Have Questions? Contact Us.
Since its inception, NYCLA has been at the forefront of most legal debates in the country. We have provided legal education for more than 40 years.
Letter From the Chair — Juanita Bing Newton
TASK FORCE TO INCREASE DIVERSITY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
NARRATIVE AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The Second Circuit Report (1997)
The New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities
The Baruch Study
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
Remarks by Paul T. Williams Jr.
Remarks by Beverly McQueary Smith
Appendix B: Pre-Law School Report
Issues and Problems Current Initiatives
SAT Preparation Course
Educational and Mentoring Programs
Questionnaire for Admissions Offices Re. Minority Recruitment
Tables A-O and Chart of Survey Results
NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE TO INCREASE DIVERSITY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
back to index
Hon. Juanita Bing Newton
Odalys C. Alonso, Co-Chair, Law School Subcommittee
Hon. Harold Baer Jr.
Bridget G. Brennan
Hon. Pam Jackman Brown, Co-Chair, Pre-Law Subcommittee
Zachary W. Carter
Hon. Cheryl E. Chambers
Christopher E. Chang
Kathy Hirata Chin
Catherine A. Christian
Telesforo Del Valle
Hon. Margaret J. Finerty, Co-Chair, Post-Law School Subcommittee
Robert L. Haig, Co-Chair, Post-Law School Subcommittee
Kristine Hamann, Co-Chair, Law School Subcommittee
Joyce Y. Hartsfield
Stephen D. Hoffman
Beryl R. Jones
Hon. Judy Harris Kluger
Craig A. Landy
Loretta E. Lynch
Hon. Lucindo Suarez
Hon. Troy K. Webber, Co-Chair, Pre-Law Subcommittee
Paul T. Williams Jr.
back to index
In February 2000, the New York County Lawyers’ Association created a Task Force to Increase Diversity in the Legal Profession. The Task Force was created to study and evaluate the current status of minorities in the legal profession and to develop recommendations to increase diversity at all levels.
The Chair of the Task Force is Hon. Juanita Bing Newton, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiatives in the Unified Court System of the State of New York.
In order to ensure representation from all components of the legal profession, the composition of the Task Force includes federal and state judges, lawyers from law firms of various sizes, corporate in- house counsel, educators, and representatives from several government offices.
The members of the Task Force have brought varied backgrounds and experiences to the Task Force’s work. It was NYCLA’s intent to constitute a Task Force representative of the legal profession in New York City.
The Task Force has focused on three matters: (1) identifying barriers to diversity, (2) recommending concrete solutions to remove those barriers, and (3) establishing a permanent mechanism to monitor the success of programs and initiatives.
The Task Force first met on April 11, 2000. At that meeting, the Task Force agreed to consider: (1) public awareness of diversity issues in the legal profession; (2) law schools; (3) financial issues, e.g., law school debt; (4) public and private employment; and (5) mentoring, retention, and quality of life. The Task Force also agreed that its focus would be in three principal areas:
The membership of the Task Force was divided into three subcommittees to address each of these areas. Each subcommittee is led by two co-chairs.
The co-chairs of the subcommittees met on May 9, 2000. There was extensive discussion at that meeting of appropriate goals to enhance diversity in each stage of the legal profession. For example, the subjects identified for the Post-Law School period included increased recruitment and hiring, retention and promotion, mentoring, and loan forgiveness. In addition, the subcommittee chairs identified various written materials on diversity in the legal profession that were thereafter compiled and distributed to the members of the Task Force.
Each subcommittee agreed to prepare a preliminary report containing an outline of its findings and recommendations. After meetings of the subcommittees and extensive work during the spring and summer of 2000, the preliminary reports of the three subcommittees were distributed to all members of the Task Force on September 7, 2000.
The full Task Force met again on September 12, 2000. At that meeting, the Task Force discussed the preliminary reports of the subcommittees and planned additional work to finalize the reports.
An additional meeting of the subcommittee chairs took place on September 25, 2000. The chairs determined at that meeting to hold an Evening Forum on Diversity in the Legal Profession at NYCLA on January 11, 2001. In line with the Task Force’s goals of reaching out to a broad range of professionals and to examine all relevant material, the Forum presented an opportunity for discussion on this important issue.
The Task Force mailed a notice relating to the Evening Forum to all members of NYCLA. Other recipients of the notice included members of minority bar associations and the Judiciary. Thus, the Task Force mailed notices directly to approximately 10,000 lawyers and judges expressing the Task Force’s interest in their views on these matters. Many additional lawyers and others were afforded an opportunity to comment through their bar associations and at the Evening Forum itself.
The Task Force sent letters to a substantial number of individuals whom the Task Force believed could make particular contributions to the Evening Forum because of their specific experience and expertise. Those letters invited the recipients to participate by oral or written submission focusing on the following discrete areas: diversity programs and policies; best practices; what plans work and which do not and why; as well as any recommendations addressed both to minority attorneys specifically and to the profession as a whole to enhance diversity.
The Evening Forum took place as scheduled on January 11, 2001. An acknowledgement and listing of those who testified at the Forum is set forth in Appendix A. The subcommittees completed their investigation, research, and analysis after the Evening Forum.
The Task Force determined that the principal focus of its findings and recommendations would be on the legal profession after graduation from law school. The reason for this focus is quite simple: most members of the Task Force are practicing lawyers and judges and are most familiar with diversity issues during the post-law-school period. Summaries of the work done by the Task Force’s Pre-Law School and Law School Subcommittees are attached as Appendices B and C, respectively.
The Report of the Task Force relating to Post-Law School issues is divided into four principal sections:
The first section of the report (Narrative and Statistical Analysis) discusses minority representation in different legal fields in both the private and public sectors during various time periods after graduation from law school. The second section (Issues and Problems) outlines the barriers to diversity in the legal profession.
The third section (Current Initiatives) summarizes some of the steps that are currently being taken to deal with these problems. The Task Force believes it is important to acknowledge the excellent work that is currently being done to enhance diversity in the legal profession. In addition, the Task Force has sought to develop recommendations for future action that are not duplicative of recommendations previously made by others. Accordingly, this section of the Task Force’s Report considers initiatives being pursued by associations such as the
American Bar Association, the American Corporate Counsel Association, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and other groups.
Finally, in the last section of its Report, the Task Force sets forth its recommendations in the following principal areas:
The Task Force recognizes that some reports of this nature contain an executive summary that is often designed to provide a few “sound bites” conveying the thrust of the report. We have deliberately refrained from including such a summary. The recommendations set forth in this Report constitute a comprehensive proposal for enhancing diversity in the legal profession. Many elements of our proposal are interdependent. Thus, a focus on only a few of these elements might divert attention from the fact that broad-based and multi-dimensional efforts are necessary to make meaningful progress toward enhanced diversity in the legal profession. A brief example illustrates our reasons for not highlighting a few elements of this Report. Many law firms have increased their efforts to recruit minority lawyers in recent years and have achieved some success in hiring recent law school graduates who are members of minorities. Law firms have not, however, been nearly as successful in retaining and promoting those recent graduates, often because of a lack of mentoring and training and a generally poor quality of professional life. To achieve meaningful and lasting improvements, we believe it is essential to simultaneously address all of the major barriers to diversity in the legal profession. Accordingly, our comprehensive proposal for doing so is set forth hereinafter.
Copyright January 2002
New York County Lawyers’ Association
14 Vesey Street, New York, NY 10007
phone: (212) 267-6646
fax: (212) 406-9252
Additional copies may be obtained by calling Ruth Zipper at (212) 267-6646 ext. 223
In the first year of the 21st century, the hiring and retention of minority (1) attorneys and other legal professionals remains an important and unfinished goal. While progress has been made during the last decade, many challenges and obstacles still remain. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy summoned 200 of the nation’s leading lawyers to the White House and issued a challenge to combat racism.(2) Thirty-six years later, President Clinton renewed that call.(3) Recognition by the Bar and Bench of the constant under- representation of minorities in the legal profession is just the first step in the effort to effect a remedy. Additional efforts must be made to ensure that the legal profession reflects our diverse society.
It is important to realize, however, that not only does more need to be done, but the lenses through which we examine this issue must be adjusted so that it can be appreciated in all its complexities and according to modern realities. To further refine the ‘lens’ metaphor, perhaps it would be helpful to consider the numbers set out below with a new pair of bifocals: lenses that sharpen the focus on and reveal (1) the need for minority retention to become as important a goal as minority hiring,(4) and (2) the need to adjust the concept of diversity to include not only numbers and programs, but to encompass attitudes and principles to permeate subtle resistance. (5)
In order to fully understand the importance of this issue, and to chart the progress being made, it is crucial to realize that the numbers tell only part of the story. Hiring qualified minority and female attorneys is the first step; appreciating the experience of an attorney once hired, and, indeed, understanding the reasons why attorneys decide to leave a position, should never be far from a complete analysis. With these thoughts in mind, let us examine the available data.
In examining the issues of racial, ethnic, and gender bias in the legal profession, it is helpful to start by viewing the profession at the national level. The American Bar Association (“ABA”) has contributed to the body of literature by producing a series of reports. The first, entitled Miles to Go: Progress of Minorities in the Legal Profession, was released in 1998, by the ABA’s Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession. (6)It reported on the status and numbers of minorities in the legal profession from 1986 through 1998. In the summer of 2000, the ABA’s renamed Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession released Miles to Go 2000: Progress of Minorities in the Legal Profession (7)(the “2000 Report”), which adds some new and some updated information. The 2000 Report also examines more closely the problem of high attrition rates among minority and female associates in law firms. While reporting the gains made over the years, it cautions that “the legal profession-already one of the least integrated professions in the country-threatens to become even less representative of the citizens and society it serves.” (8)The highlights from the ABA reports, as well as the Minority Corporate Counsel Association’s (“MCCA”) national survey results on minority in- house counsel, will be discussed below.
