So who's got that hiring spreadsheet that Gibson leaked Forum

[Joachim2017]

Cisscum is on a three-day vacation until they learn not to pop into threads with anti-semitic nonsense.

Same thing will happen to anyone who wants to share their spicy-hot takes about how [insert minority population here] people don't face discrimination in biglaw because they once saw a black person get a promotion.

Meh, apparently the powers-that-be on TLS gave this person the ability to ban other people, but in my view, voicing your personal opinion about who does/does not face discrimination in Big Law is, while maybe uncouth, not "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws," and so doesn't warrant a ban. People should be free to disagree, or even mock or laugh at, others' opinions, but a 3 day ban seems excessive. (And the fact that a particular person is just tired of reading certain content or hearing certain types of opinions that go against their own views/politics doesn't warrant it either.)

Agreed, policing dissent seems a bit over the top. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're 'abusive' or 'hateful'

The banned poster has repeatedly derailed threads with off topic culture war bullshit, so I'm guessing they were already on thin ice with the mods, who jumped in before it spiraled into complete absurdity. I'm honestly surprised they aren't already perma banned.

Case in point - this thread! Yet again, another potentially interesting thread on TLS has 1. nothing interesting yet contributed, and 2. has devolved into the same bickering over diversity that has been pointlessly rehashed a hundred times already (but this time, with a Jewish twist!).

It's funny to me that some posters read through this thread and have any expectation that it would provide a link or some other means to actually get that spreadsheet. Given what we knew about the spreadsheet, what did you expect to find here?

You also fall into the exact point I anticipated in my original post: you personally are tired of reading the same old "pointless rehashing" of a certain topic, or a certain stance on a certain topic. So what? Someone's giving a tired, pointless, well-known, or boring opinion shouldn't get them a ban, for however long. That was the point of the last 4-5 posts. If you think the thread's been derailed from some absurd expectation that you'd find the actual spreadsheet, or some collection of well-developed views about GDC's internal, unpublished hiring criteria....by all means have at it.

[beepboopbeep]

You also fall into the exact point I anticipated in my original post: you personally are tired of reading the same old "pointless rehashing" of a certain topic, or a certain stance on a certain topic. So what? Someone's giving a tired, pointless, well-known, or boring opinion shouldn't get them a ban, for however long.

Take this shit to the lounge, or the rules/moderation feedback thread. In the legal employment section, dumb off-topic debates absolutely are banworthy, and in any event the guy only got a 3-day timeout.

From the sticky:

If your posting doesn't add something to the discussion, expect to be banned, the length of which ban will be entirely dependent on the opinion of the banning moderator. If you have to ask whether your comment adds something constructive to the thread, then it doesn't.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

One time I was fucking around on the firm system, and I put my name into the search terms, and found the OCI interviewer notes about me and everyone else that interviewed for the office during that OCI cycle. I then searched the system for other years and other offices, and found that my year was the only one that was (presumably mistakenly) put on the system.

My takeaway from those notes was that the notes were all pretty much mundane. Lots of one-word answers. There were some that were notable. One classmate I had (that was really smart, spent some time at a solid v40-ish firm, and then left to found a very successful personal injury firm) was described as not having the "it" factor that made the faceless and frankly unimpressive firm I was at "tick." One interviewer really had it in her head that another classmate would only be happy if she did a very specialized area of law that the office didn't have, which doomed the classmate. This seemed bizarre and based on the fact that our firm listed the area in advertising for its office, so I guess the classmate should've done more than just take the firm's word for it on what it did when she made up her bullshit answer to the "why this firm" question. For me, I found out that the only person I knew at the firm going into the interview did not put me down as an "automatic offer," which I was a little hurt by, but in fairness, a childhood friend of his was also interviewing that day, and so he probably didn't want to water down his "automatic offer" vote.

I figured I'd share this, even though this wasn't Gibson, because it's a lot closer to the thread title than basically anything in the last 2 pages of comments.

