Phone call with attorney... signal urm?? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have a phone call with an lawyer later this week and want to let him were both AAs (i heard race is a common source of people wanting to help each other out) but i cant just say oh im aa by the way

Is it an appropriate question to ask something like "did you find it difficult being an AA lawyer, pushback, resistance" or something to that effect or just dont go there at all?

[Anonymous User]

using race to help you out. classy

[buddingjd]

using race to help you out. classy

Using anon to post some ignorant shit like this. classy.

[lolwat]

I wouldn't go there at all personally.

[Total Litigator]

All is fair in love, war, and legal employment.

Sure OP, I think that sounds like a good strategy. Communicate it but don't make it obvious.

Make sure he get's the message tho -- you dont want this: "Do I find it difficult to be?! to be a?! You got a lot a nerve Honkey!"

[NYstate]

I have a phone call with an lawyer later this week and want to let him were both AAs (i heard race is a common source of people wanting to help each other out) but i cant just say oh im aa by the way

Is it an appropriate question to ask something like "did you find it difficult being an AA lawyer, pushback, resistance" or something to that effect or just dont go there at all?

Why can't you say that you are AA? It is a legitimate concern. You can ask about diversity programs, firm cultures generally , practice areas, finding mentors. You would ask similar questions of anyone. Just ask about his familiarity with diversity programs at firms or diversity fairs, then say you are AA which is why you are interested, or something to that effect.

Let him bring up his own experience.

Chances are that if you have a linked in or other online profile he will have looked you up before he speaks to you.

[Anonymous User]

All is fair in love, war, and legal employment.

Sure OP, I think that sounds like a good strategy. Communicate it but don't make it obvious.

Make sure he get's the message tho -- you dont want this: "Do I find it difficult to be?! to be a?! You got a lot a nerve Honkey!"

thank you

And to the anon above...all it is trying to find common ground to relate to and possibly bond over... how is this any different than sharing interest in a certain sports team or growing up in the same area... or even going to same school...in my experience people that have stuff in common with you are more willing to help you out...(definately dont want to start an argument over race or anything like that)

[Anonymous User]

I have a phone call with an lawyer later this week and want to let him were both AAs (i heard race is a common source of people wanting to help each other out) but i cant just say oh im aa by the way

Is it an appropriate question to ask something like "did you find it difficult being an AA lawyer, pushback, resistance" or something to that effect or just dont go there at all?

Why can't you say that you are AA? It is a legitimate concern. You can ask about diversity programs, firm cultures generally , practice areas, finding mentors. You would ask similar questions of anyone.

Let him bring up his own experience.

Chances are that if you have a linked in or other online profile he will have looked you up before he speaks to you.

op here...that is a great idea i didn't think about asking about diversity programs in the firm sounds like a great way to bring it up without sounding akward or anything and then go from there

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask if the lawyer feels that his experience has been at all affected by being AA. (If s/he is involved with the local AA bar association, this is definitely fair game.) You could maybe ease into it by asking if they are involved with the local AA bar association and if they feel it's helpful. That would probably let the subject develop.

When I talked to non-trad prospective students, they'd ask me what it's like being a non-trad student in law school. Women talk about what it's like to be a woman in law (school). If I talked to someone who was from my undergrad, I'd want them to mention that, too. Whether you think race should be a factor, it affects people's experiences and it's totally reasonable to want to bring that up with someone you have that in common with.

[guano]

I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask if the lawyer feels that his experience has been at all affected by being AA. (If s/he is involved with the local AA bar association, this is definitely fair game.) You could maybe ease into it by asking if they are involved with the local AA bar association and if they feel it's helpful. That would probably let the subject develop.

When I talked to non-trad prospective students, they'd ask me what it's like being a non-trad student in law school. Women talk about what it's like to be a woman in law (school). If I talked to someone who was from my undergrad, I'd want them to mention that, too. Whether you think race should be a factor, it affects people's experiences and it's totally reasonable to want to bring that up with someone you have that in common with.

This.

[TaipeiMort]

using race to help you out. classy

Using anon to post some ignorant shit like this. classy.

I don't see a problem at all with what OP is doing.

But, it is hard to see how what whiner anon bro said was "ignorant." I can understand some people being upset when kids who are sometimes objectively dumber than other students (at least on the basis of LSAT and law school GPA) are able to use URM status to get great jobs. You can't have your "I get a free pass in a crap economy" cake and eat it too (e.g., be pissed when someone doesn't like it). BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

I personally don't care-- I am also likely dumber than many of my classmates, but was able to leverage background and skill sets to market to firms on the basis of what their clients demand-- just like OP should be doing. People should play all of the cards they have.

