Top Law Schools

I have some LGBT-oriented activities on my resume, and I am curious which firms may look negatively upon those.

If a firm is gay-unfriendly enough to not hire you because you have a few LGBT activities on your resume, why, exactly, do you think you'd want to work there?

psu2016 wrote:If a firm is gay-friendly enough to not hire you because you have a few LGBT activities on your resume, why, exactly, do you think you'd want to work there?

What?

Clearly wrote:

psu2016 wrote:If a firm is gay-friendly enough to not hire you because you have a few LGBT activities on your resume, why, exactly, do you think you'd want to work there?

What?

Edited: I just finished an exam and forgot the "un"

psu2016 wrote:

Clearly wrote:

psu2016 wrote:If a firm is gay-friendly enough to not hire you because you have a few LGBT activities on your resume, why, exactly, do you think you'd want to work there?

What?

Edited: I just finished an exam and forgot the "un"

Still...What?

Have you considered the possibility that s/hes asking precisely so s/he doesn't waste a bid applying there...

Clearly wrote:Have you considered the possibility that s/hes asking precisely so s/he doesn't waste a bid applying there...

No, because then s/he wouldn't have been worried about the resume as much as just avoiding the firm altogether...

You can cross-check your list against this link (http://lgbtbar.org/annual/sponsorship-o ... -sponsors/) or the HRC Equality Index for an imperfect snapshot.

Truth is that when it comes to minority (gay, women, mothers, single parents, race, etc.) friendliness, all firms in V50 will likely have very similar benefits, platitudes, outward principals. You could maybe generalize that firms on the coasts will be more friendly due to more liberal atmospheres, but still probably hard to tell difference and is probably difficult to find anyone to admit on forum here that their firm is anti-XYZ. You really can't find out how supportive they are other than through interviews, asking alumni, and spending a summer there. You probably will get a feel for it during your call-backs.

I highly doubt any V50 would look down on LGBT related activities

I think what you're going to find once you start working is that when it comes to things like homophobia, racism, sexism, etc., the firms aren't going to be as relevant as the teams you're on. You're going to have weeks and months where your only interactions are with the same 6-7 people. Whether a firm is gay friendly doesn't matter if you have the one homophobe on your team.

To follow up other points, nobody will ding you for being homosexual, but it's possible it could be a proxy for a lack of a connection. If you spent your free time in college in a gay rights group and the interviewer spent hers in a sorority then it's possible you won't connect as much in 30 minutes as you would had she been LGTB as well.

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:You can cross-check your list against this link (http://lgbtbar.org/annual/sponsorship-o ... -sponsors/)

I don't see why that list would be useful. So Sullcrom paid 40K. Is that supposed to make them more "LGBT Friendly" than a Debevoise or a Paul Weiss? Not to say Sullcrom's not LBGT Friendly, but walking the halls at the three firms I mentioned, I don't think it's plausible someone comes to the conclusion S&C is best for OP's concerns.

This isn't really a thing, OP. Big/"prestigious" firms don't give any fucks about stuff like this. But there was a pretty big study published a few months back that rated the liberalness of firms based on some kind of objective metrics I can't recall (if you want to use that as a proxy for gay-friendliness). I believe there were only like four or five Amlaw200 firms that were more conservative than not, and they were all, IIRC, Texas-based.

If you're looking at top-end firms in major markets (even in a Dallas or Houston), I would pay zero attention to stuff like this in the bidding process. You'll get a feel where you fit best based on callbacks and second looks. Fit/This kind of stuff is a tiebreaker consideration between peer firms in the practice area/city in which you want to practice, not a consideration from the onset of the process.

Traynor Brah wrote:

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:You can cross-check your list against this link (http://lgbtbar.org/annual/sponsorship-o ... -sponsors/)

I don't see why that list would be useful.

Which is why I said "imperfect snapshot." But go ahead and partial quote.

While it's true that the who you sleep with is NBD to any of the V50 (or V100 for that matter), particularly if you're meeting your hours, don't drag your knuckles when you're walking, and produce good work product, it can leave a bit of a bad taste in your mouth when your managing partner denies your request for sponsorship funds for a LGBT organization.

Maybe Baker Botts. Anecdotal, but I had a negative experience interviewing with them related to being gay, and I know multiple other gay people who shared similar experiences in multiple BB offices. It could, ironically, be in part because their management is aggressively trying to recruit LGBT people (Chambers Associates has them at 1.5% LGBT associates/1.2% partners, compared with, say Sullivan & Cromwell at 5%/7%, Paul Weiss at 4%/6%, and Debevoise at 4.8%/4.5%; if I remember correctly, even two years ago Baker Botts was at about 1% for associates and 0.2% for partners) while many of their attorneys are opposed to it.

This is more effective for finding pro-gay rather than anti-gay firms, but I'd look at where they devote pro-bono resources. It's one thing to throw money at HRC, it's another thing to actually work with clients from, say, Immigration Equality or The Sylvia Rivera Law Project.

