Is there discrimination against Asians in biglaw Forum

[20141023]

.

[rickgrimes69]

of the lawyers in the USA, 3.4% are asian (2010)

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf


T14:
yale: 13.6; Harvard: 10.7%; Stanford: 10.2%; Columbia: 15.4%; UChi: 8.8%; NYU: 10.7%Virginia: 11; Penn: 14.6% Mich: 9.5%; Berk: 19.3% Duke: 10.8%; NU: 17.9%; COrnell: 14.4%; Gtown: 4.9%

too lazy to average based on class size; let's go with 10%.

odds on 10% of SAs being asian?

I'd say pretty high. Consider also the non-negligible number who choose to go back East to practice.

[baal hadad]

A managing partner of a large firm once told me his firm didn't consider Asians as diverse and when they talked about "diversity" they really only meant black people

[ookoshi]

Same anon, but the language thing was poorly stated and I apologize. I certainly didn't mean 4th or 5th generation. It was more in reference to comparing a 110 IQ who is 4th generation vs. a 130 IQ who is first or second generation. Maybe it's not the best way to do it, but I normally judge someone's intelligence based off of their chain of thinking (eg: I conclude this because of this, this and that). I've met people who by this standard are clearly brilliant who struggle with writing, which is critical to success in any practice. People just expect lawyers to be good writers.

If you think someone who was born and raised in the United States to Asian, immigrant parents have worse language skills to someone who is born to non-immigrant parents, you are incredibly ignorant.

[BruceWayne]

Lol at being surprised that any minority isn't well represented in biglaw. Law is not like medicine or STEM focused careers where objective measures of merit come first because of the underlying nature of the field. Law, like business, is well a business. And making money in business is based on a lot of factors other than intelligence (I'm not even sure I'd put intellect as being that high up on the list really, for most areas of law and business). If you let go of the student mindset you quickly start to understand why assuming that having a high GPA, high LSAT, high IQ, and high law school grades isn't particularly relevant for the business/law world, and you wouldn't find this all that surprising. And unfortunately race ties heavily to a lot of important business/law success factors. Ever heard of terms like "fit"? Well "fit" often has a lot to do with race; and it's not even all conscious determinations of how race impacts fit.

Bottom line, white males are going to "fit' better than anyone else in a biglaw environment by far. You need a partner to mentor you for the most part to be successful at a firm. Who do you think older white males are going to bond to more/have more of a desire to mentor/pass on the torch to? Hint: 9.9/10 it's not some Asian/Black/Latino guy/gal. Hell it's probably not even going to be a white woman.

[PepperJack]

A managing partner of a large firm once told me his firm didn't consider Asians as diverse and when they talked about "diversity" they really only meant black people

I think the grades are the same so diversity boosts aren't necessary. Idk where OP is located. I also agree that the informal nature of big law interviewing makes any minority less likely to get hired. Without Asians being specifically targeted it makes sense they'd be underrepresented. I'm sure all minorities would be this way without targeted measures, because it's easier the nature of 20 minute interviews is necessarily superficial, and often based on the opinion of a sheltered 25 yr old K-JD.

[yourhonor]

Do firms get diversity points for Asians? Also, what %age of big law lawyers do you see walking with a limp, in a wheelchair, having a speech impediment, or being blind/death? The physically disabled people comprise over 10% of the workforce, but under 1% of big law. I'm sure firms don't give a crap about being diverse except for being able to advertise they're diverse. I doubt any law firms really give two shits about the black man's struggle, and most partners are baby boomer republicans. We're speaking about places that refused to hire blacks and Jews until they legally had to even when other fields were easing up on discrimination. I've had only great experiences in my time in big law, but come on. Everyone knows this is one of the most racist and discriminatory fields in America. Also, ask yourself if law schools who tend to be more liberal than law firms were so passionate about keeping minorities out because they really hated diversity, or if they might have been motivated by their need for alumni donations.