The ABA report begins by examining minority representation in other professions-something the 1998 report did not do. For example, the 2000 Report reveals that while African-Americans and Hispanics make up 14.3% of all accountants, 9.7% of physicians, 9.4% of college and university teachers, and 12.5% of all professionals generally, they made up only 7.5% of all attorneys.(9) The 2000 Report also begins by discussing gains made. Whereas the Miles to Go 1998 report revealed that in 1986 minorities made up only 5.5% of all attorneys, and 10% by 1996, the 2000 Report reveals that minority representation among associates reached 13% in the nation’s largest firms and 12% nationwide, in 1999. (10)The 2000 Report also reveals that minority representation in corporate law departments is increasing, and currently stands at 9% nationally.(11)
The 2000 Report identifies areas that still require improvement. It reports that minority entry into the profession as well as minority advancement in law firms has been recently stalled. (12)More than half of all minority associates leave their firms within the first three years of practice. (13)Of note, minority representation among partners in most cities is less than 3%. And “[a]mong partners, minorities tend to be clustered ‘at the bottom of the firm’s financial and status pecking order.'” (14)
The 2000 Report examines the distribution of lawyers within various employment sectors. Since the 1960s, the distribution of lawyers by employment type has remained stable, with about 85% of all lawyers practicing in the private for-profit sector (business and private practice) and 15% working in the not-for-profit sector (the government, judiciary, public interest, and education). (15)The career paths of male and female lawyers and of minority and white lawyers appear to be converging. For example, in 1980, 58.9% of all female attorneys practiced in the for-profit sector, compared to 73.3% of all male attorneys; by 1991, 72% of female attorneys and 77.6% of male attorneys practiced in the private for-profit sector. (16)While there is no national data on the distribution of minority attorneys, a 1998 national survey of new graduates revealed that minority attorneys were more likely than whites to enter government, public interest practice or business and less likely to enter private practice. (17)In 1987, 61% of minority law school graduates entered the private for-profit sector, compared to 72.6% of all white graduates. By 1998, 64.7% of all minorities and 70% of all white graduates entered the for-profit sector. (18)
Minority representation among associates in law firms grew from 6.8% in 1991 to 13% in 1998. Asian-American associates are now the best- represented and fastest-growing group among minorities-making up 6.1% of the 13%. (19)Indeed, nearly half of all minority associates in the nation’s 250 largest law firms are Asian-American. (20)Minority representation is highest in the nation’s largest law firms: in firms with 100 or fewer lawyers, minorities made up 10.65% of all associates; in firms with 101-250 lawyers, minorities made up 11.1% of all associates; and in firms with more than 251 lawyers, minorities made up 12.75% of all associates. (21)While the data indicates that minorities have made strides at the level of entry into the profession, minority representation among partners at law firms remains low. There may be many different factors contributing to this reality, but the one that is identified in the ABA report is the high level of attrition among minority attorneys. (22)
Some evidence suggests that to a certain extent, attrition rates reflect lateral mobility, given that inter-firm competition is fierce. (23)Most evidence suggests, however, that minority attrition is high because “associates face social and professional isolation in law firms and have difficulty gaining access to mentors and quality work assignments.” (24)In any case, minority associates tend to leave law firms before being considered for partner. Therefore, the correlation between high attrition rates and low minority representation among partners remains a strong one. (25)In 1998, New York’s largest law firms promoted 14% more associates to partner than in the previous year, but the numbers of women and minorities in that group remained static. (26)In 1998, 12 of the 197 associates promoted to partner were minorities and 37 were women. The partner class was 94% white and 81% male. (27)A survey conducted by the New York Times of the 12 highest-grossing law firms in the United States reveals that minority lawyers accounted for approximately 5% of the new partners in recent years at the seven firms which provided such information, and that at some firms the percentage was significantly less. (28)According to the National Association for Law Placement, last year only 3.4 % of all partners at all law firms were minority lawyers, i.e., 1,608 lawyers, up less than a percentage point since 1993. (29)In 1996, the Wall Street Journal cited a San Francisco County Bar Association report that revealed that while the Bay Area’s largest law firms “hire quite a few minority attorneys, they do a relatively poor job of retaining and promoting them: Members of minority groups make up more than 18% of the associates at the firms . . . but less than 5% of the partners.” (30)
Evidence suggests that minorities that do make partner are leaving majority firms at increasing rates and going to corporate law departments and government, and also to partnership positions at minority-owned firms. (31)For those minority partners that remain at their firms, there is often a struggle to generate business from corporate clients. “As a result, minority partners tend to be clustered at the bottom of the firm’s pecking order.” (32)In addition, minority partners tend to hold few leadership positions within their firms and a low number achieve equity partner status. (33)A recent study of large firms in major cities found that the level of minority representation “positively affects the rate of integration among associates, independent of other firm characteristics.” (34)The conclusion to be drawn is that more minority associates tend to be hired and retained at firms where there are more minority partners. (35)The 2000 Report, in discussing obstacles to “full and equal” participation of minority associates, discusses the problems that affect all associates and all firms regarding attrition issues. It concludes that there are systemic management problems in place at many firms which must be addressed. Problems such as inadequate supervision, feedback, and mentoring, as well as the time demands of large firm practice, continue to be cited as the main reasons associates leave their firms.
It seems then that to address the problem of associate attrition in general and minority attrition in particular, law firms need to address these management issues in a more comprehensive manner. As one diversity consultant observed:
The most important and perhaps most difficult step for a firm to take is to commit to the process of long-term change. The pressures of profitability make it hard for partners to see the benefits of investing time in management issues, even in light of the high attrition rates. (36)
In 1991, the Association, acting through its newly formed Committee to Enhance Professional Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession (renamed the Committee to Enhance Diversity in the Profession in 1994), adopted a Statement of Goals of New York Law Firms and Corporate Legal Departments for Increasing Minority Representation and Retention (the “Statement”). (37) The Statement established goals and outlined specific steps for hiring, retaining, and promoting minority attorneys in each of the law firms and corporate legal departments that were signatories to the Statement. (38)
The Association’s Task Force on Minorities recognized early on that retention issues are as important as-indeed, they are inextricably tied to-issues of hiring and opportunity.
The Association’s Diversity Committee formed a Subcommittee on Recruitment and Retention (the “Subcommittee”), which issued a report (the “Task Force Report”) in 1992. While the Subcommittee recognized that efforts to recruit minorities at law schools and law firms were increasing, it was troubled to learn that among the 35 firms represented on the full Diversity Committee, only 19 African- Americans had become partners. (39)“Almost a third of the firms represented [on the full Diversity Committee] had no minority partners, twelve firms had one minority partner and only four firms had more than one. Recently, two additional firms . . . made their first minority partners.” (40)
The Subcommittee conducted a survey of minority associates and former associates at firms represented on the full Diversity Committee “in an effort to determine the factors that they believed were relevant to success in a competitive law firm.” (41)While only 59 attorneys responded (23 African-Americans, 21 Asian-Americans, 9 Hispanic-Americans, 3 identified as Other, and 3 who did not indicate a particular group), the survey revealed a particular pattern among African-American attorneys: that their experiences differed from their non-minority colleagues. (42)Only 9% of Asian-Americans and no Hispanic-Americans believed that their experiences differed from their non-minority colleagues. The survey results are admittedly not scientific, yet the report concludes that such perceptions “apparently are contributing to, or causing, the disparate levels of retention even among minorities, distinguishing African-Americans from Hispanic- Americans and Asian-Americans.” (43)
The report concludes by offering some recommendations: (1) the need to establish direct and honest communication mechanisms and make them available to all young associates; (2) firms should consider engaging in diversity training; (3) starting at orientation and furthered by a diversity committee, new associates should be assisted and mentored throughout their employment period; (4) re-examination of the evaluation process, and addressing potential problems early on by establishing clear and consistent criteria, used also to improve communications; and (5) establishing a position of “Assistant” to act as a resource for any firms desiring information and assistance regarding diversity issues. (44)
The Task Force’s Report states that the overall goal of focusing attention on minority hiring in the profession has been met; but the Statement’s success in increasing retention has been mixed. (45)In light of evidence that more progress can be made in minority promotion and retention, the Report and Recommendations suggests, among other things, that the Statement be re-adopted for another five-year period, and that the 10% hiring goal be replaced with a goal of achieving 10% minority representation of all attorneys employed by each firm, to encourage firms to focus more on retention efforts. (46)The Report also concludes, as did the ABA’s 2000 Report, that while minorities as a whole have made progress, “different Minority groups have had different experiences, with Asian-American associates increasing at a more rapid rate than African-American and Hispanic associates.” (47) The Report also states that it is unclear whether smaller increases in employment levels for African-Americans and Hispanics, compared to Asian-Americans, are attributable to lower hiring rates, higher attrition rates or a combination of both factors. (48)
The Task Force Report concludes with a set of recommendations and reiterates the Statement’s pledge to pursue the goal of increasing retention and promotion rates, specifically, by ensuring that the work environment is as hospitable to minorities as non-minorities and that minorities have opportunities to pursue significant work assignments and receive mentoring, guidance and training in order to grow professionally. (49)
The Minority Corporate Counsel Association (“MCCA”) was founded in 1997 to advocate for the “expanded hiring, promotion, retention and management of minority attorneys in corporate law departments and the law firms that serve them.” (51)In 1998, the MCCA conducted its first national survey on diversity and found that minority attorneys practicing in-house continue to confront barriers beyond entry level positions. The survey revealed that minority representation among in- house counsel of Fortune 1000 law departments had reached 11.1%. (52) Of the 1,175 in-house attorneys who supervised others, 233 or 19.83% were “ethnic minorities.” (53)When asked whether the general counsel who reports to the company’s chief executive officer was a member of an ethnic minority, 3% of the companies surveyed responded affirmatively. (54)38% of the responding companies had minority attorneys who reported directly to general counsel.
