Davis Polk being sued by former minority associates Forum

[Anonymous User]

Okay, so you ask all lawyers if their parents went to law school and then are suspicious of their competence if they say yes?

Are legacy admissions at law schools a thing? If so, I would be interested in reading about it--mind sharing a report or something? And in that case, yes, if that information is volunteered, it would affect my judgment. Just like my judgment of legacy admits in undergrad was affected by legacy preference.

Those judgments are tempered somewhat if the attribute in question is independently correlated with competence/success.

Also you're assuming that all minorities were beneficiaries of AA without any indication that would be the case?

Not at all. That is the entire point of the issue here--people are making broad judgments about a group because that group (e.g. racial minorities, legacies, LGBTQA+ students) benefits from favorable admissions/hiring policies in general, even if not every member of the group is a beneficiary. The certainty that some benefit and the uncertainty about which particular individuals have benefited creates the problem.

[Anonymous User]

Since we are talking about diversity issues in firms - It's also quite weird how the law firms are obsessed with their personality types/ firm stereotypes. Like DPW and Cleary prefer the genteel type, Skadden and Latham like fratty type, Paul Weiss and Gibson like the more social type (? lol not sure) etc. Apparently all these firms are large and have all sorts of personalities, but I def remember from EIW/OCI that the classmates I know recruited to those firms somewhat basically fell into those stereotypes. When the partners are looking at whether a candidate is a fit with the firm, and are judging them by whether their personality matches with the firm, it's almost inevitable that the pursuit of some specific types of personalities in recruiting will lead to less diverse environment, because many times those stereotypes tend to be white-centered and male-centered. It's also odd because it's hard to see this kind of obsession with personality types and stereotypes in other industries, even other professional service industries.

I am honestly fed up by those firms that pride themselves for being "gentlemen firm," or for having frat culture. Just STOP. If we are talking about building up a more tolerate and diverse work environment, conscious recruiting effort is the first step.

[nixy]

Dude no. The difference is that LSAT/GPA correlate (not very well) with law school grades, which don’t prove competence as a lawyer.

Then firms should not use grades at all. But when a system uses particular objective-ish metrics and holds different candidates to different standards, that naturally will raise questions about who got accepted why.

1) Looking at grades doesn't mean they're the only basis for evaluating candidates (or firms could just go down a list of candidates and hire by GPA). People with excellent grades bomb interviews and don't get hired, people on the cusp of grade cutoffs can excel in interviews and get hired.
2) You're assuming every associate of color got hired with lower grades than white associates. Why?
3) There are benefits to having a diverse workforce.
4) nice use of anon.

[Dcc617]

Okay, so you ask all lawyers if their parents went to law school and then are suspicious of their competence if they say yes?

Are legacy admissions at law schools a thing? If so, I would be interested in reading about it--mind sharing a report or something? And in that case, yes, if that information is volunteered, it would affect my judgment. Just like my judgment of legacy admits in undergrad was affected by legacy preference.

Those judgments are tempered somewhat if the attribute in question is independently correlated with competence/success.

Also you're assuming that all minorities were beneficiaries of AA without any indication that would be the case?

Not at all. That is the entire point of the issue here--people are making broad judgments about a group because that group (e.g. racial minorities, legacies, LGBTQA+ students) benefits from favorable admissions/hiring policies in general, even if not every member of the group is a beneficiary. The certainty that some benefit and the uncertainty about which particular individuals have benefited creates the problem.

You can Google about legacy in law school just as easily as I can. But yes, there is legacy in law school admissions.

Are you also implying that legacy is independently corrolated with success?

And the idea that you would scrutinize all people from Nebraska in the same way that you scrutinize people of color is just not credible.

[RokosBasilisk2049]

Since we are talking about diversity issues in firms - It's also quite weird how the law firms are obsessed with their personality types/ firm stereotypes. Like DPW and Cleary prefer the genteel type, Skadden and Latham like fratty type, Paul Weiss and Gibson like the more social type (? lol not sure) etc.