[AnonCanary123]

One time I was fucking around on the firm system, and I put my name into the search terms, and found the OCI interviewer notes about me and everyone else that interviewed for the office during that OCI cycle. I then searched the system for other years and other offices, and found that my year was the only one that was (presumably mistakenly) put on the system.

My takeaway from those notes was that the notes were all pretty much mundane. Lots of one-word answers. There were some that were notable. One classmate I had (that was really smart, spent some time at a solid v40-ish firm, and then left to found a very successful personal injury firm) was described as not having the "it" factor that made the faceless and frankly unimpressive firm I was at "tick." One interviewer really had it in her head that another classmate would only be happy if she did a very specialized area of law that the office didn't have, which doomed the classmate. This seemed bizarre and based on the fact that our firm listed the area in advertising for its office, so I guess the classmate should've done more than just take the firm's word for it on what it did when she made up her bullshit answer to the "why this firm" question. For me, I found out that the only person I knew at the firm going into the interview did not put me down as an "automatic offer," which I was a little hurt by, but in fairness, a childhood friend of his was also interviewing that day, and so he probably didn't want to water down his "automatic offer" vote.

I figured I'd share this, even though this wasn't Gibson, because it's a lot closer to the thread title than basically anything in the last 2 pages of comments.

Thanks for the contribution. One figures the interview notes would be hastily done (since a lot of firms will treat this as nonbillable work) but it is refreshing to actually see secondhand what goes into the notes.

[Buglaw]

I saw some of what I guess was discrimination. Had a Jewish associate who observed every single Saturday and wouldn't do work. People were super pissed off about it and loudly complained about him. It's not clear if he got fired or just left, but if he wasn't fired, I'm sure it wouldn't have been long in coming. I think that sort of religious observance is incompatable with big law. I also think it would have been just as problematic if some Christian associate didn't want to work on Sundays.

[Anonymous User]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

Bump

[Anonymous User]

On a related point, to the Jewish associates here, if someone grew up in a secular household with little to no knowledge of Judaism, but then alluded to being chozer be teshuva in biglaw, what are their chances of getting into trouble if they regularly took off shabbos and Jewish holidays? Asking for a friend.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

ITT: You go to a restaurant and order a ribeye. Your waiter tells you they don't have any steak right now, but 20 cooks are willing to talk to you about corporatization and mistreatment in factory farming.

[Buglaw]

ITT: You go to a restaurant and order a ribeye. Your waiter tells you they don't have any steak right now, but 20 cooks are willing to talk to you about corporatization and mistreatment in factory farming.

This made me laugh.

[ExpOriental]

ITT: You go to a restaurant and order a ribeye. Your waiter tells you they don't have any steak right now, but 20 cooks are willing to talk to you about corporatization and mistreatment in factory farming.

And, don't forget, that it was "absurd" for me to even ask about the steak option.

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

ITT: You go to a restaurant and order a ribeye. Your waiter tells you they don't have any steak right now, but 20 cooks are willing to talk to you about corporatization and mistreatment in factory farming.

And, don't forget, that it was "absurd" for me to even ask about the steak option.

Also, you only went to this particular restaurant because of a sign outside advertising its "World Famous Ribeyes!"

[TLS1234321]

ITT: You go to a restaurant and order a ribeye. Your waiter tells you they don't have any steak right now, but 20 cooks are willing to talk to you about corporatization and mistreatment in factory farming.

And, don't forget, that it was "absurd" for me to even ask about the steak option.

Also, you only went to this particular restaurant because of a sign outside advertising its "World Famous Ribeyes!"

Oh boo-hoo. You dont get to read your spreadsheet. I'd much rather be discriminated against at OCI for having the wrong last name than have to scroll through THREE WHOLE PAGES of TLS comments.

