Let’s separate the facts from the fiction with respect to the discriminatory practices of major law firms.
Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump and his administration went after major law firms for their diversity, inclusion, and equity or DIE practices. Although many of these major law firms are still being scrutinized by the Trump administration, several have reached an agreement with the Trump government, largely agreeing to provide significant hours of pro bono representation to causes supported by the Trump regime and abstain from DIE hiring practices. A select few of these major law firms have chosen to fight the attacks of the Trump administration in court.
As an attorney who has worked many years at several major law firms, including multiple firms that have drawn the attention of the Trump administration, I have an insider’s view of the discriminatory practices administered at leading law firms. I have personally been hurt by as well as witnessed numerous instances of blatant discrimination with respect to hiring and promotions at multiple major law firms due to their discriminatory practices. Being a member of what could be argued is essentially an unrecognized minority group that has endured religious persecution, genocide, and slavery in the twentieth century, and has never asked for special consideration (only a level playing field), I am cognizant of true discrimination.
While the legal industry (as well as other sectors) can be accused of various forms of discrimination, the most extreme and damaging is DIE.
Although DIE became prominent during the years of the Obama administration, the discriminatory practices of these law firms go back many years prior thereto under the title “affirmative action.” DIE is simply affirmative action on steroids. Where the goal of affirmative action was to institute policies and programs favorable to racial and ethnic minorities, women and other disadvantaged groups, DIE took this concept farther to require a forced outcome.
DIE and affirmative action can be thought of as “Reverse Discrimination Programs.” The ultimate result of these programs was that at the very least, less qualified and often unqualified individuals were admitted to and advanced through educational institutions, provided with jobs and promoted, none of which was based on merit. These programs were instituted largely at the expense of highly qualified white males whose ancestors in most cases had nothing to do with the abuses inflicted upon these disadvantaged groups and whose families predominantly were not even present in the U.S. during much of if not the entire period of mistreatment.
How these Reverse Discrimination Programs could have ever passed constitutional muster is difficult to understand. What is easy to understand is the negative career impact, financial damage, and (maybe most of all) emotional scars these programs have had on a generation of highly qualified Americans.
The path taken by the Trump administration is admirable, but it falls far short of what is needed, as it lacks the understanding of the longstanding discrimination practiced at these law firms. The actions taken and agreements arrived at with the Trump administration do not uately address the problem.
These law firms claim that they will change their discriminatory hiring and promotion practices and adopt a merit-based approach to their actions, but I am doubtful. They will most likely pay lip service to such changes and dress up their actions to appear merit-based, while continuing with their discriminatory practices in a covert manner in the hope that the next administration will allow them to revert back to their openly discriminatory ways.
What might be needed to ensure a change in the behavior of law firms is a consent decree with appointed monitor oversight, coupled with heavy penalties for noncompliance. In addition, government agencies, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should assist in overseeing that the law firms do not persist with their discriminatory practices.
Those harmed from the discriminatory practices of these law firms have incurred considerable and irreparable economic and emotional damage. These victims should be provided with the same favorable legal standards enjoyed by those recognized disadvantaged groups over the years to bring lawsuits against law firms that inflicted the damages stemming from their past discriminatory practices. Although the emotional scars of those harmed will never completely heal, payments from these law firms to compensate those damaged will at least partially compensate these victims economically.
It might be wise of the Trump administration to require that these discriminating law firms contribute to a pool of funds to compensate those harmed.
In recent years, we have heard a call for reparations in certain instances. Unlike the less than clearly delineated circumstances surrounding these calls for reparations, the law firms inflicting the harm as well as the victims are easily identifiable and the damages measurable, leading to the conclusion that a call for reparations with respect to these discriminatory law firms might even be in order.
I have outlined the discriminatory practices prevalent in the legal community. These same practices are present in other industries (as well as in our educational system) and should be similarly addressed.
In short, we should have a merit-based system where everyone has a fair and equal chance of success.
In summation, we must consider the facts and not be fooled by the fiction.
Perry V. Kalajian is an attorney, consultant, analyst, and national television personality.
Image via Picryl.