Even with affirmative action benefits, it's not like these are benefiting all black law students. If you actually take the time to meet the black attorneys in big law, you'll realize that Dave Chappelle would call these "diverse" people the whitest people in the entire firm. There has been extensive literature on the fact that black in big law means "black but not too black" - close to no ties to the black community, upper middle class upbringing, physically fit but not too muscular, etc. SEE - Floyd Weatherspoon, The Status of African American Males in the Legal Profession: A Pipeline of Institutional Roadblocks and Barriers, 80 Miss. L.J. 259, 294 (Fall 2010). I don't know if Asians face similar roadblock.

good thing you're anon because this is racistaf

How is what ANON said racist? It's actually pretty accurate. Although, I don't agree with the implications which is that there is one kind of black/ one way to be black. The larger point is correct. Cultural dilution is a pre-requisite to advancement in much of the corporate world for Asians, Blacks etc

[Anonymous User]

Lol at being surprised that any minority isn't well represented in biglaw. Law is not like medicine or STEM focused careers where objective measures of merit come first because of the underlying nature of the field. Law, like business, is well a business. And making money in business is based on a lot of factors other than intelligence (I'm not even sure I'd put intellect as being that high up on the list really, for most areas of law and business). If you let go of the student mindset you quickly start to understand why assuming that having a high GPA, high LSAT, high IQ, and high law school grades isn't particularly relevant for the business/law world, and you wouldn't find this all that surprising. And unfortunately race ties heavily to a lot of important business/law success factors. Ever heard of terms like "fit"? Well "fit" often has a lot to do with race; and it's not even all conscious determinations of how race impacts fit.

Bottom line, white males are going to "fit' better than anyone else in a biglaw environment by far. You need a partner to mentor you for the most part to be successful at a firm. Who do you think older white males are going to bond to more/have more of a desire to mentor/pass on the torch to? Hint: 9.9/10 it's not some Asian/Black/Latino guy/gal. Hell it's probably not even going to be a white woman.

LOL at thinking that the current hiring model is the best for business. How many people are scripting their answers? Regarding finding a mentor that's actually probably less superficial because these people you work on the same floor with know you much better than interviewers. I also found in today's society race is largely irrelevant. Being from the same city as a partner is much more useful than looking like the partner. Ditto for having the same hobby as that partner. Race may be tangentially related because some neighborhoods are largely composed of a single demographic. Very few people in this industry set out to be racist. I found law school to be much more racially distinct than big law. At my school the black law students by and large stick and study with other BLSA students, and Asians studied with ALSA. At my firm there was none of that, and it was all based on personality. I'm white but found law firms to be closer to what I imagine to be closer to the long term goal - race being irrelevant to anything.

[jd20132013]

Very few people in this industry set out to be racist.

no shit???

are you under the impression that racism can only affect lives if people are setting out to be racist?

nice use of anon btw

also found in today's society race is largely irrelevant. Being from the same city as a partner is much more useful than looking like the partner. Ditto for having the same hobby as that partner. Race may be tangentially related because some neighborhoods are largely composed of a single demographic.

but how could you think that race is irrelevant?

*looks at your last sentence* oh.

anyway, just let me know if I should hit you over the head with the multiple studies demonstrating that race is far from irrelevant or if you're just going to ignore them. Thx

[Anonymous User]

Lol at being surprised that any minority isn't well represented in biglaw. Law is not like medicine or STEM focused careers where objective measures of merit come first because of the underlying nature of the field. Law, like business, is well a business. And making money in business is based on a lot of factors other than intelligence (I'm not even sure I'd put intellect as being that high up on the list really, for most areas of law and business). If you let go of the student mindset you quickly start to understand why assuming that having a high GPA, high LSAT, high IQ, and high law school grades isn't particularly relevant for the business/law world, and you wouldn't find this all that surprising. And unfortunately race ties heavily to a lot of important business/law success factors. Ever heard of terms like "fit"? Well "fit" often has a lot to do with race; and it's not even all conscious determinations of how race impacts fit.

Bottom line, white males are going to "fit' better than anyone else in a biglaw environment by far. You need a partner to mentor you for the most part to be successful at a firm. Who do you think older white males are going to bond to more/have more of a desire to mentor/pass on the torch to? Hint: 9.9/10 it's not some Asian/Black/Latino guy/gal. Hell it's probably not even going to be a white woman.