MCCA’s 1999 survey of Fortune 1000 corporate law departments reveals that minority representation of corporate counsel had increased 1.8% to 12.9% from 1998. (55)Although this number tracks the national figure for minority representation at large law firms, MCCA warns that the number may be inflated, because only 41 companies responded and these companies tended to be the more diversity- minded of the group. (56)For the most part, the numbers remained static since the 1998 survey: 38% of corporate law departments have minority attorneys that report directly to general counsel, 54% have minority attorneys who manage other attorneys, and nearly half of the respondents said they have a diversity plan in place. (57)
The ABA’s 2000 Report suggests that in-house careers are especially attractive as attorneys get to “just practice law” without the pressures of business development, which continues to be a trouble spot for new minority attorneys who may not have access to the social circles necessary for such business development. (58)Of note, however, minority in-house counsel confront the same problems as do their law firm counter parts, such as lack of mentoring and few opportunities for promotion to top positions. (59)On the other hand, “in-house practice may open up a number of non-legal avenues for advancement, such as promotion to other business functions outside of the law department.
Such opportunities cannot be measured by looking only at law departments.” (60)It remains to be seen, however, whether law departments actually offer more opportunities for advancement than law firms.
Most generally agree that minority representation among in-house counsel is increasing. (61)But regional surveys reveal that minority representation differs depending on the region. Data compiled from 1992 to 1996 demonstrates that minority representation in corporate law departments in New Jersey in 1992 was 1.4%, while in San Francisco it was 12.3% in 1990 and had increased to 19.1% in 1995. In New York City in 1996, minority representation in corporate law departments was 8.9%: the same percentage of all in-house counsel as the percentage of supervising in-house attorneys in New York City.(62)The disparate distribution of minority representation among various regions and the slow rate of increase illustrates the need to continue addressing pervading attitudes of ambivalence in dealing with the issue of diversity.
It has been suggested that, due to the nature of some in-house corporate work, such as writing contracts and advising on intellectual property matters, companies and their legal departments do not suffer from the lack of diversity any more than they would benefit from it. (63)A legal recruiting firm president in Washington D.C. states that those who do the hiring for many in-house positions-often the company’s general counsel-“do not seek out minority candidates because they see no ‘hard-and-fast evidence that it adds to the bottom line.'” (64) Not only is this premise refutable-indeed there is strong evidence that diversity is good for business (65)-it points up the need to address lingering biases and assumptions that are not only incorrect but unprofitable.
There is evidence that although minority and female representation among general counsel is considerably lower than one should expect given the percentage of minority and female representation in the legal profession, the numbers are increasing. Recent data suggests that of the Fortune 500’s general counsel, there are only 14 minorities; but 11 of the 14 were named within the last three years. (66)It has been suggested that if this trend continues, “the number of minority general counsel could double within the next ten years.” (67)And despite continued gender bias, the numbers of women serving as general counsel are on the rise. Of the Fortune 500 general counsel, women held 44 (8.8%) of the positions, according to recent data. (68)Of these 44 positions, 38 have been appointed since 1990, and 22 since 1996. If this trend continues, the total number of women general counsel in Fortune 500 corporations should double in the next three years. (69)
General counsel can exert significant influence on diversity efforts at law firms. For example, a group of general counsel, about 300 so far, recently sent letters to their outside firms informing them of general counsel’s efforts to increase diversity. The goal is to strongly encourage outside firms to do the same; and this encouragement carries a particular incentive: future business. For these letters more than imply that the outside firms’ own efforts to increase diversity will “factor heavily in whether they land corporate work.” (70)
In 1993, the Second Circuit Judicial Council voted unanimously to create a Task Force on Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Fairness, in an effort to identify bias in all forms and prevent it from becoming “‘a danger to the effective administration of justice in federal courts . . . .'” (71) As a benchmark, the Task Force’s report (the “Committees’ Report”), using 1990 Census Bureau statistics revealed that of the total population of 21,840,329 in the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, 15,803,177 (72.4%) were White, and 6,037,152 (27.6%) were Minority. (72)While the Second Circuit’s report is comprehensive, only the data concerning minority and female judges and attorneys will be discussed below.
The Report reveals that in 1991 there were 94 Article III judges (73) in the Second Circuit; of these, 87 (92.6%) were White. (74)Of the seven minority judges (7.4% of the total), six (86%) were African- American/Black. By 1996, the total number of Article III judges serving in the Second Circuit was 105; of these 95, or 90.5% were white. (75)Of the 10 minority judges, seven (70%) were African- American/Black. (76)The Second Circuit’s data reveals that during the period between 1991-1996, the numbers of African-American/Black judges remained roughly the same, while the numbers of Hispanic/Latino and Asian-American judges each increased by one. (77)
In the states comprising the Second Circuit, women make up 52% of the population. (78)In 1991, of the 60 Active Article III judges, 53, or 88% were Male, and of the 34 Senior judges, 32, or 94% were Male. (79)By 1996, of the 64 Active judges in the Second Circuit, 48, or 75% were Male, and of the 41 Senior judges, 37, or 90% were Male. (80)The Committees’ Report indicates that before 1990, women judges at the federal district level in the Second Circuit were rarities. (81)Between 1991 and 1996, however, the number of female district court judges in the Second Circuit more than doubled -rising from nine to 20; (82)11 of the 20 judges were from the Southern District in New York. (83)The Committees’ Report explains that, to a certain extent, this pattern bears out the changing demographics in the legal profession and the fact that “[w]omen are comparative latecomers to the law,” constituting only 3 to 5% of law school graduates in the 1960s and about 44% today. (84)Interestingly, although minority women make up a small percentage of all female lawyers in the Second Circuit, three of the six female Article III judges appointed before 1987 were minorities. (85)Between 1987 and 1996, of the 14 female judges added to the district court bench, two or 14%, were minorities. (86)
The Committees’ Report, again relying on 1990 Census Bureau statistics, reveals that of the 747,077 lawyers in the United States, 691,313 or 92.5% were identified as White; of the remaining 7.6%, 25,067 or 3.4% were African-American/Black; 18,612 or 2.5% were Hispanic/Latino; 10,513 or 1.4% were Asian-American; 1,417 or 0.2% were American Indian; and 155 were identified as Other. (88)In the Second Circuit, there were 104,858 attorneys practicing, and the racial and ethnic statistics tracked the national numbers. (89)
As mentioned above, women make up 52% of the population in the three states that comprise the Second Circuit, but only 27.3% of all attorneys. (90)Of the 28,575 female attorneys, 25,078 or 88%, were White. The total number of White attorneys equaled 97,585. (91)Therefore, while White female attorneys comprised 88% of all female attorneys, they made up only 25.7% of all White attorneys. Although Minority female attorneys made up only slightly more than 12% of all female attorneys, they comprised 48.1% of all minority attorneys. (92)The Committees’ Report cites ABA data that indicates that the number of minority women attorneys tripled between 1980 and 1990; (93)and in the Second Circuit, minority women are a more prominent part of the bar than their national counterparts. (94)
In 1987, then Chief Judge Sol Wachtler met with members of the Coalition of Blacks in the Courts to discuss the treatment and under- representation of African-Americans within the judiciary and the legal profession. (95)In response to reports of bias, the Chief Judge established the New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities in 1988. The Commission’s mandate was threefold: (1) to examine how the public and the courts perceive the treatment of minorities in the courts, and the extent to which minorities voluntarily use the courts; (2) to examine whether there was under-representation of minorities in non-judicial positions in the courts, such as court officers, clerks, etc.; and if found, to recommend ways to increase such numbers; and(3) to examine the selection processes for judges-elective and appointive-and determine which results in greater minority representation. (96)The Commission’s overall mandate was, and still is, to identify all problems affecting minority treatment and representation in the legal profession, and act to effect necessary changes.
The Commission Report reveals that in 1991, there were 1,129 judges sitting in the courts of New York State. (97)Of these, 9%, or 93 judges were minorities: there were 71 African-Americans, 19 Hispanics, three Asian-Americans and no Native American judges. (98)The Commission Report’s findings yielded no conclusion in response to the third part of the Commission’s mandate-to examine the judicial selection process. (99)When the Commission released its five-year report in 1996, it reported “[t]oday, we have more minority judges, lawyers and jurors- particularly in New York City-than ever before.” (100)
The Five-Year Report reveals that by 1997, of the 1,163 judges throughout New York State, 132 or 11.35%, were minorities. The report highlights that “no minority judge has ever been appointed as an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Department.” (101)Of the 39 new minority judges added between 1991 and 1997, 18 were Latino (a 95% increase), 16 were African American (a 22.5% increase), and five were Asian American (up from three, representing a 166.7% increase). (102)These increases have been distributed throughout New York’s court system, from the Court of Appeals to the local courts. (103)
In 1991, when the Commission Report was released, minorities accounted for 25% of New York State’s population, but only about 5% of all attorneys in the state; the remainder were white. (104)Although the Commission Report does not provide specific numbers, it states that the representation of black attorneys in large law firms actually had decreased since 1979, while representation of Hispanic attorneys saw nominal increases and Asian-Americans enjoyed sizable increases during that period. (105)Data suggest that minorities were especially under-represented in more influential positions and that minority attorneys “lack access to positions of prestige, power and high remuneration.” (106)According to a 1987 survey, there were 3,731 partners at large firms in New York State; of these 48 or 1.3% were minorities. (107)A similar survey conducted in 1989 found that 70 or 1.7% were minorities, of the 4,086 partners. (108)
The Five-Year Report cites earlier-mentioned data that reveals the increases in minority attorney hiring at New York City’s largest law firms-“with minorities comprising 17.5% of the total number of associates hired in this period.” (109)Progress was made in the public sector during this period as well with minorities comprising over 20% of Assistant District Attorneys in New York City. (110)The proportion of minority partners at law firms throughout the state, however, remained low at 2.98%. (111) Of the minorities that have achieved partner status, very few have become equity partners: thus, racial disparities persist even among partners. (112)In citing a 1996 National Law Journal survey of the nation’s 250 largest law firms, the Five-Year Report reveals that 46.2% of all minority partners are of the “non- equity variety,” drawing income only, as opposed to sharing a firm’s profits, whereas only 30% of all white partners are non-equity. (113)
As part of the Second Circuit’s efforts at addressing racial/ethnic and gender fairness, the Task Force on Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Fairness commissioned a survey of perceptions of the key players in the Second Circuit. In the survey (the “Baruch Study”), lawyers, judges, and courtroom deputies were asked about the ways in which gender, race, and ethnicity affect the administration of justice in Second Circuit courts, generally, and how these factors influenced the treatment of lawyers, judges, parties, and witnesses specifically. The Baruch Study reports whether and to what extent “there are systematic and significant differences in the beliefs and attitudes associated with the gender, race, and ethnicity of these players.” (115)Here, we will examine the Baruch Study’s findings as to the treatment of judges, lawyers, the parties and witnesses. Although this study was conducted in the federal court system in the Second Circuit, its findings are significant to a discussion of diversity in the state court system as well as the legal profession in general.