[Anonymous User]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

bump

[Buglaw]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

[Anonymous User]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

Both me and SO have been involved in hiring at our respective firms. My firm does not specifically give people points for diversity but something among the lines of "diverse candidate" will be listed in interview notes and treated as a soft advantage--at least to get to the call-back stage. SO's firm is more formal on diverse hiring--there is both a diversity committee that targets diverse candidates through diversity scholarships, but also has clear differences in target schools and grades for diverse candidates. Both places have done well in terms of hiring diverse classes, but my SO's firm definitely has an edge. That said, it feels weird insofar as their classes largely consist of White/Asian students from T6/T14 schools and then URM students from GW/Fordham etc.

[Buglaw]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

Both me and SO have been involved in hiring at our respective firms. My firm does not specifically give people points for diversity but something among the lines of "diverse candidate" will be listed in interview notes and treated as a soft advantage--at least to get to the call-back stage. SO's firm is more formal on diverse hiring--there is both a diversity committee that targets diverse candidates through diversity scholarships, but also has clear differences in target schools and grades for diverse candidates. Both places have done well in terms of hiring diverse classes, but my SO's firm definitely has an edge. That said, it feels weird insofar as their classes largely consist of White/Asian students from T6/T14 schools and then URM students from GW/Fordham etc.

I think this is true at alot/most firms that do well with URM hiring. I don't think it's a secret as to why so many top firms pay special bonuses in the form of diversity scholarships to attract talented diverse candidates.

[Anonymous User]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

Both me and SO have been involved in hiring at our respective firms. My firm does not specifically give people points for diversity but something among the lines of "diverse candidate" will be listed in interview notes and treated as a soft advantage--at least to get to the call-back stage. SO's firm is more formal on diverse hiring--there is both a diversity committee that targets diverse candidates through diversity scholarships, but also has clear differences in target schools and grades for diverse candidates. Both places have done well in terms of hiring diverse classes, but my SO's firm definitely has an edge. That said, it feels weird insofar as their classes largely consist of White/Asian students from T6/T14 schools and then URM students from GW/Fordham etc.

I think this is true at alot/most firms that do well with URM hiring. I don't think it's a secret as to why so many top firms pay special bonuses in the form of diversity scholarships to attract talented diverse candidates.

This is how I understand my V10 does it as an associate who has interviewed plenty of candidates. We have a formal push to get more diverse candidates in the door for interviews, and we have financial incentives for them to accept our offers. But there is no bump as to the substance of the interview itself. Perhaps there is some diversity bonus behind the scenes that I don't know about. I just see it as the firm trying to raise the % of interviewees who are diverse as well as the acceptance % of diverse offerees, rather than make it more likely that a diverse interviewee will receive an offer.

[Anonymous User]

On a related point, to the Jewish associates here, if someone grew up in a secular household with little to no knowledge of Judaism, but then alluded to being chozer be teshuva in biglaw, what are their chances of getting into trouble if they regularly took off shabbos and Jewish holidays? Asking for a friend.

I dated a girl who did this. I think the key is you have to do it early and commit to it so that nobody expects that you are full of shit.

[Anonymous User]

I saw some of what I guess was discrimination. Had a Jewish associate who observed every single Saturday and wouldn't do work. People were super pissed off about it and loudly complained about him. It's not clear if he got fired or just left, but if he wasn't fired, I'm sure it wouldn't have been long in coming. I think that sort of religious observance is incompatable with big law. I also think it would have been just as problematic if some Christian associate didn't want to work on Sundays.

The notion that "religious observance is incompatable with big law" would probably be a surprise to the current Chair of S&C or the former Chair of Proskauer, among many other Shabbat-observing biglaw partners at most of the big firms in New York (CSM is a notable exception). My colleagues have always been super-accommodating of scheduling needs relating to my religious observance, and I have always volunteered to cover for my colleagues during the week of Christmas.

[Anonymous User]

Agree, dissenting viewpoints shouldn’t be silenced but countered with more speech. In any event it is in fact laughable to have overwhelming representation in a field and claim discrimination. If anything there is positive discrimination.