It's all just marketing to make otherwise indistinguishable firms more appealing to certain subsets of applicants. At any given firm over a 10 year period like 98% of the associates will leave and a good chunk of the partnership will retire. Hell, in the time between OCI and actually starting at the firm a good chunk of the associate base will leave. Idk how anyone can believe that despite that firms somehow maintain enduring and distinguishable cultures.

[Anonymous User]

1) Looking at grades doesn't mean they're the only basis for evaluating candidates (or firms could just go down a list of candidates and hire by GPA). People with excellent grades bomb interviews and don't get hired, people on the cusp of grade cutoffs can excel in interviews and get hired.

All of that is true. But firms that have different GPA cutoffs based on attributes invite speculation as to whether particular individuals with those attributes benefited from the different standards.

2) You're assuming every associate of color got hired with lower grades than white associates. Why?

The opposite, actually. I originally responded because another poster said this:

"they have to work with some people who don't think they "deserve" to be there (fedsoc bros who assume they are some sort of "affirmative action" hires)"

If the credential cutoff (grade, LSAT, whatever) for applicants with attribute X is lower than applicants without attribute X, it can lead to suspicion on every person with attribute X because of the uncertainty about whether X benefited from the favorable policy or whether the result would have been the same without it.

You are projecting some other person's belief system onto what I am saying and also narrowing this problem to the issue of race, which I am not.

[Anonymous User]

You can Google about legacy in law school just as easily as I can. But yes, there is legacy in law school admissions.

I did Google it and found nothing. Perhaps you are better at research; if so, let me benefit rather than simply making unsubstantiated assertions.

Are you also implying that legacy is independently corrolated with success?

No.

And the idea that you would scrutinize all people from Nebraska in the same way that you scrutinize people of color is just not credible.

This seems completely out of left field. Do law schools or firms have lower standards for Nebraskan applicants? If so, please refer me to information on that.

[Dcc617]

Okay, so you ask all lawyers if their parents went to law school and then are suspicious of their competence if they say yes?

Are legacy admissions at law schools a thing? If so, I would be interested in reading about it--mind sharing a report or something? And in that case, yes, if that information is volunteered, it would affect my judgment. Just like my judgment of legacy admits in undergrad was affected by legacy preference.

Those judgments are tempered somewhat if the attribute in question is independently correlated with competence/success.

Also you're assuming that all minorities were beneficiaries of AA without any indication that would be the case?

Not at all. That is the entire point of the issue here--people are making broad judgments about a group because that group (e.g. racial minorities, legacies, LGBTQA+ students) benefits from favorable admissions/hiring policies in general, even if not every member of the group is a beneficiary. The certainty that some benefit and the uncertainty about which particular individuals have benefited creates the problem.

Okay, so here, you're essentially saying that the only people whose competence you can trust are straight white guys, since they're the only people you don't think benefitted from "favorable admissions/hiring policy".

Do you hear it now?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Oh good TLS is discussing affirmative action in the legal profession; can't wait for a productive, empathetic and fact-based discussion filled with mutual respect where posters seek to listen and understand alternate points of view like the last 527 times we did this.

[sms18]

A

I'm half japanese and don't see anything racist about it. Seems like something UMC white people care about

Fuck off with being an arbiter of Asian-ness.

No u. asians trying to fit in with UMC whites are fine speaking for all of us so why can't I?

I don't care if you don't find it offensive. But you can fuck right off (and go fuck yourself) for insinuating if you find it racist then you must be a UMC white.

White or white adjacent (asians trying to be white). Actual asians don't care about this shit. Japan is a monoethnic state.

Asians in Asia don't care about racism in the United States or Asian-American issues? Wow, what an insight!

Wearing kimonos isn't an Asian American issue. Most asian americans probably don't even know what it is

Anything relating to how Asians are perceived in the US is relevant for Asian Americans. And as clearly demonstrated by the recent deluge of assaults on Asian Americans in the US, from the perspective of many non-Asians, the distinction between "Asian" and "Asian American" is basically non-existent (just like how there is basically no distinction being made these days between "Chinese" and "Asians" in general).