When judges were surveyed about the treatment of fellow judges, the vast majority of male and female judges reported that they “do not ever hear disparaging comments about the competence of female or minority judges.” (116)Less than 1% of all male judges surveyed reported hearing disparaging remarks from colleagues regarding the competence of female judges; and less than 2% reported hearing disparaging remarks about the competence of minority judges. (117)When female judges were asked the same questions, 11% reported hearing disparaging remarks about minority judges and 7% reported hearing similar remarks about other female judges. (118)
When attorneys were asked about the treatment of judges, the responses were dramatically different. For example, 82% of white male attorneys who work for the government reported hearing disparaging remarks about the competence of white male judges in the Second Circuit. (119)When minority attorneys were surveyed, 74% of male and 77% of female attorneys reported that they had heard disparaging remarks about white male judges. (120)Roughly 75% of minority male and female attorneys in private practice reported hearing disparaging comments about minority male judges. (121)
Judges were surveyed and asked about the treatment of all attorneys- female, male, minority and white-and specifically asked whether lawyers are treated “very fairly” or if lawyers are “ever disadvantaged” depending on their gender, race or ethnicity. The majority surveyed reported that attorneys are treated “very fairly” regardless of gender or race. 96.6% of male judges and 96% of female judges believe that white male lawyers are treated very fairly. 88.9% of male judges and 72% of female judges believe that white female lawyers are treated very fairly. 88.8% of male judges and 80% of female judges believe that minority male lawyers are treated very fairly. 87.9% of male judges and 75% of female judges believe that minority female lawyers are treated very fairly. With respect to the question of whether judges believe that attorneys are ever disadvantaged in court proceedings, the following results were obtained. 2.6% of male judges and 0% of female judges believe that white male lawyers are disadvantaged. 5.3% of male judges and 18.5 % of female judges believe that white female lawyers are disadvantaged. 7.5% percent of male judges and 3.7 % of female judges believe that minority male lawyers are disadvantaged. 6.1% of male judges and 15.4 % of female judges believe that minority female lawyers are disadvantaged. (123)
When attorneys were asked about the treatment of attorneys, the questions were framed differently: attorneys were asked whether an attorney’s status (minority, female, etc.) ever provides an advantage or disadvantage generally, and when representing clients in the Second Circuit specifically. (124)72% of white male attorneys in private practice reported that minority males are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged and 49% of white female attorneys believed that “being a woman in the Second Circuit can be a disadvantage to the overall fairness of a proceeding….” (125)When minority male attorneys were asked whether minority male attorneys faced a “disadvantage,” 46% reported that they did, and they reported that 48% of female attorneys also confronted a “disadvantage.” (126)
Gender Bias (127)
When asked about observations of gender bias, almost all white male judges reported that there was no observable sexually-biased treatment by other attorneys toward female attorneys (only 1.8% thought there was), while 16.7% of female judges reported that female attorneys were interrupted or ignored by other lawyers. (128)In this part of the survey (on the question of gender bias), court employees were also asked their opinions. In most cases, white female and male court employees reported that they did not observe biased treatment of women. 5.5% of white male employees, 11.7% of white female employees, and 20.5% of minority employees reported observing female attorneys being ignored, interrupted, or not listened to by other attorneys. (129)
Roughly half of the female attorneys reported experiencing gender- biased behavior. (130)63.2% of white female lawyers and 62.3% of minority female lawyers reported instances where they were mistaken for a non-lawyer. One white female government attorney commented “I think judges take me less seriously as a woman. . . . I think that happens a lot, with minority women as well as [with] white women.” (131)Notably, more than half of the attorneys in all groups reported observing biased treatment of lawyers based on gender, with most lawyers reporting two or three such incidents. (132)
Racial/Ethnic Bias (133)
Most judges reported that they do not observe incidents of racial or ethnic bias directed at attorneys. For example, none of the male judges and only 4 % of the female judges reported hearing derogatory racial or ethnic comments made by lawyers about other lawyers; and only 2.7% of male judges and 4% of female judges reported observing a minority lawyer mistaken for a non-lawyer by other lawyers. (134)The observations of court employees differ dramatically based on racial and ethnic background. 1.5% of white male employees and 2.2% of white female employees reported observing the competence of a lawyer challenged by other lawyers, which they attributed to racial or ethnic bias, compared with 23.8% of minority employees who reported that same observation. (135)3.7% of white male employees and 5.1% of white female employees reported observing a minority lawyer mistaken for a non-lawyer by other lawyers, contrasted with 19% of minority employees reporting this observation. (136)
Attorneys reported observing incidents of racial or ethnic bias directed at attorneys in much higher percentages than the judges and court employees. 40.8% of white male lawyers, 58.9% of white female lawyers, 77.9% of minority male lawyers and 84.9% of minority female lawyers reported observing biased treatment of other lawyers based on race or ethnicity. Most of the lawyers reported observing 2 or 3 such incidents. 11.8% of white male lawyers, 21.3% of white female lawyers, 39.1% of minority male lawyers, and 38.5% of minority female lawyers reported observing that lawyers had been subjected to derogatory racial or ethnic remarks. 7.2% of white male lawyers, 12.6% of white female lawyers, 40% of minority male lawyers, and 41.5% of minority female lawyers reported observing biased treatment of other lawyers based on race or ethnicity by judges. 10.4% of white male lawyers, 25.3% of white female lawyers, 28.4% of minority male lawyers, and 18.9% of minority female lawyers reported observing biased treatment of other lawyers based on race or ethnicity by court employees. 27.5% of white male lawyers, 48.4% of white female lawyers, 53.7% of minority male lawyers, and 60.4% of minority female lawyers reported observing biased treatment of lawyers based on race or ethnicity by other lawyers. (137)
Finally, the survey sought to examine the treatment of parties and witnesses that appear before the Circuit’s courts. On the question of whether parties were treated in a biased manner due to their gender, more of the female judges observed such treatment than male judges. Only 5.4% of the male judges reported that they have observed parties or witnesses ignored, interrupted, or not listened to by lawyers due to gender bias, whereas 26.9% of the female judges made this same observation. 6.3% of the male judges and 26.9% of the female judges observed incidents where a female party or witness was helped or coached in a patronizing manner by attorneys. (139)White female and male court employees also reported few incidents of sexual bias toward parties or witnesses. 3.1% of white male employees and 8.5% of white female employees observed parties or witnesses helped or coached in a patronizing way by judges or lawyers due to gender bias. 15.6% of minority employees, however, made this same observation.
Most lawyers questioned also said that they did not observe incidents of gender bias with respect to parties and witnesses. The percentages for white female, and male and female minority attorneys, are notably higher than for white male attorneys. 4% of white male lawyers, 12.8% of white female lawyers, 26.3% of minority male lawyers, and 17% of minority female lawyers observed female parties or witnesses helped or coached in a patronizing way by judges. When it came to the treatment of parties and witnesses by fellow attorneys, 11% of white male lawyers, 25.3% of white female lawyers, 32.6% of minority male lawyers, and 49.1% of minority female lawyers observed parties or witnesses helped or coached in a patronizing way by lawyers because of gender bias. (141)
On the question of whether parties and witnesses were treated in either a racially or ethnically biased manner, the majority of male judges reported that they had not observed such treatment, with only 1% reporting observing lawyers imitating or parodying the manner of speech of a party or witness, and 8% reporting observing lawyers helping or coaching parties or witnesses in a patronizing manner. Female judges reported observing some witnesses being interrupted, ignored, or not listened to (26%) and incidents where parties and witnesses were helped or coached in a patronizing manner (19%). (142) White female and male court employees also reported very few incidents where parties and witnesses were treated with racial or ethnic bias, while some minority court employees observed parties and witnesses being ignored, interrupted, or not listened to (13%), or incidents where parties and witnesses were helped or coached in a patronizing manner (13%). (143)
Few attorneys, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity, reported racially or ethnically biased treatment of parties or witnesses by judges. For example, 1.7% of white male lawyers, 2.1% of white female lawyers, 9.5% of minority male lawyers and 0% of minority female lawyers observed racial or ethnic comments about parties or witnesses by judges. Attorneys from all groups reported more observed incidents of biased treatment of parties or witnesses by fellow attorneys. 17.6% of white male lawyers, 12.6% of white female lawyers, 29.8% of minority male lawyers, and 17% of minority female lawyers, observed racial or ethnic comments about parties or witnesses by lawyers. (144)
The Baruch Study effectively illustrates the fact that, at times, there is a vast difference among and between judicial officers of the court (judges vs. lawyers) and non-lawyers (court employees) when it comes to beliefs about the fairness of treatment received by all parties in the Second Circuit’s courts. What is significant about the Perceptions Survey is that people’s perceptions vary greatly depending on their role in the court system, whether they are male or female, and their racial/ethnic background. Indeed, the authors of the Baruch Study state that while the majority of judges surveyed agreed that it is their responsibility to “always” intervene when instances of bias are directed at attorneys or parties and witnesses, the “overall pattern of these findings also make clear that these same judicial officers in general believe situations which require such intervention do not occur.” (145)
If biased behavior and attitudes are not recognized by those in positions of power, they will persist and intensify within the system. The level of awareness concerning these issues and experiences must be heightened so that all people who use and work in the court system will be treated equally and fairly, and with the respect they deserve. Likewise, the legal profession must work not only to increase the number of minority lawyers hired in all areas of the public and private sector, but to increase its awareness of the way lawyers perceive and treat one another as attorneys and people. (146)
January 11, 2001 Evening Forum on Increasing Diversity in the Legal Profession
Renaye Brown Cuyler President, Metropolitan Black Bar Association
Hon. George Daniels Judge, United States District Court
Francine James First Deputy, New York State Attorney General’s Office
Lloyd M. Johnson Jr. Chair, Minority Corporate Counsel Association
Lynn M. Kelly Executive Director, MFY Legal Services, Inc.