Take this for what it's worth, but at Lavender Law this year (annual LGBT legal conference/career fair), I was told by several partners at different firms that Texas-based firms aren't great on LGBT issues/inclusion. Of course, that could have been a ploy to boost up their own firms, but in my mind, that would logically make some sense. In terms of policies and website info, none of it is particularly useful because they all say they're LGBT-inclusive.

As an LGBT individual, I would disagree to some extent about it "not mattering" relative to work product/quality. In an objective sense, I think that is true, but I would argue that feeling like your firm supports who you are directly impacts the work you put out. At least for me, I think I would be a lesser attorney if I felt as though my firm wouldn't be welcoming of me bringing my same-sex partner to a holiday party for example.

Traynor Brah wrote:

NonTradHealthLaw wrote:You can cross-check your list against this link (http://lgbtbar.org/annual/sponsorship-o ... -sponsors/)

I don't see why that list would be useful. So Sullcrom paid 40K. Is that supposed to make them more "LGBT Friendly" than a Debevoise or a Paul Weiss? Not to say Sullcrom's not LBGT Friendly, but walking the halls at the three firms I mentioned, I don't think it's plausible someone comes to the conclusion S&C is best for OP's concerns.

This isn't really a thing, OP. Big/"prestigious" firms don't give any fucks about stuff like this. But there was a pretty big study published a few months back that rated the liberalness of firms based on some kind of objective metrics I can't recall (if you want to use that as a proxy for gay-friendliness). I believe there were only like four or five Amlaw200 firms that were more conservative than not, and they were all, IIRC, Texas-based.

If you're looking at top-end firms in major markets (even in a Dallas or Houston), I would pay zero attention to stuff like this in the bidding process. You'll get a feel where you fit best based on callbacks and second looks. Fit/This kind of stuff is a tiebreaker consideration between peer firms in the practice area/city in which you want to practice, not a consideration from the onset of the process.

FWIW, Sullcrom was notoriously ahead of the curve on LGBT. Tons of senior, powerful LGBT partners. While there may not be much of a difference now, I think its still probably nicer to be at one of the places that was friendly 20-25 years ago, and so has lots of 50-60 year old bigshots who are there to mentor / more likely to connect with you.

Anonymous User wrote:I think what you're going to find once you start working is that when it comes to things like homophobia, racism, sexism, etc., the firms aren't going to be as relevant as the teams you're on. You're going to have weeks and months where your only interactions are with the same 6-7 people. Whether a firm is gay friendly doesn't matter if you have the one homophobe on your team.

To follow up other points, nobody will ding you for being homosexual, but it's possible it could be a proxy for a lack of a connection. If you spent your free time in college in a gay rights group and the interviewer spent hers in a sorority then it's possible you won't connect as much in 30 minutes as you would had she been LGTB as well.

This is good advice.

Also, from my observations, there can be a wide range of views on this type of stuff. There are more senior LGBT partners who were very careful about staffing LGBT (usually same sex) associates on matters for fear of how it looked. Some brought their partners/SOs around, others less. Some were very open and prominent, others closeted and hyper-sensitive about the subject. Some clients are not necessarily pro-LGBT, but that's not something that you can control.

I think that the unifying factor was that those associates who did good work and were focused on meeting partner and client demands did well. Those who didn't, or did shit that made them seem like couldn't be fired for being LGBT, didn't do well.

Mola Ram wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I think what you're going to find once you start working is that when it comes to things like homophobia, racism, sexism, etc., the firms aren't going to be as relevant as the teams you're on. You're going to have weeks and months where your only interactions are with the same 6-7 people. Whether a firm is gay friendly doesn't matter if you have the one homophobe on your team.

To follow up other points, nobody will ding you for being homosexual, but it's possible it could be a proxy for a lack of a connection. If you spent your free time in college in a gay rights group and the interviewer spent hers in a sorority then it's possible you won't connect as much in 30 minutes as you would had she been LGTB as well.

This is good advice.

Also, from my observations, there can be a wide range of views on this type of stuff. There are more senior LGBT partners who were very careful about staffing LGBT (usually same sex) associates on matters for fear of how it looked. Some brought their partners/SOs around, others less. Some were very open and prominent, others closeted and hyper-sensitive about the subject. Some clients are not necessarily pro-LGBT, but that's not something that you can control.

I think that the unifying factor was that those associates who did good work and were focused on meeting partner and client demands did well. Those who didn't, or did shit that made them seem like couldn't be fired for being LGBT, didn't do well.

Same anon you quoted. I would second that a partner's personal views are not indicative of how they will handle a gay interviewee or any other trait. I think the whole diversity thing is important in concept, but a flame in real life. Every one just wants to get their work done, not screw up and go home. Nobody really cares if the other associate is black, white, male, female, etc. Your sexuality doesn't matter. Literally nobody cares. You're probably likelier to deal with discrimination now than when you practice, and your odds of facing it based on sexual preference are close to 0.