Uploaded byWilliam Mitchell College of Law
Sage survey presentation
The 2011 diversity survey update found that while some progress has been made in increasing diversity, more work remains to be done. Women and attorneys of color continue to be underrepresented in law firm partnership and leadership roles. They also face challenges in areas like work distribution, compensation, and perceived bias. Non-law firms have seen more success promoting women but still struggle with diversity in senior roles. The survey highlights the need for formalized criteria and unconscious bias training to continue advancing diversity and inclusion.
Sage survey presentation
- 1. 2011 Diversity SurveyUpdate: Key Findings * Presented by: Leslie M. Altman * Source 2011 MSBA Diversity Survey Update May 2012
- 2. History • 1992 HCBAproduces Glass Ceiling Task Force Report • 1992 Self Audit for Gender Equity (SAGE) program starts • 2002 First SAGE study • 2003 MSBA approves SAGE Best Practices • 2005-06 MSBA Task Force on diversity gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, disability • 2010 - 2011 Diversity Survey Update
- 3. Methodology Employer survey • 42law firm participants • 65 non firm participants • Included questions about # of GLBT and disabled attorneys Individual survey • 1,100 respondents • more attorneys with 5 years or less experience Focus groups — 10 conducted
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8. Recruitment of Attorneysof Color
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14. Promotion to Partnership/Women •45% of lawyers eligible for equity partnership were female • Of those eligible, 44% were considered for equity partnership • Of those considered, 45% were made equity partners
- 15. Promotion to Partnership/ Attorneys Of Color • 4% of lawyers eligible for equity partnership were of color • Of those eligible, 5% were considered for equity partnership • Of those considered, 7% of lawyers were made equity partners • No lawyers of color were eligible for non-equity partnership
- 16. Promotion of Women/NonFirms • 59% of lawyers eligible for promotion to supervisory positions were women • Of those eligible, 55% were considered for promotion to supervisory positions • Of those eligible, 71% were promoted to supervisory positions
- 17. Promotion of Attorneys of Color/Non Firms • 16% of lawyers eligible for promotion to supervisory positions were of color • Of those eligible, 18% of were considered for promotion to supervisory positions • Of those considered, 14% were promoted to supervisory positions
- 18. Compensation Criteria/Firms • Forassociates the top criterion for setting compensation was billable hours • For equity/non-equity partners the top criterion for setting compensation was business generation
- 19. Compensation Criteria/Non Firms •The top criteria for setting compensation at non firms for all attorneys were: – Performance evaluation results – Quality of work – Communication skills
- 20. Work Distribution Firms • Onequarter had formalized criteria for work distribution to associates • None had formalized criteria for work distribution to partners Non Firms • Nearly half had formalized criteria for work distribution to attorneys with less than 5 years experience • Nearly one third had formalized criteria for work distribution to supervisory attorneys
- 21. Performance Evaluations Firms • Allassociates receive reviews • 32% of equity partners receive reviews • 21% of non equity partners receive reviews Non Firms • All permanent attorneys receive reviews
- 22.
- 23. Conclusion • Some progress •More to be done Work distribution Compensation Succession planning Unconscious bias
- 24.
- 25. 2011 Diversity Survey Update: Key Findings April 2012