Sandra Leung Member, Task Force
Beverly McQueary Smith Professor of Law, Touro College
Damaris Torrent President, Puerto Rican Bar Association
Paul T. Williams Jr. President, One Hundred Black Men, Inc.
Member, Task Force
Remarks of Paul T. Williams Jr., President of One Hundred Black Men, Inc.,
Evening Forum, January 11, 2001
Task Force to Increase Diversity in the Profession
Judge Newton and members of the Task Force, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make a statement at these proceedings.
First, I wish to inform you that I appear here tonight really wearing three hats. Of course, I am a member of the Task Force. But, I also speak tonight as a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave, LLP. Let me tell you, if I may, a little about my firm.
Bryan Cave is a corporate firm with nearly 600 lawyers. With offices in seven major cities in the United States and overseas offices in London, Hong Kong, Shanghai and the Middle East, we represent corporate clients in the full range of legal issues faced by business today.
Law is a profession, but it is also a business, and in New York City, it is a very big business. I think it is important for the Task Force to take note of the fact that no representatives of any of the large New York firms are in attendance tonight or to my knowledge have submitted remarks to the Task Force, despite ample notice and opportunity.
Which brings me to the third hat I wear tonight. I am also here in my capacity as president of One Hundred Black Men, Inc., which is a 38 year old charitable, civic organization founded here in New York City. Today, our New York organization is a chapter in a national and international organization encompassing over 7,000 men in over 80 cities. Here in New York, our group has been focused throughout the years on education, particularly programs aimed at young people attending our public high schools, economic development, and of course, civil rights.
As we have heard in some of the statements this evening, many proponents of diversity today make the ‘business case’ for diversity. As Lloyd Johnson’s presentation made so clear, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association has been particularly effective and aggressive in this regard.
Make no mistake. I applaud and welcome those efforts.
But, if there is one thing I feel compelled to do tonight that is to remind the panel that the issue of diversity is not simply a business issue–but rather remains, principally, a moral issue for the legal profession–and, as such, the pursuit of diversity must not be or become subject to curtailment or derailment due to cyclical or transitory budget constraints, economic trends or other fiscal factors that effect the allocation of time, money and resources within a business entity, whether that be a private law firm, a major corporation or agencies within the public sector.
In much of my lifetime, and for all of my parents lifetime, major institutions of the bar, including private firms in New York were off- limits to Blacks–and it didn’t matter what school you attended; it didn’t matter what grades you received; it didn’t matter whatever your personal background.
Forget about applying to the American Bar Association for membership in the forties or, becoming an associate in a New York firm in the fifties or sixties. Even in the seventies, pervasive racial discrimination was evident at too many New York firms.
I graduated from Yale University as an undergraduate and then from Columbia University School of Law in 1977. In response to an inquiry I made to a firm, I was invited to speak with a partner. I thought I had been invited in for an interview, but within moments of our meeting, it was clear that I had been mistaken. Why, I asked, had he invited me in at all, if there was no legitimate interest in my hiring? Well, he said, I just wanted to see what one looked like…
Other colleagues at the time had to deal with the indignity of being offered salaries lower than their white counterparts. Has there been progress since then? Of course there has been progress, but not nearly enough.
I joined Bryan Cave as a partner just about three years ago. At the time, the firm had been in New York for 12 years. As I understand it, I was the first African-American attorney to work in any capacity in our offices in New York. Today, I am pleased to report that we have made progress–now, out of over 50 lawyers, we have eight attorneys of color. There is still room for growth, yet in terms of New York firms, both in terms of raw numbers and as a percentage of our attorney population, our office is well above the norm with respect to the issue of diversity.
In New York City of all places–a city which prides itself on its diverse racial and ethnic makeup; a city which thinks of itself as a great cosmopolitan center; a city which in fact is comprised of a majority of residents who are racial or ethnic minorities–in New York City of all places, there are still too many 200-300 even 400 attorney firms with few, if any, Black and Latino associates, and fewer, if any, Black or Latino partners.
I submit that the issue today is not lack of talent. Until three years ago, a venerable New York ‘white-shoe’ firm of well over 300 lawyers had no Black partners ever, throughout its over 100 year history. But, over the course of 20 plus years, it managed to ‘graduate’ from its ranks after 3, 4, 5 or more years, attorneys who went on to distinguish themselves in practice, in each instance, in their future employment. Today, at last count, that firm had 1 Black partner, and the exodus of minority associates continues. That circumstance repeats itself time and again at too many firms in New York.
I submit that the issue is not one of talent, but there is a question of “will.” Do the leaders of New York and the partners of influence in New York firms have the will to change the status quo, to find ways, not only to attract attorneys of color, but to retain them and promote them to the highest levels of the profession?
It is time for renewed and re-invigorated leadership on this issue–but if change is the outcome hoped for, then that leadership must be from the “top” down, not from the bottom, up.
With that perspective in mind, I propose that under the auspices of NYCLA, the courts, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and, perhaps, one or more of our leading civic groups such as One Hundred Black Men or the Association for a Better New York, that a roundtable of managing partners of the 10 largest firms in New York be convened to address, in particular, the issue of the retention and promotion of Black and Latino attorneys in New York’s largest firms.
I am cautiously optimistic that such collective focus on this issue can spawn new solutions to a problem which is far too old and which has lingered far too long. Without such an effort, yet another generation of talented, ambitious attorneys, who happen to be Black or Latino, will be locked out of mainstream practice in New York, and the benefits that might be derived from them, to the profession, to the corporate clients we serve, and to our city, will be lost forever.
THE BROWNING OF THE BAR: WHY LAWYERS SHOULD ACT
2001 By Beverly McQueary Smith (1)
Lawyers can help shape who gets to attend their alma maters, and they should. All of us who have attended and graduated from law schools in the United States of America must monitor who is getting a chance to enroll in our law schools in 2001. If we fail to be vigilant, then we may end up attending a law school reunion 30 to 50 years hence and find that our law school has lost its competitive edge because of its failure to admit students of color. In an increasingly diverse America, we need an educated and informed workforce that looks like all of America. Diverse students in our classrooms help to fashion a better-educated workforce. In America, where people peacefully decide disputes by deferring to the legal system and the rule of law, we need people who respect the institution and its members because its validity stems from a policy of inclusion, not exclusion. As rights-givers and rights-protectors, lawyers of goodwill work to protect the rights and interests of those who are unable or less able to defend and represent themselves. Viewed from this perspective, lawyers and members of the organized bar, must work to promote the rigorous implementation of ABA Standard 211 (2) which requires law schools to provide full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by qualified minority groups, notably racial and ethnic minorities, which have been victims of discrimination in various forms.
Data show that by 2030, approximately 40 percent of all Americans are projected to be members of minority groups. (3)Thus, schools’ practices of excluding or limiting minority enrollment threaten disastrous consequences to those institutions themselves, to the legal profession as a whole and to our bar associations. After the passage of Proposition 209, (4)University of California at Los Angeles Law School enrolled only two Black students in its entering class in August 1999. (5)After Hopwood v. Texas, (6)Black enrollment at the University of Texas School of Law similarly dropped. (7)The enrollment numbers for members of other minority groups remain as dismal. Apart, from any narrow, parochial interest we may have in preserving our alma maters, other societal benefits flow from promoting diversity in our educational institutions.
In their empirical study, The Shape of the River, which examines thirty years of affirmative action among selective institutions of higher education that used race as a factor to admit students, William Bowen and Derek Bok conclude that affirmative action led to striking gains in the representation of minorities in the most lucrative and influential occupations. (8)They also found that “[t]he growth of minority managers and professionals has been encouraged by a widespread recognition of the pressing need for greater diversity at all levels of responsibility and in all walks of life. Evidence of this recognition is provided by the actions of leaders throughout government, business, and the professions. ” (9) Moreover, they assert that government officials will have difficulty producing enlightened policies and find it hard to enjoy the confidence of the minority community if an overwhelmingly white cabinet and Congress are making the decisions affecting the lives of such an increasingly diverse, multiracial society. Business leaders know that minorities generate more than $600 billion in purchasing power and that they make-up more than one-third of all new entrants to the workforce. In this marketplace, a diverse corporate leadership can be valuable both to understand the markets in which many companies sell and to recruit, manage, and motivate the workforce on which corporate performance ultimately depends. Business executives who understand the bottom-line, state that corporations will not be healthy unless the society is healthy, and a healthy society in the twenty-first century will be one in which the most challenging, rewarding career possibilities are perceived to be, and truly are, open to all races and ethnic groups. (10)In sum, therefore, lawyers must work to ensure that our institutions of higher learning admit, retain and graduate people of color.
Here are some concrete action steps that persons of goodwill can take to promote diversity in the legal academy. Note that the American Bar Association inspects accredited law schools every seven years.
While this list is not exhaustive, it illustrates that lawyers and members of the organized bar can do much to promote diversity in our colleges and universities. We can not stand idly by and watch the educational opportunities our generation of people enjoyed evaporate into nothingness. Secure the blessings of liberty by promoting educational opportunity for the next generation of lawyers, judges, legal scholars and law students.
