Related Posts
Bain & Company My 13 YO is taking Career and Tech. She is dead set on diving for Michigan. What are her chances of getting hired from MBB with a degree from UM? Or would she need her MBA first? Is a Michigan degree good enough to get you into a top MBA program?
McKinsey & Company Boston Consulting Group Bain & Company University of Michigan
Enthusiast
138k as an ACD in San Francisco - too low?
Ahh get a second job. Thanks Wired.
Go LTC go!
Additional Posts in Attorneys of Color
Hi I run a podcast called The Lawtrepreneur Briefing that explores what's makes a modern lawyer modern. We do this by having conversations with people driving the transformation of the legal profession.
Excerpt of the most recent conversation can be found here: https://twitter.com/lawtrepreneurco/status/1282688181419347968?s=19
If any of you have thoughts about the subject, I'd love to have you on. You can apply to speak here: https://www.lawtrepreneur.co/podcastguest/
Rising Star
Roo to my bruhs. Happy founders day
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
I can’t speak for other ethnicities and I’m in litigation, but for mine I think since we’re often from an immigrant background, corporate can seem more appealing bc it seems more finance/tech based (which immigrant communities tend to be drawn to) and deals with a lot of companies also working in the tech/finance space. Litigation attracts a lot of nerdy white people who love reading SCOTUS cases and stanning justices or whatever. It’s a bit stodgier and old fashioned. That background language barrier for 1st gen might subconsciously play a role in more fears re: public speaking, being in a courtroom, etc.
Good angle. I have found biglaw firms that are at the basis “litigation” powerhouses to have more diversity in the higher ranks. And diversity opens the door for more diversity. Corps need bodies all the time. Biglaw litigation is selective.
A lot might also just be thinking practically of exit options in corporate vs litigation, bc again, many of us are from immigrant backgrounds and are more drawn to financial security in general
I perused a few of the websites of the big firms in New York and found a trend at the associate level. Corporate groups are significantly more diverse racially while litigation has a significantly higher proportion of women. I find it interesting that litigation is simultaneously more diverse gender-wise but less diverse racially and I truly struggle to come up with an explanation.
So white women are quite well represented in litigation, and less so in corporate. Men of color are definitely better represented in corporate. Women of color are split, though Asian women specifically are much better represented in corporate than litigation
I think poc fit what I said above, but women (esp white women) are increasingly part of that nerdy bookish subset. They’re more likely to better educated these days than men so it makes sense they’d be more drawn to the nerdier more research-based practice group after being good little type A students their whole lives. I mean I could be wildly off lmao and making vast generalizations but that’s my impression
Litigation. Although you may find more diverse candidates overall in corporate if they are more corporate jobs. But you aren’t choosing your practice based on that hopefully. I would focus on finding what you enjoy first and then the market, firm and group will dictate the rest. Even if there is no diversity in your immediate surroundings, you can find mentors and sponsors through other avenues.
Don’t worry, happily locked into practice my practice group, this is not for that purpose.
Do you think it’s a small difference or that litigation is like significantly ahead proportionally (e.g. higher % of diverse associates)? If the latter, do you have any theories as to why?
In big law Corporate is more diverse.
There are more corporate jobs in Biglaw. Litigation can feel elitist, but certain issues will call for diversity.
It would be worthwhile to also look at diversity for different levels junior/mid/senior/partner et... I find more influential litigation partners than corporate ones (although they may just have exited into cushy in-house roles).
It seems like litigation to me but I see a difference of opinion here.
I actually disagree, I feel like corporate tends to be more diverse.
Folks saying corporate, do y’all have any theories for why that is? Also, is it a significant difference?
Rising Star
Look at diversity at the partnership levels.
Very few women, and almost no women of color, are litigation partners in BigLaw. Litigation especially suffers from sexist stereotypes that men project more “confidence” or “authority” in speaking roles in court—so these critical roles are usually reserved for men, and usually white men. Women of color are usually relegated to support, “workhorse” roles back at the office, and so do not develop the skills necessary to make partner.