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

Both me and SO have been involved in hiring at our respective firms. My firm does not specifically give people points for diversity but something among the lines of "diverse candidate" will be listed in interview notes and treated as a soft advantage--at least to get to the call-back stage. SO's firm is more formal on diverse hiring--there is both a diversity committee that targets diverse candidates through diversity scholarships, but also has clear differences in target schools and grades for diverse candidates. Both places have done well in terms of hiring diverse classes, but my SO's firm definitely has an edge. That said, it feels weird insofar as their classes largely consist of White/Asian students from T6/T14 schools and then URM students from GW/Fordham etc.

I think this is true at alot/most firms that do well with URM hiring. I don't think it's a secret as to why so many top firms pay special bonuses in the form of diversity scholarships to attract talented diverse candidates.

This is how I understand my V10 does it as an associate who has interviewed plenty of candidates. We have a formal push to get more diverse candidates in the door for interviews, and we have financial incentives for them to accept our offers. But there is no bump as to the substance of the interview itself. Perhaps there is some diversity bonus behind the scenes that I don't know about. I just see it as the firm trying to raise the % of interviewees who are diverse as well as the acceptance % of diverse offerees, rather than make it more likely that a diverse interviewee will receive an offer.

Firms are increasingly rewarded by clients for having diverse teams, or punished for not having them. More diversity also has important PR value for the firms that care about it. Diverse candidates are quite rare, particularly if you want to simultaneously restrict hires to top schools and/or top grades (which is already a competitive, small group of people before filtering out all the non-diverse ones). It’s simply supply and demand.

The solutions are therefore some combination of:
1. Be more aggressive in targeting diverse students among your already small population of strong candidates. Possibly even targeting them as 1Ls pre-grades.
2. Offer those hires $$$ to take the offer and increase conversion rate.
3. Relax your snobbishness about school rank and GPA to open up the field more.

Given this ultra competitive market for diverse talent, it would be strange for the firms to NOT keep track of it.

[LBJ's Hair]

On a related point, to the Jewish associates here, if someone grew up in a secular household with little to no knowledge of Judaism, but then alluded to being chozer be teshuva in biglaw, what are their chances of getting into trouble if they regularly took off shabbos and Jewish holidays? Asking for a friend.

I dated a girl who did this. I think the key is you have to do it early and commit to it so that nobody expects that you are full of shit.

ymmv, but at my firm you would get outed in about three seconds b/c some partner would start up a conversation about where you go to temple and who you know there and it'd be immediately clear you were full of shit lol

[Buglaw]

I saw some of what I guess was discrimination. Had a Jewish associate who observed every single Saturday and wouldn't do work. People were super pissed off about it and loudly complained about him. It's not clear if he got fired or just left, but if he wasn't fired, I'm sure it wouldn't have been long in coming. I think that sort of religious observance is incompatable with big law. I also think it would have been just as problematic if some Christian associate didn't want to work on Sundays.

The notion that "religious observance is incompatable with big law" would probably be a surprise to the current Chair of S&C or the former Chair of Proskauer, among many other Shabbat-observing biglaw partners at most of the big firms in New York (CSM is a notable exception). My colleagues have always been super-accommodating of scheduling needs relating to my religious observance, and I have always volunteered to cover for my colleagues during the week of Christmas.

Are you saying taking every single Saturday off is the same thing as the week of Christmas? Also, I've never heard of someone getting to just take the week of Christmas off. Christmas eve and Christmas day, sure. Just like Jewish folks get Jewish holidays off. I'd also point out that Jewish folks also almost always get Christmas off as well...

The equivalent of taking every Saturday off is taking every Sunday off and I no of no one who does that. The idea of frequently just being unavailable to your deal team on Saturdays leading up to closing will make you very unpopular. Taking Jewish holidays off wont.

[Anonymous User]

Ok - so how is GDC using race/ethnicity in hiring?