To BruceWayne, law firms that matter care first and foremost about bringing in business - take a look around corporate boardrooms and C-suites; asians are killing it across the country (including the new Microsoft CEO) - if you don't have a firm that reflects this, you're less likely to earn the trust and respect of these large corporations going forward (if you don't start hiring asian associates now, how will you have any asian partners 10 years down the road?). Good luck trying to approach Indra Nooyi (female CEO of Pepsi who still goes to board meetings in traditional Indian garb) as a group of WASP-y white shoe lawyers. Of course, the flip side is some firms/individuals will still discriminate, I grew up in the good-ol-boy south so you don't need to remind me of this, but going to my second point...

The idea that language skills of someone raised by immigrants is inferior to those of "4th or 5th generation Amurricans" is so laughable I don't feel the need to comment much on this. I grew up with parents who speak to me in another language and lo and behold attend CCN and have a v10 offer in hand before interview week has started, and my case is not unusual in the LEAST.

Lastly, if you take a look at all powerhouse client service sectors (IBanking, consulting, biglaw), there is plenty of asian representation. Maybe not at biglaw so much, but looking at my own CCN there aren't as many asians to begin with and out of those half will prob end up below median anyways just due to the odds. I just find it hard to believe that any top NYC law firm actually cares much if you're asian and that ANY would count it as a negative.

[Crowing]

asians suck at interviewing

Only if interviews consist mostly of questions about Duck Dynasty, NBA Playoffs, and tacos, I guess this is true.

NBA is probably the most popular sport among Asian Americans. Should've gone with like NHL.

[Anonymous User]

Very few people in this industry set out to be racist.

no shit???

are you under the impression that racism can only affect lives if people are setting out to be racist?

nice use of anon btw

also found in today's society race is largely irrelevant. Being from the same city as a partner is much more useful than looking like the partner. Ditto for having the same hobby as that partner. Race may be tangentially related because some neighborhoods are largely composed of a single demographic.

but how could you think that race is irrelevant?

*looks at your last sentence* oh.

anyway, just let me know if I should hit you over the head with the multiple studies demonstrating that race is far from irrelevant or if you're just going to ignore them. Thx

Dear Poster,

I never said that not intending to be racist makes it likely that no racism exists. I'm very aware that certain minorities are likely to be disparately impacted by a largely subjective hiring system in which a disproportionate number of interviewers are white. I was merely pointing out that fixing the problem is more complicated than one would think.

I agree that race is far from irrelevant, and am familiar with these studies. My only point is that under the current hiring model I do not see how this can be fixed. My experience has been that once inside the firm, race is largely irrelevant to fitting in, and that it's all personality. Of course, I may just be at a firm that is better in this regard than most firms.

We should also note that historically, racism against minorities in the legal profession was not just coming from other races. For decades many minority clients preferred white lawyers, because society conditioned them to believe the ideal lawyer was white. In big law with big corporate clients such closed minded perspectives are less likely to be prevalent, but the issues we're dealing with are very complex and multifaceted.

Sincerely,
Anon

[Anonymous User]

LOL at thinking that the current hiring model is the best for business. How many people are scripting their answers? Regarding finding a mentor that's actually probably less superficial because these people you work on the same floor with know you much better than interviewers. I also found in today's society race is largely irrelevant.. Being from the same city as a partner is much more useful than looking like the partner. Ditto for having the same hobby as that partner. Race may be tangentially related because some neighborhoods are largely composed of a single demographic. Very few people in this industry set out to be racist. I found law school to be much more racially distinct than big law. At my school the black law students by and large stick and study with other BLSA students, and Asians studied with ALSA. At my firm there was none of that, and it was all based on personality. I'm white but found law firms to be closer to what I imagine to be closer to the long term goal - race being irrelevant to anything

M'yeah.

[baal hadad]

Lol at being surprised that any minority isn't well represented in biglaw. Law is not like medicine or STEM focused careers where objective measures of merit come first because of the underlying nature of the field. Law, like business, is well a business. And making money in business is based on a lot of factors other than intelligence (I'm not even sure I'd put intellect as being that high up on the list really, for most areas of law and business). If you let go of the student mindset you quickly start to understand why assuming that having a high GPA, high LSAT, high IQ, and high law school grades isn't particularly relevant for the business/law world, and you wouldn't find this all that surprising. And unfortunately race ties heavily to a lot of important business/law success factors. Ever heard of terms like "fit"? Well "fit" often has a lot to do with race; and it's not even all conscious determinations of how race impacts fit.