PRE-LAW SCHOOL REPORT
Issues and Problems
The obvious question is why are fewer minorities enrolling in law school and entering the legal profession. Is it unequal access to primary, middle, and secondary schools where minorities can obtain the academic skills necessary to enter the profession? Is it unequal access to career counselors and practicing lawyers who can better explain the legal profession and the skills necessary to succeed in the profession? Is it a fear of the unknown, including a belief that they do not have the necessary academic skills to pursue a legal career? Is it dissatisfaction with the profession based on media bashing?
SAT Preparation Course Legal Outreach Inc. conducts summer refresher courses for middle and high school students, as well as provides tutoring for the SAT exam. Legal Outreach, Inc. provides an impressive model for increasing diversity by conducting moot court competitions, lectures by individuals in the legal profession, career counseling, and academic counseling, as well as the tutoring and refresher courses mentioned above.
Supreme Court Justice, United States District Court Judge or United States Court of Appeals Judge. This program provides a unique opportunity for minority law students to take part in a paid summer judicial internship.
It is recommended that the existing programs be further reviewed and evaluated and that a “model plan” be developed, a basic package that would be given to law firms and other organizations. The package should include course materials for mock trial programs, career day functions, workshops, and classes. On the mentoring side, sample itineraries should be developed. As stated below, the mentoring relationship should be periodically monitored and evaluated.
Expand outreach efforts. There should be greater contact between practicing attorneys and students. Most bar associations, government offices, legal defense offices, and public interest firms participate in Law Day activities, address students at career day functions, and conduct visits to schools to speak to students regarding the legal profession. Greater outreach is necessary, especially from majority law firms to minority students. Government offices have taken the lead in this area.
Institute SAT preparation course. An SAT preparation course for junior high school students should be instituted with a scholarship fund to underwrite costs. Attorneys as well as others in the legal profession should be encouraged to volunteer (in exchange for CLE credit) to conduct academic refresher classes for high school juniors and seniors.
Provide career counseling. Career counseling for high school juniors and seniors through a partnership with university counseling staff should be implemented.
Subsidize college and law school trips. A program providing college and law school trips for minority high school students, through donated frequent flyer miles by attorneys and others in the legal profession, should be implemented.
Student representation at bar association functions. Minority high school students should be encouraged to attend bar association functions. Bar associations should be encouraged to schedule programs that are geared to informing minority primary, middle, high school, and college students about careers in the legal profession.
LAW SCHOOL REPORT
This sub-committee’s assignment was to research and describe aspects of minority representation in law schools in New York State. In the continuum that charts an individual’s path into the legal profession, there are five identifiable and unavoidable checkpoints:
From one perspective, law school can be viewed as a discrete point–or set of points–on the arc of one’s career. However, a more organic perspective admits that law schools have a role in each of these phases. Our sub-committee chose to approach the topic of law schools’ participation in the demographic makeup of the legal profession with this long view. As such, our report presents findings regarding the presence and status of minority groups in the legal profession in New York State. In approaching this topic, several questions guided our research:
Tables A and B display population statistics by race for New York State and for the United States, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau from 2000 and 1990 Census figures, respectively. In New York State in 2000, white non-Hispanics make up 62% of the population, while non- whites comprise 38% of the total population. Hispanics and Latinos are the largest minority group in the State, constituting 15.1% of the total population. Blacks and African-Americans, the next largest minority group, are 14.8% of the population; Asians are 5.5%; American Indians and Alaska Natives make up 0.3%; other races and individuals that identify themselves as two or more races make up the final 2.3% of the population.
Table C calculates population growth from 1990 to 2000, for both New York State and the United States. These calculations of population growth are used for comparisons throughout this study. In the ten- year period from the 1990 to the 2000 Census, the total population of New York State grew 5.5%. This growth was fueled by a 56.7% growth among the non-white population, and was in spite of a 12.1% drop in the white population in New York State.
The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) tracks individuals who apply to at least one American Bar Association (ABA)-approved law school in an application cycle. Each year, the LSAC calculates the average GPA and average LSAT score for applicants by ethnic group.
In the fall 2000 application cycle, the LSAC counted 74,550 applicants to ABA-approved law schools. Among these applicants, 27.7% were minorities. Whites constituted the majority of applicants to law schools in fall 2000, making up 65.3% of the total applicant pool. Blacks were the second largest group of applicants at 11.4% of the total, while Asians made up 7.1% of the total applicant pool. In addition, Hispanics were 4.0% of applicants, Puerto Ricans were 2.6%, Chicano/Mexican Americans were 1.8%, and American Indians were 0.8%. Comparing the percentage of the pool of total applicants represented by each ethnic group to that group’s percentage of the United States population in 2000, Asians claimed a larger portion of the pool of law school applicants (7.1%) than their percentage of the total population (3.7%). Using the same comparison, Hispanics and Latinos made up only 8.4% of law school applicants, while comprising 12.5% of the total United States population. Likewise, black and white applicants to law schools did not reach the level of their representations in the United States population. Blacks were 11.4% of applicants while 12.1% of the population, and whites were 65.3% of applicants while 69.1% of the population.
From the application cycle for academic year 1995-6 to the application cycle for fall 2000, the total number of applicants fell 2.8%, while the total number of minority applicants increased 7.4%. The ethnic groups that experienced decreases in the number of law school applicants during this period are: American Indians (-13.7%), Chicano/Mexican Americans (-10.9%), whites (-7.7%), and blacks (-3.7%). In contrast, the number of Puerto Rican applicants rose 21.4% during this period, Hispanic applicants rose 10.2%, and Asian applicants rose 2.3%.
Among all applicants to ABA-approved law schools in fall 2000, the average GPA was 3.15. White applicants had an average GPA of 3.21, which was the highest average GPA, while Asians had the second highest average GPA, 3.18. Among fall 2000 law school applicants, whites and Asians were the only two ethnic groups with higher average GPAs than the average GPA for all applicants. Puerto Ricans had an average GPA of 3.07, Chicano/Mexican Americans had an average GPA of 3.03, and Hispanics had an average GPA of 3.02. The average GPA for American Indians was 2.99, while blacks had the lowest average GPA (2.85) among major ethnic groupings in this analysis.
Among all applicants to ABA-approved law schools in fall 2000, the average LSAT score was 151.4. (1) White applicants had an average LSAT score of 153.6, which was the highest average LSAT score for any ethnic group. Asians had the second highest average LSAT score (153.0), while Chicano/Mexican Americans had an average LSAT score of 148.7. Among the other four major ethnic groups, American Indians had an average LSAT score of 148.2, Hispanics had an average score of 147.7, blacks had an average score of 142.6, and Puerto Ricans had an average score of 139.2. As with the average GPA’s, whites and Asians were the only two ethnic groups with average LSAT scores greater than the average LSAT score for all applicants.
Two notable discrepancies between the average GPA and average LSAT scores are for the Puerto Rican and American Indian ethnic groupings. Puerto Ricans had the third highest average GPA, but the lowest average LSAT score in fall 2000. In contrast, American Indians had the second lowest average GPA, but were in the middle of the pack with their average LSAT score. Interestingly, over the past five years, the average LSAT scores for each ethnic group has remained almost exactly the same, while the average GPA’s have increased slightly for all of the major ethnic groups.
With regard to the oft-repeated claim of the LSAT’s score gap among ethnic groups, a study of admissions to University of California (UC) at Berkeley’s law school, Boalt Hall, was conducted by the non-profit education research group, Testing for the Public. “The study…looked at 1,366 minority students who had attended Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles (UCLA) and who sought admission to Boalt Hall between 1996 and 1998. Each student from a minority group was matched with all white applicants from the same college whose four-year UGPA’s (2) differed by no more than one tenth of a point, on a four-point scale. The LSAT score gap between white and minority group applicants with similar grades was 9.3 points for African-Americans, 6.87 for Chicanos and Latinos, 3.77 for Native Americans, and 2.48 for Asian-Americans.”(3)
For the academic year 1999-2000, 13,946 students were enrolled in the 15 law schools in New York State. Of that total, 22.3% were minorities. Asian and Pacific Islanders had the strongest presence among New York State’s law students, encompassing 8.4% of the total. Blacks and African-Americans were the second largest minority group, making up 7.7% of the total law student population. Hispanics comprised 5.8% of the total student body and Latinos and Native American and Alaskans constituted 0.3%. (TABLE E)
Comparing these figures to population estimates, it is evident that black/African-Americans(4) and Hispanic/Latinos are underrepresented in New York State’s law schools. Black/African-Americans’ percentage of the total population in New York State is 14.8%, which is 7.1 percentage points higher than their 7.7% representation in the law school student body. Moreover, Hispanic/Latinos comprise 15.1% of the total state population, but only 5.8% of the law student population. Minorities as a group are underrepresented in law schools, since they make up 38.0% of the state population but only 22.3% of the law student population. Conversely, Asians are disproportionately represented among New York States’ law schools, since the minority group holds only 5.5% of the total population, but makes up 8.4% of the law student total.
Of note is the presence of a gender gap in law school enrollment among all four minority groups, with women making up a greater percentage of each minority group’s representation in law student bodies. This gender gap is widest among the minority group of black/African-Americans: 10.1% of the total number of women enrolled in New York State law schools are black/African-Americans, yet only 5.5% of the total number of males in law schools are black/African-Americans.