[Anonymous User]

Okay, so here, you're essentially saying that the only people whose competence you can trust are straight white guys, since they're the only people you don't think benefitted from "favorable admissions/hiring policy".

That is not what I said at all. To start, the mentioned group is both under- and overinclusive. More importantly, judgments about competence should be made on the basis of things that actually matter, like work product. But having variable standards creates the possibility that some will factor those standards into risk analyses.

But you also seem to be denying reality. If I need surgery and a hospital says it automatically hires any doctor applicant whose name starts with Z, I think it would be entirely reasonable for me to be hesitant to be operated on by Doctor Zubin.

[motojir]

It's also quite weird how the law firms are obsessed with their personality types/ firm stereotypes. Like DPW and Cleary prefer the genteel type, Skadden and Latham like fratty type, Paul Weiss and Gibson like the more social type (? lol not sure) etc.

Inane bullshit. Same variety of people at all six firms, and rarely is a lawyer genteel, fratty or social. But feel free to give us a few iconic examples of the genteel dpw/cleary lawyer, the fratty skadden/latham lawyer or the social pw/gd lawyer.

[JamezPhoenix]

Oh good TLS is discussing affirmative action in the legal profession; can't wait for a productive, empathetic and fact-based discussion filled with mutual respect where posters seek to listen and understand alternate points of view like the last 527 times we did this.

yeah! It is reminiscent of when I tried to have a productive, empathetic and fact-based discussion filled with mutual respect where posters seek to listen and understand alternate points of view on the topic of mental health in the legal profession.

[motojir]

Oh good TLS is discussing affirmative action in the legal profession; can't wait for a productive, empathetic and fact-based discussion filled with mutual respect where posters seek to listen and understand alternate points of view like the last 527 times we did this.

yeah! It is reminiscent of when I tried to have a productive, empathetic and fact-based discussion filled with mutual respect where posters seek to listen and understand alternate points of view on the topic of mental health in the legal profession.

Please, nobody bite on this troll lure, cast by someone who has never worked in a big law firm.

[cisscum]

A

Fuck off with being an arbiter of Asian-ness.

No u. asians trying to fit in with UMC whites are fine speaking for all of us so why can't I?

I don't care if you don't find it offensive. But you can fuck right off (and go fuck yourself) for insinuating if you find it racist then you must be a UMC white.

White or white adjacent (asians trying to be white). Actual asians don't care about this shit. Japan is a monoethnic state.

Asians in Asia don't care about racism in the United States or Asian-American issues? Wow, what an insight!

Wearing kimonos isn't an Asian American issue. Most asian americans probably don't even know what it is

Anything relating to how Asians are perceived in the US is relevant for Asian Americans. And as clearly demonstrated by the recent deluge of assaults on Asian Americans in the US, from the perspective of many non-Asians, the distinction between "Asian" and "Asian American" is basically non-existent (just like how there is basically no distinction being made these days between "Chinese" and "Asians" in general).

Yeah it's white collar workers attacking asians in the streets. Totally not disproportionately one group of people doing those attacks. People aren't stupid pal

[sms18]

A

No u. asians trying to fit in with UMC whites are fine speaking for all of us so why can't I?

I don't care if you don't find it offensive. But you can fuck right off (and go fuck yourself) for insinuating if you find it racist then you must be a UMC white.

White or white adjacent (asians trying to be white). Actual asians don't care about this shit. Japan is a monoethnic state.

Asians in Asia don't care about racism in the United States or Asian-American issues? Wow, what an insight!

Wearing kimonos isn't an Asian American issue. Most asian americans probably don't even know what it is

Anything relating to how Asians are perceived in the US is relevant for Asian Americans. And as clearly demonstrated by the recent deluge of assaults on Asian Americans in the US, from the perspective of many non-Asians, the distinction between "Asian" and "Asian American" is basically non-existent (just like how there is basically no distinction being made these days between "Chinese" and "Asians" in general).

