On Not Saying What’s Not Being Said
Bruce McLean, chairman of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, wrote this article for the National Law Journal about the high attrition rate of minority attorneys at large law firms. In it, he claims the core argument provided by Richard Sander, author of a number of scholarly articles on the high attrition rate, is not a ‘rational argument.’
Here’s the gist of McLean’s rebuttal of Sander’s argument:
According to Sander’s study, nearly 20 percent of law firms’ incoming first-year associate classes are minorities who have been recruited using significant hiring preferences and have been set up to fail. This implies that every year, firms knowingly engage in a thoughtless, expensive and time-consuming numbers game that pays no mind to the ultimate success or failure of 20 percent of its incoming talent.
Hiring lawyers who can succeed at a firm — regardless of their skin color or gender — is not only more complex than a simple grade-point average (GPA) bell-curve analysis but it is an endeavor that requires a large commitment of time and resources. The costs associated with recruiting and training a first-year associate are roughly twice his or her annual salary, which is six figures for large corporate law firms.
This completely ignores the prime force that motivates large law firms to value minority attorneys so highly: if these firms don’t hire more minority attorneys, their largest and most valuable clients (Wal-Mart is the best example) will quit doing business with them. It’s basic economics; demand is fundamental.
What’s going on is no big secret. Just ask the people at the center of this debate. Minority attorneys consistently report that they are treated poorly at the large firms, and that’s why they leave. After a few years at these big firms, they opt for jobs that don’t pay as well, but offer better treatment. It’s basic human nature; respect is fundamental.
____________
In his article, McLean reiterates one of the more popular claims that large firms make to justify their diversity efforts: “diverse client teams ultimately provide better service.” Yet, he provides no rational argument to support the claim. And it’s easy to see why; there is none.