In 1999, 125,184 students were enrolled in ABA-accredited law schools, of which 20.2% (or 25,253 students) were minorities. In 1990, there were 17,330 minority students enrolled in ABA-accredited law schools, making up 13.6% of the total number of enrolled law students (127,261.) In the nine years from 1990 to 1999, minority law students steadily increased their numbers and their presence as a percentage of the total body of law students. In that period, the number of minorities enrolled in ABA-accredited law schools increased by 45.7%, which contrasts with the 1.6% decline in the total number of enrolled students. Although this increased enrollment of minorities in law schools appears to be a positive trend, this is tempered with the knowledge that the number of non-whites in the United States population increased by 77.2% from 1990 to 2000. Thus, the growth of minorities in the United States population outpaced the growth in minorities enrolled in law schools. This reality is further reflected in the increased gap between the proportion of minorities in the total population and the proportion of minorities enrolled in law schools. In 1990, minorities comprised 13.6% of enrolled law students, yet made up 19.7% of the United States population. By 1999, this gap had widened from a 6.1 percentage-point difference to a 10.7 percentage-point difference, with minorities comprising 20.2% of enrolled law students and 30.9% of the U.S. population. (TABLE F)
To find out what law schools in New York State do to recruit, retain, mentor, and support minority law students, we sent a survey to the 15 law schools in the state. Because the survey allowed for open-ended responses, law schools replied with different degrees of specificity and thoroughness. A shortcoming of this survey was that some schools gave brief responses that only mentioned a couple of minority recruitment practices, while other schools provided lengthy typewritten reports detailing every action taken to recruit and mentor minorities at their schools. Consequently, some schools looked comparably more aggressive in their recruitment of minorities, when the reality was that the other schools may be following similar practices but failed to list those strategies in their survey responses.
To compensate for the incomplete summary of practices reflected in the survey responses, we re-contacted each law school and asked them to fill out a questionnaire consisting primarily of Yes/No questions. We received responses to this questionnaire from all but one of the law schools in New York State, and created a chart to compare the response information. This chart is a reliable indicator of prevalent practices among schools for recruiting minorities. In addition, the responses to this questionnaire generated a wealth of ideas for different approaches and practices that can be used to increase the representation of minorities in the law schools in our state. These ideas are gathered into a Summary of Responses, which are listed below:
Summary of Responses to Survey: (number of schools that gave affirmative response/total number of responding schools–or name of school given for unique programs)
In 1999, 39,054 individuals graduated from ABA-accredited law schools, of which 19.3% (7,532 individuals) were minorities. African- Americans constituted the largest percentage of minority graduates (6.7% of total), with 2,617. Asian/Pacific Islanders made up 6.3% of graduates in 1999 with 2,460; Hispanics represented 5.4% of the total with 2,109; Native Americans made up 0.9% with 351. Comparing these figures to each groups’ representation among the total population of the United States, it is again the case that minorities as a whole are underrepresented. Non-whites comprise 30.9% of the total United States population in 1999, yet only made up 19.3% of law school graduates. Aside from Asians, which as a group represent 6.3% of graduates but only 3.7% of the U.S. population, individual ethnic groups graduated a smaller percentage of lawyers than their proportion of the population. Notably, Hispanics comprised 12.5% of the U.S. population but only 5.4% of law school graduates in 1999, and Blacks made up 12.1% of the population but only 6.7% of law school graduates.
Limited data are available on the minority status of individuals who take and pass the Bar exam. The following agencies were contacted while trying to locate information on Bar pass rates for minorities, all to no avail: the American Bar Association, Law School Admission Council (LSAC), New York State Bar Association, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Office of Court Administration (which is part of the New York State Unified Courts); and Secretary of Statistics in the First Judicial Department of the Appellate Courts. According to the ABA’s Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession’s report entitled “Miles to Go: Progress of Minorities in the Legal Profession,” “State bar associations resist collecting race and gender data from bar applicants, for fear of invading applicants’ privacy, or creating the appearance of discrimination. Most analysts are critical of this policy, because such data are essential for addressing racial disparities in performance and admission to the profession.”(5)
In the same report, statistics were provided on national Bar pass rates for minorities in 1991, which are included here in light of the dearth of recent, New York-specific minority pass rates. Of the 22,767 individuals who took the bar exam in 1991, 15.3% were minorities.
The total percentage of minorities breaks down to 6.0% African- American, 4.6% Hispanic, 4.2% Asian-American, and 0.5% Native- American. Notably, the racial group pass rates differ from the proportion of each group taking the exam. Whites had the highest pass rate, at 96.7%. The pass rate for all minority groups combined was 84.7%, which is significantly lower than the rate for whites. Asian- Americans had a pass rate of 91.9%, followed by the pass rate of 87.7% for Hispanics, 82.2% for Native-Americans, and 77.6% for African-Americans. (TABLE H)
Although recent Bar pass rates are not available, the number of J.D. degrees annually awarded by the ABA can serve as a proxy for bar passage. In 1999, the ABA awarded 39,071 J.D. degrees, of which 7,532 were awarded to minorities. Reflecting the steady increase in minority enrollment since 1990, the number of J.D. degrees awarded to minorities has grown from 11.3% of the total in 1990 to 19.3% in 1999. However, minority representation in the U.S. population has continued to expand during this period, from 19.7% of the total population in 1990 to 30.9% in 2000. Strikingly, the number of J.D. degrees awarded to minorities increased by 82.5% from 1990 to 1999, while the total number of J.D. degrees awarded by the ABA in the same period only increased 7.4%. (TABLE I) This is an encouraging sign of increasing diversity in the legal profession, since the growth in
J.D. degrees awarded to minorities (82.5%) outpaced the growth of the non-white population in the U.S. (77.2%) from 1990 to 1999.
Between minority and non-minority lawyers, there is a noticeable difference in initial employment type after passing the bar exam. The first job of 57.1% of non-minority attorneys is in private practice, while 49.5% of minority attorneys go into private practice. The next largest type of initial employment for minority attorneys is in government at 17.1%, followed by business/industry at 14.5%, and clerkships at 10.2%. Among non-minorities, government, business/industry, and clerkships attract nearly equal percentages of attorneys for initial employment: 13.0%, 12.9%, and 12.4%. The final three types of initial employment are public interest, academia, and other. All three attract small numbers of lawyers for initial employment; however, in each area, a slightly larger percentage of minorities take these jobs than non-minorities.
Minorities constitute 16.0% of associate lawyers in New York City law firms and 12.1% of associate lawyers in law firms nationwide. The percentages of minorities among partners in law firms are lower than among associates: 3.2% of partners in New York City law firms are minorities, and 3.3% of partners in law firms nationwide are minorities. At the associate level, both in New York City and nationwide, Asian/Pacific Islanders have the largest representation, followed by African-Americans, then Hispanics.
In the public sector, which is the second largest initial employer for lawyers, minorities have higher levels of representation than among private law firms. Of Assistant District Attorneys (ADA’s) in New York City, 23.4% are minorities, and throughout New York State, 16.0% of ADA’s are minorities. Third and fourth among minority representation of lawyers are the New York City Law Department (12.2%) and U.S. Attorneys in New York State’s four districts (12.1%). (TABLE M)
Finally, among public service employers across the United States, 19.4% of staff attorneys are minorities and 10.5% of supervising attorneys are minorities. At the level of staff attorney, 9.3% are African-American, 5.8% are Hispanic, and 4.0% are Asian/Pacific Islander. This proportional order of representation persists at the level of supervising attorney, but with lower percentages of minorities in every racial category. (TABLE N)
Over the past six academic years, the proportion of minorities in faculty positions at law schools has gradually increased from 12.3% in 1994-1995 to 13.6% in 1999-2000, representing a 20% increase in absolute terms.
Comparing the percentage of the pool of total applicants represented by each ethnic group to that group’s percentage of the United States population in 2000, the largest minority groups (except for Asians) were underrepresented.
Minorities as a group are underrepresented in New York’s law schools, since they make up 38% of the state population, but only 22.3% of the law student population. Specifically, black/African-Americans and Hispanic/Latinos are underrepresented in New York State’s law schools, while Asians are overrepresented compared to their percentages in the general population..
There is a score gap between whites and minorities who take the LSAT, ranging from a high of 9.3 points for African-Americans to a low of 2.48 for Asian-Americans.
From 1990 to 1999, the growth of minorities in the United States population outpaced the growth of minorities enrolled in law schools. In that period, the number of minorities enrolled in ABA-accredited law schools increased by 45.7%, while the number of non-whites in the United States population increased by 77.2%. This trend is also reflected in the increased gap between the proportion of minorities in the total population and the proportion of minorities enrolled in law schools. By 1999, this gap had widened from a 6.1 percentage-point difference in 1990 to a 10.7 percentage-point difference, with minorities comprising 20.2% of enrolled law students and 30.9% of the U.S. population.
Minority law school graduates are underrepresented in comparison to their percentage of the total population of the United States. Non- whites comprise 30.9% of the total United States population in 1999, yet only 19.3% of law school graduates.
Of the 22,767 individuals who took the Bar exam in 1991, 15.3% were minorities. The pass rate for all minority groups combined was 84.7%, which is significantly lower than the rate for whites (96.7%).
One encouraging sign of increasing diversity in the legal profession is the growth in J.D. degrees awarded to minorities (82.5%), which outpaced the growth of the non-white population in the U.S. (77.2%) from 1990 to 1999. Reflecting the steady increase in minority enrollment since 1990, the number of J.D. degrees awarded to minorities has grown from 11.3% of the total in 1990 to 19.3% in 1999. However, minority representation in the U.S. population has continued to expand during this period, from 19.7% of the total population in 1990 to 30.9% in 2000.
Between minority and non-minority lawyers, there is a noticeable difference in initial employment type after passing the Bar exam: 57.1% of non-minority attorneys go into private practice, compared to 49.5% of minority attorneys.
From the data gathered in this report, it is clear that minorities are underrepresented in comparison to their proportion of the total State and national population at nearly every juncture in the path to and through the legal profession. This disappointing reality demands the involvement of leaders and individuals in every area of the profession to work to increase the diversity of the legal profession and, more broadly, of the law.
Since no one approach to increasing diversity produces instant or complete results, we recommend that schools establish as many different programs as possible to reach a variety of minority groups and individuals. Moreover, these efforts should be sustained over a period of years to realize the fullest benefits. In surveying the law schools in New York State, we generated a comprehensive list of practices employed to recruit, accept, and mentor minority law students. This list is reproduced in the section of this report entitled Law School, as well as in the Chart that follows the text and graphs of the report. The list of practices along with the chart of survey results and the law school contacts (listed below) should be sent to all law schools in New York State. The schools can refer to these resources for ideas on how to increase diversity, as none of the schools surveyed currently uses all of the ideas.