Also OP: be careful playing the URM card. Most attorneys don't care about the URM issue, but some may find it annoying if you overplay it. It may be difficult to be seen as alpha attorney bro or partner material if you are labeled as the "overplays URM issue" associate. I don't think this is the case here.

[NYstate]

using race to help you out. classy

Using anon to post some ignorant shit like this. classy.

I don't see a problem at all with what OP is doing.

But, it is hard to see how what whiner anon bro said was "ignorant." I can understand some people being upset when kids who are sometimes objectively dumber than other students (at least on the basis of LSAT and law school GPA) are able to use URM status to get great jobs. You can't have your "I get a free pass in a crap economy" cake and eat it too (e.g., be pissed when someone doesn't like it). BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

I personally don't care-- I am also likely dumber than many of my classmates, but was able to leverage background and skill sets to market to firms on the basis of what their clients demand-- just like OP should be doing. People should play all of the cards they have.

Also OP: be careful playing the URM card. Most attorneys don't care about the URM issue, but some may find it annoying if you overplay it. It may be difficult to be seen as alpha attorney bro or partner material if you are labeled as the "overplays URM issue" associate. I don't think this is the case here.

You are really an ass. You understand that GPA and LSAT have nothing to do with how good of an attorney you will be. If you think firms hand out six figure jobs to people who can't do the work you are crazy.

[anon168]

I have a phone call with an lawyer later this week and want to let him were both AAs (i heard race is a common source of people wanting to help each other out) but i cant just say oh im aa by the way

Is it an appropriate question to ask something like "did you find it difficult being an AA lawyer, pushback, resistance" or something to that effect or just dont go there at all?

That's a perfectly fine area to explore. Most people will be receptive to discussing their racial background and some of the unique issues they've had to face to reach their social status. Some people (like Justice Thomas) may not be so receptive. So, if you get pushback, backoff.

And just remember, there is absolutely nothing wrong with leveraging whatever unique qualities you have to your best advantage. Never let self-righteous political correctness get in the way of using your minority status to get ahead (if you can).

[Ohiobumpkin]

Your grammar makes me cry tears of blood.

[TaipeiMort]

using race to help you out. classy

Using anon to post some ignorant shit like this. classy.

I don't see a problem at all with what OP is doing.

But, it is hard to see how what whiner anon bro said was "ignorant." I can understand some people being upset when kids who are sometimes objectively dumber than other students (at least on the basis of LSAT and law school GPA) are able to use URM status to get great jobs. You can't have your "I get a free pass in a crap economy" cake and eat it too (e.g., be pissed when someone doesn't like it). BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

I personally don't care-- I am also likely dumber than many of my classmates, but was able to leverage background and skill sets to market to firms on the basis of what their clients demand-- just like OP should be doing. People should play all of the cards they have.

Also OP: be careful playing the URM card. Most attorneys don't care about the URM issue, but some may find it annoying if you overplay it. It may be difficult to be seen as alpha attorney bro or partner material if you are labeled as the "overplays URM issue" associate. I don't think this is the case here.

You are really an ass. You understand that GPA and LSAT have nothing to do with how good of an attorney you will be. If you think firms hand out six figure jobs to people who can't do the work you are crazy.

I didn't say that. I don't know if law school GPA or LSAT have anything to do with how good of an attorney you will be-- it seems logical though that analytical skills and success in law school would at least reflect your ability to be competent. I also didn't say that firms "hand out six figure jobs to people who can't do the work." However, they do hand out jobs to people who can't do the work, and eventually push them out the door.

I'm not sure what you are saying-- are URMs from good schools with good grades able to do biglaw work? Sure. As well or better than their non-URM counterparts? Sure.

I'm saying firms hire lower-on-the-curve URMs and Medianbros who lack GPA distinction because they are likely to bring something else to the table to attract clients, add to firm culture, be easier to work with, and have other unique skills. I'm also saying we should be prepared for push back from top-of-the-curve whiner aspie kids who don't understand that the job market is not just about brain power, other demand factors are present.

[FamilyLawEsq]

The employer can't ask but you can tell.

[seagan823]

BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

Oh really, bro? What would your assumption have been if there were no URMs near the top of your class? Thank you for providing everyone with evidence that URMs are capable of academic success.

[lolwat]

I think the way this thread quickly developed is why I wouldn't mention it, or would at least be very careful and subtle in doing so.