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

Both me and SO have been involved in hiring at our respective firms. My firm does not specifically give people points for diversity but something among the lines of "diverse candidate" will be listed in interview notes and treated as a soft advantage--at least to get to the call-back stage. SO's firm is more formal on diverse hiring--there is both a diversity committee that targets diverse candidates through diversity scholarships, but also has clear differences in target schools and grades for diverse candidates. Both places have done well in terms of hiring diverse classes, but my SO's firm definitely has an edge. That said, it feels weird insofar as their classes largely consist of White/Asian students from T6/T14 schools and then URM students from GW/Fordham etc.

I think this is true at alot/most firms that do well with URM hiring. I don't think it's a secret as to why so many top firms pay special bonuses in the form of diversity scholarships to attract talented diverse candidates.

This is how I understand my V10 does it as an associate who has interviewed plenty of candidates. We have a formal push to get more diverse candidates in the door for interviews, and we have financial incentives for them to accept our offers. But there is no bump as to the substance of the interview itself. Perhaps there is some diversity bonus behind the scenes that I don't know about. I just see it as the firm trying to raise the % of interviewees who are diverse as well as the acceptance % of diverse offerees, rather than make it more likely that a diverse interviewee will receive an offer.

Firms are increasingly rewarded by clients for having diverse teams, or punished for not having them. More diversity also has important PR value for the firms that care about it. Diverse candidates are quite rare, particularly if you want to simultaneously restrict hires to top schools and/or top grades (which is already a competitive, small group of people before filtering out all the non-diverse ones). It’s simply supply and demand.

The solutions are therefore some combination of:
1. Be more aggressive in targeting diverse students among your already small population of strong candidates. Possibly even targeting them as 1Ls pre-grades.
2. Offer those hires $$$ to take the offer and increase conversion rate.
3. Relax your snobbishness about school rank and GPA to open up the field more.

Given this ultra competitive market for diverse talent, it would be strange for the firms to NOT keep track of it.

We have at least one very large institutional client you have definitely heard of who requires X% of its case teams to be “diverse” meaning women, POC, LGBTQ, etc. But the relationship partner and his usual partner/senior associate crew are all straight white men, meaning that to hit the metric they have to staff all of the matters with all diverse associates. I think this kind of defeats the purpose but I guess Client is playing the long game. If they really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, they’d work with a different firm/top-level partner who isn’t yet another white male HLS grad from the early 90s.

[Anonymous User]

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

Both me and SO have been involved in hiring at our respective firms. My firm does not specifically give people points for diversity but something among the lines of "diverse candidate" will be listed in interview notes and treated as a soft advantage--at least to get to the call-back stage. SO's firm is more formal on diverse hiring--there is both a diversity committee that targets diverse candidates through diversity scholarships, but also has clear differences in target schools and grades for diverse candidates. Both places have done well in terms of hiring diverse classes, but my SO's firm definitely has an edge. That said, it feels weird insofar as their classes largely consist of White/Asian students from T6/T14 schools and then URM students from GW/Fordham etc.

I think this is true at alot/most firms that do well with URM hiring. I don't think it's a secret as to why so many top firms pay special bonuses in the form of diversity scholarships to attract talented diverse candidates.

This is how I understand my V10 does it as an associate who has interviewed plenty of candidates. We have a formal push to get more diverse candidates in the door for interviews, and we have financial incentives for them to accept our offers. But there is no bump as to the substance of the interview itself. Perhaps there is some diversity bonus behind the scenes that I don't know about. I just see it as the firm trying to raise the % of interviewees who are diverse as well as the acceptance % of diverse offerees, rather than make it more likely that a diverse interviewee will receive an offer.

Firms are increasingly rewarded by clients for having diverse teams, or punished for not having them. More diversity also has important PR value for the firms that care about it. Diverse candidates are quite rare, particularly if you want to simultaneously restrict hires to top schools and/or top grades (which is already a competitive, small group of people before filtering out all the non-diverse ones). It’s simply supply and demand.

The solutions are therefore some combination of:
1. Be more aggressive in targeting diverse students among your already small population of strong candidates. Possibly even targeting them as 1Ls pre-grades.
2. Offer those hires $$$ to take the offer and increase conversion rate.
3. Relax your snobbishness about school rank and GPA to open up the field more.