Yeah it's white collar workers attacking asians in the streets. Totally not disproportionately one group of people doing those attacks. People aren't stupid pal

Racism isn't limited to street-level assaults, "pal." Negative perception and treatment of Asian Americans (which existed long before the pandemic, and which intensified recently with the pandemic) is quite prevalent here among white collar workers, if you haven't noticed. And you speaking for all "Asian Americans" because you just happen to be half-Japanese is a good one by the way (thx for that laugh).

[Anonymous User]

I don't care if you don't find it offensive. But you can fuck right off (and go fuck yourself) for insinuating if you find it racist then you must be a UMC white.

White or white adjacent (asians trying to be white). Actual asians don't care about this shit. Japan is a monoethnic state.

Asians in Asia don't care about racism in the United States or Asian-American issues? Wow, what an insight!

Wearing kimonos isn't an Asian American issue. Most asian americans probably don't even know what it is

Anything relating to how Asians are perceived in the US is relevant for Asian Americans. And as clearly demonstrated by the recent deluge of assaults on Asian Americans in the US, from the perspective of many non-Asians, the distinction between "Asian" and "Asian American" is basically non-existent (just like how there is basically no distinction being made these days between "Chinese" and "Asians" in general).

Yeah it's white collar workers attacking asians in the streets. Totally not disproportionately one group of people doing those attacks. People aren't stupid pal

Racism isn't limited to street-level assaults, "pal." Negative perception and treatment of Asian Americans (which existed long before the pandemic, and which intensified recently with the pandemic) is quite prevalent here among white collar workers, if you haven't noticed. And you speaking for all "Asian Americans" because you just happen to be half-Japanese is a good one by the way (thx for that laugh).

^^^ this

[Anonymous User]

in case someone was wondering what stealth lay-off was like (at least at DPW), here is a vivid description:
http://www.rosestreet.net/?p=28

also have to say i really like this person's writing style.

[motojir]

in case someone was wondering what stealth lay-off was like (at least at DPW), here is a vivid description:
http://www.rosestreet.net/?p=28

also have to say i really like this person's writing style.

Kind of long-winded, with too much dispensable detail, and nothing juicy or interesting. All that happened was a partner called him and asked to meet, they met, the partner told him they want him to get another job and will help him find one and that was it.

[NoLongerALurker]

in case someone was wondering what stealth lay-off was like (at least at DPW), here is a vivid description:
http://www.rosestreet.net/?p=28

also have to say i really like this person's writing style.

Kind of long-winded, with too much dispensable detail, and nothing juicy or interesting. All that happened was a partner called him and asked to meet, they met, the partner told him they want him to get another job and will help him find one and that was it.

I don't mean it judgmentally one way or the other, but rather as an objective fact: this definitely reads like the sort of blog post that would be written by someone who would casually quote Dostoyevsky, and incidentally like the sort of person who would have found themselves at DPW only to generally dislike it and be disliked by it. So it all checks out, and seems like it was a good resolution for him/her at the end.

[Anonymous User]

in case someone was wondering what stealth lay-off was like (at least at DPW), here is a vivid description:
http://www.rosestreet.net/?p=28

also have to say i really like this person's writing style.

Kind of long-winded, with too much dispensable detail, and nothing juicy or interesting. All that happened was a partner called him and asked to meet, they met, the partner told him they want him to get another job and will help him find one and that was it.

I don't mean it judgmentally one way or the other, but rather as an objective fact: this definitely reads like the sort of blog post that would be written by someone who would casually quote Dostoyevsky, and incidentally like the sort of person who would have found themselves at DPW only to generally dislike it and be disliked by it. So it all checks out, and seems like it was a good resolution for him/her at the end.

i am the anon that posted the link above - and LMAOOOOOO you are 100% right now that I read it again looool.