[TaipeiMort]

BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

Oh really, bro? What would your assumption have been if there were no URMs near the top of your class? Thank you for providing everyone with evidence that URMs are capable of academic success.

My assumption would have been the same-- that URMs who get into law school with lower LSAT scores are less likely to succeed against their peers, both non-URM and URM, with higher LSAT scores. Read Sander's Stanford Law Review article on the results of African American affirmative action in law school.

I don't know why you are so offended. An admissions policy leads to objectively dumber people being accepted into school, dumber people generally do not do as well in school, most of a particular group are beneficiaries of said policy. It seems like a logical assumption that most of a particular group will not do as well in school.

[A. Nony Mouse]

This is getting way too close to debating AA, which is VERBOTEN here. So I would drop this line of discussion right now.

[Total Litigator]

BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

Oh really, bro? What would your assumption have been if there were no URMs near the top of your class? Thank you for providing everyone with evidence that URMs are capable of academic success.

My assumption would have been the same-- that URMs who get into law school with lower LSAT scores are less likely to succeed against their peers, both non-URM and URM, with higher LSAT scores. Read Sander's Stanford Law Review article on the results of African American affirmative action in law school.

I don't know why you are so offended. An admissions policy leads to objectively dumber people being accepted into school, dumber people generally do not do as well in school, most of a particular group are beneficiaries of said policy. It seems like a logical assumption that most of a particular group will not do as well in school.

Dude, just stop, you are walking a fine line here.

[TaipeiMort]

BTW, I'm not saying all URMs are less intelligent-- there are a few in my class who are near the top.

Oh really, bro? What would your assumption have been if there were no URMs near the top of your class? Thank you for providing everyone with evidence that URMs are capable of academic success.

My assumption would have been the same-- that URMs who get into law school with lower LSAT scores are less likely to succeed against their peers, both non-URM and URM, with higher LSAT scores. Read Sander's Stanford Law Review article on the results of African American affirmative action in law school.

I don't know why you are so offended. An admissions policy leads to objectively dumber people being accepted into school, dumber people generally do not do as well in school, most of a particular group are beneficiaries of said policy. It seems like a logical assumption that most of a particular group will not do as well in school.

Dude, just stop, you are walking a fine line here.

Bro, I seriously don't care. Affirmative action is stupid to discuss/argue, and the validity of it is brought up many times by slightly racist people to highlight Mexicans and AAs in a negative light.

I'm focusing on something else. There is good reason why firms take URMs with lower GPAs than their peers. URMs should take advantage of it. However, some people in law school, and more importantly, some bosses and coworkers are not going to be happy if a race card is pulled, and may approach URMs with different expectations.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Bro, I seriously don't care. Affirmative action is stupid to discuss/argue, and the validity of it is brought up many times by slightly racist people to highlight Mexicans and AAs in a negative light.

I'm focusing on something else. There is good reason why firms take URMs with lower GPAs than their peers. URMs should take advantage of it. However, some people in law school, and more importantly, some bosses and coworkers are going to bringing assumptions in that URMs are less qualified.

I think the problem is that your discussion of these assumptions included the statement that people with lower GPA/LSAT scores are "objectively dumber" than those with higher scores. Which seems to me an objectively dumb statement.

To connect back to the OP: I do not think that an AA student asking an AA attorney about their experience being AA in a largely white profession (whether through asking about the local AA bar association/diversity programs, or flat out) will be see as "pulling the race card"). Again, it's possible to raise this inartfully and the OP might get pushback (e.g. the Clarence Thomas reference above), but it's not weird to raise it in this context, and the OP didn't raise any other context (hiring/SA/associate, whatever).

[TaipeiMort]

Bro, I seriously don't care. Affirmative action is stupid to discuss/argue, and the validity of it is brought up many times by slightly racist people to highlight Mexicans and AAs in a negative light.

I'm focusing on something else. There is good reason why firms take URMs with lower GPAs than their peers. URMs should take advantage of it. However, some people in law school, and more importantly, some bosses and coworkers are going to bringing assumptions in that URMs are less qualified.

I think the problem is that your discussion of these assumptions included the statement that people with lower GPA/LSAT scores are "objectively dumber" than those with higher scores. Which seems to me an objectively dumb statement.

Yeah, you are probably right.

Sorry if anyone felt I was attacking them. I don't really know or care about how intelligent URMs are.

[bananapeanutbutter]

If you are in any African American law school groups, and have a last name that sounds like it might be from that demographic they will probably assume you are African American without asking.