Bottom line, white males are going to "fit' better than anyone else in a biglaw environment by far. You need a partner to mentor you for the most part to be successful at a firm. Who do you think older white males are going to bond to more/have more of a desire to mentor/pass on the torch to? Hint: 9.9/10 it's not some Asian/Black/Latino guy/gal. Hell it's probably not even going to be a white woman.

LOL at thinking that the current hiring model is the best for business. How many people are scripting their answers? Regarding finding a mentor that's actually probably less superficial because these people you work on the same floor with know you much better than interviewers. I also found in today's society race is largely irrelevant. Being from the same city as a partner is much more useful than looking like the partner. Ditto for having the same hobby as that partner. Race may be tangentially related because some neighborhoods are largely composed of a single demographic. Very few people in this industry set out to be racist. I found law school to be much more racially distinct than big law. At my school the black law students by and large stick and study with other BLSA students, and Asians studied with ALSA. At my firm there was none of that, and it was all based on personality. I'm white but found law firms to be closer to what I imagine to be closer to the long term goal - race being irrelevant to anything.

Check ur privilege whitey

[Anonymous User]

Asians make up 3% of partners, 9% of associates at Cravath according to Chambers Associate.

A few other firms:
DPW: 5%, 19.1%
S&C: 8%, 13%
Skadden: 3%, 14%
Simpson: 4.5%, 15%
Paul Weiss: 6%, 12%
White & Case: 13%, 14%
Cleary: 3%, 10%
Weil: 3%, 14%
Kirkland: 5%, 13%
Sidley: 4.8%, 13.5%
Mayer Brown: 1.9%, 9.1%
Ropes & Gray: 7%, 12%
WilmerHale: 6%, 12%
Latham: 3%, 16%
Quinn: 5.6% 10.7%
Irell: 10.2%, 12.8%
Munger: 15%, 15%
Gibson Dunn: 5%, 15%
OMM: 7.3%, 16.5%
Orrick: 7%, 15%
MoFo: 9.8%, 20.4%
Linklaters: 4.7%, 22.6%
Clifford Chance: 1%, 16%
Allen & Overy: 4.3%, 23.4%
Freshfields: 0%, 14%


The associate numbers seem to be pretty close to today's student demographics. I wonder what the demographics were at law schools 10-30 years ago, when today's partners were in school.

Edit: a few more major firms (using NALP data)
WLRK: 5.9%, 11.8%
Williams & Connolly: 3.3%, 4.7%
Covington (DC office): 1.4%, 11.4%
Arnold & Porter (DC office): 4.1%, 9.3%

[PepperJack]

Give it time, and the partnership numbers will come closer to the 9% figure. The economy will likely be the biggest obstacle to fixing underrepresentation. It was always very unlikely to make partner, but now it's what? 3%? It's unlikely that there will be enough people who make partner to significantly diminish underrepresentation until at least next generation. In this regard, law is like every other field. You can't fix underrepresentation overnight.

[Anonymous User]

One of the other summers I worked with who is an amazing guy (speaks several languages fluently, did well enough on the LSAT to get into a decent T14) said that he got semi-screwed over during OCI in the States because his English pronunciation isn't 100% native. He said that some interviewers voiced their concerns of his ability to draft documents in English, etc. during his screening interviews. I know this is different than someone who was born and raised in the States, but I think that a lot of students from Asia who have a slight accent might face some discrimination that is difficult to distinguish from a legitimate concern of English ability.

this is really interesting, anybody else have similar experiences?

[Anonymous User]

Give it time, and the partnership numbers will come closer to the 9% figure. The economy will likely be the biggest obstacle to fixing underrepresentation. It was always very unlikely to make partner, but now it's what? 3%? It's unlikely that there will be enough people who make partner to significantly diminish underrepresentation until at least next generation. In this regard, law is like every other field. You can't fix underrepresentation overnight.

