.
2. It has had a diversity program in place for 3 years or less, and
the program is directed by one or more practicing lawyers with support from
a volunteer committee and/or administrative staff whose primary responsibilities
also lie elsewhere.
3. The major objectives of the program are:
• To improve the recruitment and
retention of
• Legal personnel (partners/senior
lawyers, associates/junior lawyers, and other legal staff) who will diversify
the organization’s human resources
• On the basis of race, gender, national
origin, cultural background, and sexual orientation.
4. The firm has implemented 11 of 17 possible strategies in support of the
the program, including,
• With respect to the nontraditional
personnel being sought:
- Targeted recruitment,
- Support for affinity groups, and
- Targeted training and development.
• With respect to other personnel in
the organization:
- Diversity education/training for the lawyers
- Diversity education/training for firm leaders and managers
• On an organization-wide basis:
• Leadership involvement and example
• Developing an inclusive culture
• Community service activities
• Improving internal communications
• Strengthening management and supervision skills
• Serving diverse clients
5. Seven out of a possible 12 "success factors" are driving the program:
• A strong commitment from firm leadership
• Client expectations
• A strong diversity chair, committee,
or task force
• A strong recruitment program
• A firm culture of inclusion and open
communication
• A strong professional development
program
• Collection and publication of firm
demographics by NALP and others
6. On 5 possible measures of success, the program has been:
• Most successful at integrating nontraditional
personnel into the social life of the firm.
• Moderately successful at recruiting
nontraditional personnel and at integrating them into the firm’s practice and
client relationships.
• Least successful at retaining nontraditional
personnel and diversifying the leadership of the firm.
Order the full survey report here.