Given this ultra competitive market for diverse talent, it would be strange for the firms to NOT keep track of it.

We have at least one very large institutional client you have definitely heard of who requires X% of its case teams to be “diverse” meaning women, POC, LGBTQ, etc. But the relationship partner and his usual partner/senior associate crew are all straight white men, meaning that to hit the metric they have to staff all of the matters with all diverse associates. I think this kind of defeats the purpose but I guess Client is playing the long game. If they really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, they’d work with a different firm/top-level partner who isn’t yet another white male HLS grad from the early 90s.

Same. One of these partners posts linkedin posts like every few days toting a different non-white summer associate that was hired. Seems cringey to me, but maybe clients like this sort of thing. I certainly wouldn't know as I have no clients.

[Anonymous User]

bump

I mean, I don't work there, but positively for those who are diverse. I don't think it's a secret that all firms do this, right?

Both me and SO have been involved in hiring at our respective firms. My firm does not specifically give people points for diversity but something among the lines of "diverse candidate" will be listed in interview notes and treated as a soft advantage--at least to get to the call-back stage. SO's firm is more formal on diverse hiring--there is both a diversity committee that targets diverse candidates through diversity scholarships, but also has clear differences in target schools and grades for diverse candidates. Both places have done well in terms of hiring diverse classes, but my SO's firm definitely has an edge. That said, it feels weird insofar as their classes largely consist of White/Asian students from T6/T14 schools and then URM students from GW/Fordham etc.

I think this is true at alot/most firms that do well with URM hiring. I don't think it's a secret as to why so many top firms pay special bonuses in the form of diversity scholarships to attract talented diverse candidates.

This is how I understand my V10 does it as an associate who has interviewed plenty of candidates. We have a formal push to get more diverse candidates in the door for interviews, and we have financial incentives for them to accept our offers. But there is no bump as to the substance of the interview itself. Perhaps there is some diversity bonus behind the scenes that I don't know about. I just see it as the firm trying to raise the % of interviewees who are diverse as well as the acceptance % of diverse offerees, rather than make it more likely that a diverse interviewee will receive an offer.

Firms are increasingly rewarded by clients for having diverse teams, or punished for not having them. More diversity also has important PR value for the firms that care about it. Diverse candidates are quite rare, particularly if you want to simultaneously restrict hires to top schools and/or top grades (which is already a competitive, small group of people before filtering out all the non-diverse ones). It’s simply supply and demand.

The solutions are therefore some combination of:
1. Be more aggressive in targeting diverse students among your already small population of strong candidates. Possibly even targeting them as 1Ls pre-grades.
2. Offer those hires $$$ to take the offer and increase conversion rate.
3. Relax your snobbishness about school rank and GPA to open up the field more.

Given this ultra competitive market for diverse talent, it would be strange for the firms to NOT keep track of it.

We have at least one very large institutional client you have definitely heard of who requires X% of its case teams to be “diverse” meaning women, POC, LGBTQ, etc. But the relationship partner and his usual partner/senior associate crew are all straight white men, meaning that to hit the metric they have to staff all of the matters with all diverse associates. I think this kind of defeats the purpose but I guess Client is playing the long game. If they really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, they’d work with a different firm/top-level partner who isn’t yet another white male HLS grad from the early 90s.

Part of the problem is that you’re playing a ~10 year game to turn diverse law students into diverse partners, and the vast majority of them (just like the vast majority of straight white male associates) won’t make it that far, either because they quit or because they fail some necessary partnership criteria. You start with a really small sample of associates and they’re subject to all the same dynamics that make partnership unlikely for others, meaning the numbers dwindle.

Plus, even if you’re successful at elevating diverse associates into partners, it takes ~10 years so the result will significantly lag any recruiting efforts you make now (assuming they work). Then if you do have a few diverse partners, they can only handle so much work and you won’t be able to just dump all your clients on them, so the impact on any given team will be limited.