Not that I think there isn't any discrimination against Asians whatsoever, but do those partnership numbers actually mean there's underrepresentation? I think it's safe to say that there were fewer Asians going to law school and biglaw in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Asians made up 1.4% of all lawyers in 1990, and 2.2% in 2000, compared to 3.4% in 2010. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

[Foghornleghorn]

Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color

Yeah, lynching was something you could easily come back from. I mean, it was debt free, right?

Man, I miss the good old days where I could be strung up for kissing a white woman. Life was so much simpler.

[Anonymous User]

Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color

Yeah, lynching was something you could easily come back from. I mean, it was debt free, right?

Man, I miss the good old days where I could be strung up for kissing a white woman. Life was so much simpler.

No, no, no. This is all much worse, and nothing can compare to Jim Crow and especially lynching (which often included some of the worst torture that has been done on a mass level since the Middle Ages). I was only speaking about the isolated process of subjective interviewing, and not comparing it to societal treatment at all. There is no comparison. You're 100% right. There are a million degrees of separation from maybe having your life ended, and maybe being in bad financial shape. The very notion of comparing any of this with what you're speaking about is offensive, and I sincerely apologize if you thought that's what I was comparing. I can imagine how offensive that would be not only to you, but literally any human being anywhere.

[mephistopheles]

Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color

Yeah, lynching was something you could easily come back from. I mean, it was debt free, right?

Man, I miss the good old days where I could be strung up for kissing a white woman. Life was so much simpler.

No, no, no. This is all much worse, and nothing can compare to Jim Crow and especially lynching (which often included some of the worst torture that has been done on a mass level since the Middle Ages). I was only speaking about the isolated process of subjective interviewing, and not comparing it to societal treatment at all. There is no comparison. You're 100% right. There are a million degrees of separation from maybe having your life ended, and maybe being in bad financial shape. The very notion of comparing any of this with what you're speaking about is offensive, and I sincerely apologize if you thought that's what I was comparing. I can imagine how offensive that would be not only to you, but literally any human being anywhere.

great backpedal

[Anonymous User]

Discrimination was easier to come back from when it was just the old I can't get a high paying job, because I'm of this skin color

Yeah, lynching was something you could easily come back from. I mean, it was debt free, right?

Man, I miss the good old days where I could be strung up for kissing a white woman. Life was so much simpler.

No, no, no. This is all much worse, and nothing can compare to Jim Crow and especially lynching (which often included some of the worst torture that has been done on a mass level since the Middle Ages). I was only speaking about the isolated process of subjective interviewing, and not comparing it to societal treatment at all. There is no comparison. You're 100% right. There are a million degrees of separation from maybe having your life ended, and maybe being in bad financial shape. The very notion of comparing any of this with what you're speaking about is offensive, and I sincerely apologize if you thought that's what I was comparing. I can imagine how offensive that would be not only to you, but literally any human being anywhere.

great backpedal

Eh, I didn't backpedal. I am not reversing or changing my position. You would need to be certifiably insane to saying being 250k in debt is comparable to Jim Crow racism. I am not certifiably insane. My position was limited to the interview process, and I explicitly said that one of the contributing factors to a lack of knowledge is that society at large doesn't discriminate or condition people to be cool with discrimination.

Again, my position is only that being denied gainful employment on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, disability or age is not as bad as being denied gainful employment on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability + owing 250k in debt. Everyone here agrees that you cannot compare any obstacles that any group in America faces to what minority groups faced in the early 20th century. That was never the argument.

That is what I said, but should have been clearer on.

[Anonymous User]

Lol at being surprised that any minority isn't well represented in biglaw. Law is not like medicine or STEM focused careers where objective measures of merit come first because of the underlying nature of the field. Law, like business, is well a business. And making money in business is based on a lot of factors other than intelligence (I'm not even sure I'd put intellect as being that high up on the list really, for most areas of law and business). If you let go of the student mindset you quickly start to understand why assuming that having a high GPA, high LSAT, high IQ, and high law school grades isn't particularly relevant for the business/law world, and you wouldn't find this all that surprising. And unfortunately race ties heavily to a lot of important business/law success factors. Ever heard of terms like "fit"? Well "fit" often has a lot to do with race; and it's not even all conscious determinations of how race impacts fit.