Our study revealed different levels of involvement in the legal profession among ethnic groups. This means that law schools and lawyers cannot create recruitment and mentoring programs that treat minorities as a homogeneous group. Instead, racial and ethnic groups should be addressed differently as we strive to increase diversity in law schools and in the legal profession. Creating diversity plans for specific groups ensures that cultural norms and values will also be considered, which will increase the effectiveness of these efforts.
Albany Law Dawn Chamberlaine Admissions 518-445-2326
Cardozo Robert Schwartz Admissions 212-790-0357
Brooklyn Law Dean Henry Heneisteik Admissions 718-780-7906
Buffalo Jack Cox Admissions 716-645-2907
CUNY Yvonne Cherena-Pacheco Dir. of Admissions 718-340-4291
Columbia Venetta Amory Asst. Dean 212-854-2674
Cornell Henry Granison Admissions 607-255-5141
Fordham Prof. Michael Lanzarone Professor 212-636-6837
Hofstra Cassandra Williams Dir. Multicultural Student Affairs 516-463- 4239
NY Law Tom Matos Director of Admissions 212-431-2890
NYU Kenneth Kleinrock Asst. Dean of Admissions 212-998-6063
Pace Gail Fillion Exec. Asst. to Dean David Cohen 914-422-4407
St. John’s Dean Robert Harrison Admissions 718-990-6611
Syracuse Margery Connor Dean’s Office 315-443-2524
Follow-up to survey request by Odalys C. Alonso, Co-Chair of the Law School Sub-Committee of the New York County Lawyers’ Association Task Force to Increase Diversity in the Legal Profession. The survey and this questionnaire concern practices and approaches to enhancing minority student representation in law schools in New York State.
|POPULATION BY RACE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND NEW YORK STATE: 2000|
|Total Population||White||All Non- White||Hispanic or Latino||Black or African-American||Asian, Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific islander||American Indian & Alaska Native||Some Other Race||Two or More Races|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.pdf and http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_PL_U_QTPL_geo_d=04000US36.html
|POPULATION BY RACE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND NEW YORK STATE: 1990|
|Total Population||White||Non-White||Black||Asian or Pacific islander||American Indian, Eskimo or Aleutian||Other Race|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: http://factfinder.census.gov/serviet/DTTable?_ts=5478476512 and http://factfinder.census. gov/servlet?DTTabie?_ts=5478521206
|POPULATION GROWTH BY ETHNIC GROUP, FROM 1990 TO 2000|
|Total Population||White||Non-White||Black||Asian or Pacific Islander||American Indian, Eskimo or Aleutian|
|AVERAGE GPA, AVERAGE LSAT and COUNTS by ETHNIC GROUP: 1995-96 to Fall 2000|
|Applicant Group||Academic Year|
|All||Average GPA Average LSAT||3.10
|# of Applicants||76,687||72,340||71,726||74,380||74,550|
|American Indian||Average GPA Average LSAT||2.96
|# of Applicants % of Total #||706
|Black||Average GPA Average LSAT||2.78
|# of Applicants % of Total #||8,830
|White||Average GPA Average LSAT||3.16
|# of Applicants % of Total #||52,725
|Chicano/Mex Am||Average GPA Average LSAT||2.95
|# of Applicants % of Total #||1,473
|Hispanic||Average GPA Average LSAT||2.99
|# of Applicants % of Total#||2,676
|Asian||Average GPA Average LSAT||3.14
|# of Applicants % of Total #||5,157
|Puerto Rican||Average GPA Average LSAT||2.99
|# of Applicants % of Total #||1,612
|Can Aboriginal||Average GPA Average LSAT||2.96
|# of Applicants||14||12||44||25||11|
|Other||Average GPA Average LSAT||3.10
|# of Applicants||2,597||2,569||2,512||2,759||2,908|
|No Ethnic ID||Average GPA Average LSAT||3.14
|# of Applicants||897||1,107||3,165||3,509||2,338|
|All Minority||# of Applicants % of Total#||20,468
Source: Robert Carr, Senior Statistician, Law School Admission Council Data are taken from National Statistical Reports.
|AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF ENROLLMENT ACROSS LAW SCHOOLS IN NEW YORK STATE, Academic Year 1999-2000|
|All Races||# of||# of||Black/African American||Asian/Pacific Islander||Hispanic/Latino||Native American/Alaskan|
|% by Gender||4.4%||9.2%||7.4%||10.4%||6.4%||5.9%||0.1%||0.4%|
|Total for 1st Year||4,827||1,019||2,263||313||409||285||12|
|% of Total for 1st Year||22.0%||48.9%||6.8%||8.8%||6.2%||0.3%|
|% by Gender||5.6%||10.3%||8.2% 9.7%||5.2%||6.0%||0.4%||0.5%|
|Total for 3rd Year||4.269||969||2.000||332||381||238||18|
|% of Total for 3rd Year||22.7%||46,8%||7.8%||8.9%||5.6%||0.4%|
|% by Gender||5.5%||10.1%||7.4%||9.6%||5.6%||6.1%||0.2%||0.4%|
|TOTAL for all classes||13,946||3,112||6,717||1,076||1,178||813||45|
|% of Total for all classes||22.3%||48.2%||7.7%||8.4%||5.8%||0.3%|
Source: National Association for Law Placement, 2000 National Directory of Law Schools, entries 1,17, 33,69, 73, 85,125,165, 220, 224,272, 332, 352, 364 and 388.
|ENROLLMENT IN ABA-ACCREDITED LAW SCHOOLS, from 1990 -1999|
% of Total
Source: ABAnetwork: http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statlstics/jd.html
|MINORITY GRADUATES OF ABA-ACCREDITED LAW SCHOOLS IN 1999|
|% of Total||19.3%||6.7%||6.3%||5.4%||0.9%|
Source: Table prepared by National Association for Law Placement (NALP) in 1999, entitled “Women and Minority Graduates of ABA-accredited Law Schools: 1984-1999.”
|BAR PASS RATES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, for 1991 entering class|
|All Races Total||White||Total Minority||African-American||Asian-
|# in Cohort||22,767||19,285||3,482||1,368||961||1,046||107|
|% of total In Cohort||84.7%||15.3%||6.0%||4.2%||4.6%||0.5%|
Source: Report titled “Miles to Go: Progress,of Minorities in the Legal Profession,#
published by the ABA Commission on Opportunities for Minorities in the Profession.
This data is cited from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) National Longitudinal Bar Passage Study (1998) by Wightman
|J.D. DEGREES AWARDED by the ABA, from 1990-1999|
% of Total
Source; ABAnetwork: http://www.abanet.org/legaied/statistics/jd.html
|INITIAL EMPLOYER TYPES BY MINORITY STATUS AND GENDER|
|% in Private Practice||57.1%||59.4%||53.9%||49.5%||52.8%||46.5%|
|% in Government||13.0%||12.6%||13.4%||17.1%||16.4%||17.7%|
|% In Business/industry||12.9%||13.5%||12.0%||15.2%||16.0%||14.5%|
|% in Clerkships||12.4%||10.7%||14.8%||10.2%||8.7%||11.5%|
|% in Public Interest||2.2%||1.3%||3.5%||4.3%||2.5%||5.9%|
|% in Academia||1.0%||0.9%||1.0%||1.7%||1.4%||2.0%|
|% In Unknown Areas||1.4%||1.6%||1.4%||2.0%||2.2%||1.9%|
Source: “Jobs and J.D.’s” National Association for Law Placement (NALP), 1999
|MINORITY PARTNERS AT LAW FIRMS IN 1999|
|Hispanic||Others of Color|
|New York City||#||5,443||174||49||75||50||0|
|MINORITY ASSOCIATES AT LAW FIRMS IN 1999|
|Hispanic||Others of Color|
|New York City||#||10,968||1,750||464||958||320||9|
Source: National Association for Law Placement (NALP) News Release – Presence of Women and Attorneys of Color In Law Firms, based on The NALP 1999 National Directory of Legal Employers.
|PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK STATE, as of 7/16/99|
|% that are Minorities|
|ADAs In NYC||1760||412||23.4%|
|ADAs In NYS||2833||454||16.0%|
|NYC Law Dept Attorneys||640||78||12.2%|
|U.S. Attorneys In NYS||437||53||12.1%|
Source: New York Law Journal, pages S7, S21 and S26-32: December 13,1999.
|ATTORNEY DEMOGRAPHICS AT PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYERS|
|Hispanic||Others of Color|
Source: NALP News Release – Presence of Women and Attorneys of Color In Law Firms, based on The NALP 1999 National Directory of Legal Employers.
|MINORITY FACULTY IN DIRECTORY OF LAW TEACHERS, from 1994 -2000|
|Associate Deans, No Professor Title||11||11.5%||10||9.7%||15||12.7%||15||12.0%||17||12.7%||20||14.3%|
|Associate Deans, With Professor Title||16||7.8%||18||8.4%||21||9.4%||21||8.9%||27||11.3%||26||10.4%|
|Assistant Deans, No Professor Title||49||19.9%||56||20.8%||51||19.4%||53||20.2%||55||20.4%||58||20.0%|
|Assistant Deans, With Professor Title||4||25.0%||5||29.4%||3||23.1%||4||25.0%||4||23.5%||5||26.3%|
|Head Librarians (Directors)||16||10.1%||13||7.7%||13||7.7%||15||8.8%||17||9.9%||16||9.4%|
|Visiting Professors (at any rank)||28||18.2%||22||14.5%||29||18.2%||22||17.1%||15||14.3%||14||12.5%|
|Lecturers and Instructors||43||11.7%||44||11.6%||53||12.9%||57||14.2%||55||13.6%||55||13.7%|
|Deans and Professors Emeriti||21||3.5%||25||4.0%||25||4.0%||27||4.2%||30||4.4%||28||4.0%|
|All Minority Faculty||913||12.3%||985||12.8%||1013||13.0%||1034||13.2%||1056||13.3%||1096||13.6%|
Source: The Association of American Law Schools: http://aals.org/statlstlcs/T2B.htm