There was a time, not long ago, when a major corporate law firm would look to burnish its “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” credentials in the marketplace. At which point that firm might hire a writer like, say, me.
It was a given that Big Law firms needed to become more diverse, at least if they wanted to stay relevant in a work environment that was no longer male, white, straight, and old. Firms everywhere invested real money in the recruitment, training, and promotion of lawyers from widely varied backgrounds, and they paid people like me to brag about it to the world.
Every firm needed a DEI page on its website. Some wanted printed brochures. Some wanted advertising. Most wanted the legal community, especially law schools, to know about their diversity efforts. Law schools were by then rating firms by their DEI “scores,” and the firms with the best scores were getting the pick of the litter from the graduating classes.
What I liked about the work was that I could believe in the mission, which is a luxury I’m not always afforded. The arguments behind the effectiveness of diverse workplaces were, to me at least, a no-brainer.
It was easy to argue that an influx of people from diverse backgrounds — from different genders, races, cultures, and geographies — amounted to a huge natural resource for complex problem-solving. Which is something this country was purportedly interested in, as recently as a few months ago.
Yes, there was a sniff of virtue-signaling on the part of Big Law. And altruism was hardly the sole motivator. The real driving force was the insistence of their big corporate clients — who were themselves deeply invested in DEI — that law firms get with the program.
Was there an element of disingenuousness to these efforts? You bet. Were there firms — and clients — for whom DEI was little more than window-dressing? Of course.
But after a hundred or so interviews in a dozen or more firms — having spoken with all manner of diverse personalities in legal careers — I did feel the firms were making an effort, some more than others. Most lawyers really did see the benefits of bringing fresh perspectives to their practices, even if they weren’t getting it right.
So it’s quite strange for me to see ‘DEI’ turned into a four-letter word. Actually, a six-letter word, starting with ‘n.’
The Trump-Musk junta is, of course, no more concerned with DEI than with waste, fraud, and abuse. But they do know that DEI-bashing is an easy dog whistle for their base, something to divert the attention of stupid people while they’re being fleeced.
Even so, DEI-bashing is taking on a more ominous form in front of our eyes. It has become the pretext for extorting large institutions into conformity with whatever nonsense Trump or Musk want conformed to that day.
“DEI” — the swear word, not the precept — is being used as a bludgeon to attack what they perceive as big enemies, most visibly Big Education and Big Law. And that’s just so far.
In the Big Law world, this is causing major panic. Huge law firms with billions in billings, with clients who enjoy lavish government contracts, are now being strong-armed by the junta, right out in the open.
All it takes is one executive order from on high, and poof, your lawyers are barred from government property. Poof, they lose their security clearances, without which your clients have no use for you. Poof, your clients’ agreements with the government will need to be renegotiated. Art of the deal, baby.
It’s all spectacularly illegal, which might even end up mattering. The junta is targeting these firms for their political stances, but that’s just part of it. One of the targets, Perkins Coie, has indeed been associated for decades with Democratic-leaning causes. It represented Hillary Clinton, and famously sponsored the research that led to the Steele Dossier.
But the junta’s real motive is to exact revenge on one particular lawyer — Marc Elias — the guy who in 2020 dared to crush the stop-the-steal movement in courtrooms all over the country, and who hasn’t worked for Perkins Coie in four years. But instead of going after Elias directly, they’re punishing the law firm he used to work for, citing, among other things, the firm’s supposedly offensive DEI programs. It’s worth mentioning that the firm has much deeper pockets than Marc Elias, which tells us something about the junta’s motive.
Perkins Coie’s political practice is tiny compared to its billion-dollar corporate and litigation practices, and the collateral damage could be fatal to the firm. Some of the clients of those big practices have already jumped ship and been swooped up by rival firms who don’t think the leopard will eat their face.
There are restraining orders in place. Perkins Coie is, at this point, fighting back, represented by Williams & Connolly, a top-tier D.C. litigation firm. This takes guts on the part of both firms, and we’ll have to watch carefully where this goes.
Especially since Paul Weiss — a Big Law icon — took the opposite tack and caved to Trump. Once again, it’s about one lawyer, Mark Pomerantz, who pursued the prosecution of Trump in the Stormy Daniels case. He hasn’t worked at Paul Weiss for several years, but no matter. The firm groveled before the don and succumbed to the mafia-style shakedown. It’ll cost them $40 million in tribute, plus the forfeit of their good name, possibly forever.
Covington and Burling is not caving. It’s a firm with many former prosecutors whose careers depend heavily on their security clearances, which an executive order has just revoked. Did I mention that the firm represents Jack Smith?
Jennings & Block is not caving. They once employed Andrew Weissman, whose role as prosecutor in the Mueller investigation — and whose omnipresence on MSNBC ever since — has surely caused much ketchup to be thrown in Mar-a-Lago.
What does DEI have to do with any of this? Absolutely nothing. Except that these executive orders all single out the firms’ DEI practices for special attention and censure. It seems every executive order must carry “anti-woke” DEI-bashing language — the more incoherent the better — while the real motives go unmentioned.
So there are two threads to follow here. One is the assault on DEI, which will be racism as usual, but more overt, more poisonous, and likely to cost many people their livelihoods. The other is the assault on Big Law, which will be an early indicator of who’s ready to stand up to the junta, and who isn’t.
Curiously, the DEI pages on law firm websites might just be the canary in the coal mine, as to which way a particular firm will jump. Those pages are often serious marketing efforts, mini-sites within the firm website. They wouldn’t be removed lightly.
But some firms have taken theirs down already — real profiles in cowardice. Makes you wonder if their diversity efforts were sincere to begin with.
It’s hard for most of us to shed a tear for corporate law firms and the white-shoe lawyers who inhabit them. But we’re watching a battle for the soul of Big Law, and it might just be a battle for the soul of law, full stop.
There’s more at stake here than the jobs of a few thousand rich and pampered lawyers. If the legal system is to be our only recourse against these hideous attacks on that very legal system — which for now it seems to be — then we’ll need to rely on people who understand, in depth, the rule of law.
As long as the war is in the courtroom, it’s lawyers who will carry the fight. Let’s hope they can be brave.
Comments
Post a Comment