Bottom line, white males are going to "fit' better than anyone else in a biglaw environment by far. You need a partner to mentor you for the most part to be successful at a firm. Who do you think older white males are going to bond to more/have more of a desire to mentor/pass on the torch to? Hint: 9.9/10 it's not some Asian/Black/Latino guy/gal. Hell it's probably not even going to be a white woman.

I personally agree with the above. As an Asian lawyer with quite a few years of experience, I think discrimination does exist. For me, it was less pronounced in big law recruiting -- every law firm had to hire multiple associates so there were more opportunities; many interviewers were diverse (because the recruiting team, at least at my V5, encouraged diverse lawyers to interview candidates); and interviewers knew that they did not necessarily have to work with you directly even if they hired you. But my observation is that in big law training/career development/mentorship, Asian lawyers are at a distinct disadvantage for the "fit" issues described in the above post, and as a result there's more attrition particularly in the mid-level/senior ranks.

And in my experience, discrimination was even more apparent in in house hiring. As opposed to big law recruiting, in house openings usually only want one person who will directly work with the hiring manager all the time. For my first in house job, despite my credentials (T14, good grades, V5 senior, relevant experience), I only got two offers out of ~30 applications, and both of them are from diverse hiring managers. The applications that resulted in interviews with hiring managers (regardless of whether I ultimately got an offer) were all with diverse hiring managers. Yes, that's right, I did not have a single interview with a straight white man hiring manager.

I started exploring other opportunities this year and, because I was not actively but just casually exploring what's out there, I only applied to ~10 places during the course of this year. While the sample size is much smaller this time, all my interviews were again with diverse hiring managers, despite my directly relevant in house experience at a prominent F500 company.

[Anonymous User]

I personally agree with the above. As an Asian lawyer with quite a few years of experience, I think discrimination does exist. For me, it was less pronounced in big law recruiting -- every law firm had to hire multiple associates so there were more opportunities; many interviewers were diverse (because the recruiting team, at least at my V5, encouraged diverse lawyers to interview candidates); and interviewers knew that they did not necessarily have to work with you directly even if they hired you. But my observation is that in big law training/career development/mentorship, Asian lawyers are at a distinct disadvantage for the "fit" issues described in the above post, and as a result there's more attrition particularly in the mid-level/senior ranks.

And in my experience, discrimination was even more apparent in in house hiring. As opposed to big law recruiting, in house openings usually only want one person who will directly work with the hiring manager all the time. For my first in house job, despite my credentials (T14, good grades, V5 senior, relevant experience), I only got two offers out of ~30 applications, and both of them are from diverse hiring managers. The applications that resulted in interviews with hiring managers (regardless of whether I ultimately got an offer) were all with diverse hiring managers. Yes, that's right, I did not have a single interview with a straight white man hiring manager.

I started exploring other opportunities this year and, because I was not actively but just casually exploring what's out there, I only applied to ~10 places during the course of this year. While the sample size is much smaller this time, all my interviews were again with diverse hiring managers, despite my directly relevant in house experience at a prominent F500 company.

same for me, the stereotypes against asians (hardworking, competent, will keep head down and not make noise, lack of leadership skills) don't work against you trying to get in the door, they work against you when it comes to climbing up the ladder. That's why you see more asians as associates and fewer asians at the top

[Anonymous User]

And in my experience, discrimination was even more apparent in in house hiring. As opposed to big law recruiting, in house openings usually only want one person who will directly work with the hiring manager all the time. For my first in house job, despite my credentials (T14, good grades, V5 senior, relevant experience), I only got two offers out of ~30 applications, and both of them are from diverse hiring managers. The applications that resulted in interviews with hiring managers (regardless of whether I ultimately got an offer) were all with diverse hiring managers. Yes, that's right, I did not have a single interview with a straight white man hiring manager.

Interesting. I'm Asian and the majority of the decision-makers for in-house roles I've interviewed with were white men. I've had a fair amount of success with in-house interviews (e.g., offers or been one of the finalists) regardless of the identity of the hiring manager.

I'm not trying to downplay your experience. But perhaps it's more nuanced - maybe it also depends on your geography and practice area. Mine is IP in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions.