Michael Wasser, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York City Law Department

My journey to the law, on paper, was pretty straightforward. School, high school, undergraduate degree, and then straight into law school. But my hand was forced, slightly, towards the legal profession.

My real interest in school, even through undergraduate study, was in science. But I have muscular dystrophy – I was diagnosed when I was around three or four, and it’s a progressive disability, so I knew from an early age that it would worsen as I got older. Law was a very good choice for me, because the only thing required to practice law was a mind and a mouth. Muscular dystrophy does not attack those, so it was something that I felt I could actually have a long career in – and it was a laudable profession to enter.

In some ways, I think that having muscular dystrophy taught me to be an advocate from a young age – to stand up for myself and try to speak and educate people. I also think that growing up with a disability made me a little bit more patient, and it definitely made me a better listener. Maybe the quick answer isn’t always the right answer. It never hurts to listen, hear something out, and do a little bit more research, to try and think, engage or get creative on a solution.

With disability, there are challenges in all aspects of your life. My wheelchair comes with me, so architectural barriers are just everywhere. There are issues in housing, transportation, education, and places of public accommodation, like stores and restaurants. I have witnessed great strides and many improvements in accessibility, but there’s still a long way to go.

However, more problematic than architectural issues are the attitudinal barriers that still haven’t fully been breached. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that, historically, people with disabilities have had the lowest representation in all aspects of life. Just me being in a room at a closing or in court, sitting across a table from an adversary or discussing things with clients – the importance of that is immeasurable. The best way to learn is by observing, and the best way for that is to have people with disabilities more visible in every facet of life.

Traditionally, a lot of people with disabilities have been employed in disability-related fields. That’s great, and it’s important, but that’s not the be-all and end-all of life experience for people. I think that the more you see individuals with disabilities in regular roles, like in the law department doing real estate work, the better. Frequently I’m the first person that non-disabled people have a professional experience with, and that takeaway is enormous, because these people go back to their firms, go back to their lives in business, and maybe there’s a conversation at the dinner table, or maybe their kids hear something about it. It’s not a formal type of experience where somebody takes a class, or a piece of legislation is enacted – it’s more real.

Disability runs the spectrum; there are lots of people with either invisible or less visible, not-so-obvious disabilities. But I haven’t had somebody else with a visible disability sitting on the opposite side of a conference room table from me, or appearing in court on the other side of a case. I’ve encountered many other diverse attorneys professionally, but I haven’t had the experience of having an attorney with a visible disability as an adversary. It would be odd for almost any other diverse attorney to have an experience where they have never encountered a similarly diverse attorney (as an adversary) in their professional lives.

In terms of the New York City Law Department, there are several other attorneys with disabilities, and frequently what happens is an introduction is made with newer attorneys with disabilities, even if it’s just a summer intern. I might be able to provide some advice to newer attorneys starting out, or somebody who might be thinking of the Law Department, and it’s always beneficial to have someone else who’s been through something similar to talk to. There are some unique challenges and issues that we face where the only other person who might be able to fully understand, or think of solutions, or just be a friendly ear, would be someone else who’s been through it too.

Several months ago, I was one of the presenters and planners for the first continuing legal education course given by the Law Department for City attorneys on disability rights. That was really a great thing to be involved with and it was also a real honor to be asked.

I serve on the Law Department’s Committee on Diversity Recruitment and Retention. I was the first attorney with a disability to serve on that committee. Through that committee, we became a signatory to the American Bar Association’s Disability Diversity in the Legal Profession Pledge for Change. The pledge recognizes that disability diversity is in the best interests of the legal profession, our clients, and our firms. Attorneys with disabilities are important constituents of legal practice, and you should take steps to be more inclusive, while also giving more recognition to these types of issues.

I was the chair of the disability mentoring day program that we run, where high school and college-age students with disabilities come here to the Law Department. They sit in lectures from attorneys who explain what we do, give them tours and that sort of thing. It’s to keep the interest of those students who may not necessarily think that law is a possibility for them, and explain to them it is not worth closing themselves off from work. It was really a wonderful program to be involved in.

Our people are really dedicated to making the Law Department and the practice of law in general more inclusive through training, hosting lectures where people from different diverse backgrounds come here, and hosting receptions welcoming new summer interns or new attorneys into the Law Department, where we can highlight that diversity is important. We represent the people of the city of New York in a way; New York City is one of the most diverse cities anywhere, the Law Department is one of the most diverse law offices anywhere, and it’s both an important and necessary thing for every law office and every employer to represent the communities that they work in.

Personally, I’ve been involved with several disability rights organizations, and one of them is Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled (BCID). It’s in the living sector and its goals are to provide information, assistance and counseling for people with disabilities to navigate the bureaucracy of programs that might enable them to live and work, through advocacy; whether it’s going to local businesses and educating them in making their organization more wheelchair-friendly – for example, by installing ramps or training staff – or providing guidance to students who might be transitioning from high school or college and preparing them for career decisions. I’m vice president to the board of directors.

I’m also involved with an organization called NMD United, and that organization is founded by professional people with various forms of muscular dystrophy to assist fellow people with the condition, who can offer advice on aspects of living with a neuromuscular disability. That could be by finding personal attendants, discussing issues with housing, access or benefits, and we’re also involved in providing microgrants to help with certain disability-related expenses that might not necessarily be covered by insurance or other programs. Even for something simple like wheelchair repair, there might be bureaucratic hoops to jump through with insurers to get coverage. But if your wheelchair breaks, lots of people end up trapped at home, or even trapped in bed, just because of a relatively small repair.

If you have an attorney with a disability, or even a member of support staff with a disability, engage with them; ask what works for them, and for their advice on issues. There’s a wealth of knowledge on problems that could be tapped into. And, engage the community: invite schools over and have open house – like our disability mentoring day, or ‘bring your children to work day’. Little things like that are really important, because you want to teach people from a young age that there are options and choices – that inclusion works.

Legislation is wonderful, and regulation is wonderful, but you also need the community to really embrace issues and to be accommodating. Changing an attitudinal barrier costs nothing. If you’re going to put together training programs, have one (or many) that can cover multiple facets of inclusion. Be inclusive in training: recognize there are issues that need to be addressed and the best way of doing it is by encouraging further dialogue, and engaging with those who know best in order to try and address those issues.

Hugh Welsh, General Counsel, DSM North America

Hugh Welsh

For the first 12 or 13 years of my career, I was blissfully, painfully unaware of genuine issues on inclusion and diversity. I knew how to say the right things because I’d gone through all the training programs, but I didn’t really feel it in my heart of hearts. I’m a white male from the New York City area, so I was always part of the majority culture in whatever major law firm or major US corporation that I worked for.

Then I came to work for DSM, which is a Dutch-headquartered company, and I found myself travelling at least once a month to the Netherlands for internal meetings. It was all Dutch people, and they would speak in a language that I didn’t understand, they’d talk about sports teams that I didn’t follow, they’d eat food that I found very strange, they wouldn’t invite me to dinners or lunches or even just for coffee because I was the outsider in many respects. I would find myself flying home on the plane feeling depressed, angry and frustrated.

It finally dawned on me that, for the first time in my career, I wasn’t part of the majority culture in these environments, and it altered my behavior. It made me hesitant, it made me less likely to speak up, it made me much more aware and in tune with all the little gestures and words that were made in the room – and that was exhausting.

I was actually thinking of leaving and, after a few of those trips, I said to myself, if I feel like this when I go there, how do my female employees, my racial minority employees, how do they feel working in an environment that’s predominantly American white male? So I asked them, and they told me. That was my epiphany: how can we get the most out of any organization when such a significant portion of it is not bringing their whole selves to work every day (like I wasn’t when I went to the Netherlands)? And that was how we began to change the programs.

Now that I found myself to be awake and aware of these issues and the impact of not being part of the majority culture, I started to work hard to change things. I had a more junior female lawyer that I worked very closely with for a few years on mergers and acquisitions and, as a consequence, she would sometimes have to travel for two, three weeks at a time when we were doing due diligence at a location or in the midst of a transactional negotiation. She did a great job.

Over a period of two years, she had two small children, and so I said to myself, why don’t I take some of the pressure off of her and not give her these assignments anymore because they require her to be away from her family and two small children for such an extended period of time? What a great person I am!

And then I talked to my sister, who’s about the same age and a lawyer at a corporation in the US. With such pride I explained it all to her, and she looked at me and said, ‘You are a number one fool!’

And I said, ‘What are you talking about? Look how smart and progressive I am!’

She said, ‘No, you are a complete idiot. Who are you to decide for this person what they can and cannot do? Do you decide that for your male lawyers?’

So the next Monday, I went into the office, set up a meeting with this lawyer and said, ‘Look, I think I have really done you a disservice. I thought I was being a good guy by not assigning you these M&A projects that would have been high-profile, but would have required you to be away from your family, and it has been brought to my attention that maybe that wasn’t the smart thing to do.’

She actually started crying, and said, ‘I’ve been thinking of leaving the company, because I thought that since I’d had children you had lost faith in me.’

Going forward, I’ve been very keen on talking to all of our employees around, ‘Hey look, if you have an issue with the demands of different assignments because you can’t balance it with what you have going on at home or with elderly parents, tell me, and accommodations will be made and there will be no adverse consequences for you.’ But I don’t want to be in the position ever again where I’m making decisions for people without having that conversation with them.

Certainly we look to recruit and hire diverse talent, so we take a lot of different things into consideration when we’re looking to hire lawyers for the law department that go beyond just experience. We try to bring in diversity in terms of age, gender, national origin and race. They certainly can’t be determinative factors in hiring because that would be discriminatory, but they are definitely taken into consideration and we certainly put in place – not just for the law department but for all of DSM – different tools and processes to try to weed out unconscious bias in the hiring process.

We use a basic questionnaire that’s the same for everyone, so we can generate similar responses and ensure that there’s no bias in the questioning or interviewing process. We have a diverse team that looks at responses again to ensure we’re weeding out a little bit of the unconscious bias that creates an environment where folks tend to hire people that look like them, act like them and think like them. Then, our diverse team will have an opportunity to not only conduct interviews but be part of the decision-making process. As such, it’s not just me making a decision as to who we hire and who we don’t hire, but the team itself – I give a great deal of autonomy to make a decision as to whether or not a candidate will fit with the team from an inclusion perspective or not.

Once we bring lawyers on board, the inclusion part is where it gets difficult. You really have to spend a lot of time and energy and effort to ensure that when you bring folks together from different backgrounds and different experiences, that it is a very close team, communicative and collaborative – and that can only happen when you spend time ensuring that there’s complete transparency and authenticity, and giving everybody an opportunity to reach their full potential within the group.

DSM is not unique – many companies have a lot of internal diversity and inclusion and unconscious bias training programs and things like that, which I find to be very nice but not impactful. So I try to create experiential learning opportunities for members of the team, because that’s how I came to my epiphany on these issues myself. I’m on the board of directors of the Tri-State Diversity Council and what I’ll try to do, for example, is find some white male attorneys and send them to events that are overwhelmingly attended by African American females. Putting people in an environment where, for the first time in many respects, they are part of the minority culture is an eye-opening experience for them, and those experiential learning opportunities create a need for reflection. That reflection allows for adaptation, not just in behaviors but point of view. The most important thing for me, is that those members of the legal team who are part of the majority culture have an opportunity to be confronted with the privilege that comes with that majority, and that changes their point of view. When I create these experiential learning opportunities at provocative inclusion and diversity conferences and experiences, the lawyers come back with their own evangelical bent on the issue and then become my ambassadors within the organization for change.

I’m working on a project for the whole company to completely rewrite our policies, procedures and norms to be a better fit for the future of work. I’m a strong believer that, in corporate America today, the current policies, procedures, benefits and practices were written 60 years ago by people who looked like me – and they are still working really well for people who look like me. If we want to drive change, we don’t make incremental changes to these policies, practices and procedures to adjust to changes in the law, we bring a diverse team together to rewrite them so that they work for everyone.

To me, it’s about adapting to the future of work. We’ll see much more flexible work time, much more use of technology for collaboration, more concierge services offered to employees so that they’re not wasting their time grocery shopping and picking up dry cleaning and things like that, much more of the forced sponsorship programs where diverse talent gets a traditional sponsor so that the next generation of leaders doesn’t look exactly like the previous generation of leaders. I’m completely convinced that, because of demographic changes, diversity is a given. If a company is not diverse going forward, it just means it’s forgotten a half-to-two-thirds of the population when looking for talent, and no company can survive that way. It’s those companies that create a culture, environment and infrastructure to foster inclusiveness that will be really successful going forward.

Christine Castellano, Former General Counsel, Ingredion Inc

Christine Castellano

In February 2019, I stepped down from my position as general counsel of Ingredion after 22 years. I had a wonderful career – it’s a great company, I can’t say enough positive things about it – but 22 years is a long time. The previous year, I had taken a continuing legal education program on mental health, largely because it’s now a requirement in Illinois to maintain your bar license. The program I chose was on burnout and, as I was listening, I started to recognize a lot of these symptoms in myself: feeling continually overwhelmed, having a lack of patience and energy to connect with others, and physical symptoms including headaches and not sleeping well. I realized that I desperately needed a change. I knew I was under stress. I knew I had anxiety – I guess I just didn’t realize it was a problem. I hadn’t stepped back and taken a look at all of these disparate symptoms and said: hey, there’s something more here.

For a long time, those of us in the law thought of mental health issues as being limited to drug addiction or alcohol abuse. We didn’t realize there was so much more to mental health. And people didn’t speak about these issues – except maybe with their very close friends – for fear of being judged, losing their jobs or not being seen as good enough to continue practising law. I realized that, right now, we need to be able to speak openly about mental health. Storytelling is very important – people using their own voices and talking about their own experiences.

There’s a landmark study called the ABA Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation Study. It was completed in 2016, and it surveyed 15,000 attorneys in 19 states, all currently employed in the legal profession. 21% self-identified as having difficulties with alcohol, 28% self-identified as struggling with depression and 19% indicated that they demonstrated symptoms of anxiety. What’s scary is 11.5% had considered suicide. Younger attorneys in the first ten years of practice reported a higher incidence of these problems, and that’s a change, because earlier studies showed this as more of a ‘later-in-career’ problem. The study showed that attorneys in the United States had higher rates of drinking and mental health issues than in other high-stress professions. Lawyers working in law firms have the highest rates of alcohol abuse, and law students drink more alcohol and have higher rates of anxiety than their non-law peers.

There are a lot of factors at play. Law is a hard profession; it’s stressful, you work long hours, and you give a lot of yourself personally. Many lawyers are ‘type A’ personalities and we are driven to win, both personally and on behalf of our clients. We are taught to look for risk in every situation, and even in our personal lives we spend time looking for what can go wrong. Many of us have very high personal standards of performance and, for many of us, particularly in law firms, long hours can be seen as a proxy for both devotion and success. There is a fear that admitting to vulnerability of any kind can be career limiting. There’s also a perception that there is some ideal model of what a lawyer should look like, and I think that’s even more true in the big law firms. That model is not a true reflection of who a lot of people are – in addition to creating mental health stressors, perhaps this hits our diverse lawyers even harder.

I think one thing that needs to improve is our storytelling – the ability for people to speak out and say: ‘This is my experience and I’m still a good lawyer’. Flextime, alternative career paths, use of technology in the work environment – these are all partial answers. But the biggest piece is really to remove the stigma around the topic of mental health and bring it into the light of day. The next generation of lawyers needs to know they are not alone, and that it’s acceptable to make their own wellness a priority. It could be through individual actions like meditation, yoga, fitness and personal care. But I think, particularly with younger employees coming into the workforce, people are realizing that a stressed out, burnt-out workforce is not going to be competitive in the future. People should be incentivized – or at least disincentivized – for behaviors that are not sustainable in the long term. You need to remember that a legal career is a long-term play – it’s not about how many hours you can bill this year.

I think younger workers are using their feet to demand better working environments. Younger employees don’t expect to work for an employer for 20 years – they expect to work at multiple different companies and in different industries throughout their career, and perhaps even change their professional focus. If they are in a work environment they don’t like, they’re going to leave. They feel perfectly free to try something new. Work environments that acknowledge and cater to the whole person will win the war for talent.

I also think we need to make sure that our professional interactions, our networking events and our social interactions, are comfortable for everyone. There are a whole host of diversity topics here, but alcohol plays a key part in the mental health arena. Alcohol does not need to be served in order to have a social or networking event. I think the younger generation would appreciate that from us. I sit on the board of trustees of a law school and I’ve heard law students in the student lounge complaining about this – they want to go and meet lawyers and learn about the profession. They don’t want to drink. They don’t want to see alcohol at every event.

As a workforce, we are seeing people in their 40s and 50s who are really struggling with mental health issues and who are realizing, perhaps based on the good example that our younger employees provide, that it’s alright to talk about things.

The legal profession agrees. The ABA model rule recommends that lawyers earn one continuing legal education credit hour in mental health or substance abuse disorders every three years, as well as one hour of diversity and inclusion programming. States are not required to do this, but Illinois adopted this recommendation, and it’s definitely a growing trend. In part, Illinois did so because people didn’t take these courses despite them always being available. There was a perception that taking a mental health program could reflect negatively on the attorney, or that they were only for people with a drug or alcohol problem. In Illinois, we also have the Lawyers’ Assistance Program (many states have something similar), which is a free scheme providing help for lawyers experiencing mental health issues. The continuing legal education requirement helps publicize the available resources, so that more attorneys know they can get support.

More experienced lawyers also need to help law students, younger lawyers, and the non-lawyer professionals around us feel comfortable talking about these issues and finding help. Even if it’s something that seems trivial, like burnout: to speak about it, to realize it’s important, to get help, to make change – these can all serve to remove the stigma and create the sense that seeking help doesn’t mean someone has a problem, it just means they are taking care of themselves.

I think that when we talk about the war for talent, companies and law firms need to take care of their existing talent. I think the greatest compliment that can be paid to a general counsel, or any leader, is when a member of their team becomes a general counsel somewhere else, or takes a promotion somewhere else, because that general counsel or leader helped create a safe place for them to grow, professionally and personally.

I recently completed the National Diversity Council’s DiversityFirst certification program. I saw diversity and inclusion gaining stature as a profession, not just a function of human resources, similar to the relationship of the legal department and compliance a decade ago. I felt like training in this area has been way too slow in coming – and it’s been limited to human resources professionals. The continuing legal education courses I attended on this topic didn’t go deep enough. I wanted to go beyond ‘diversity is good’ and really talk about practical ways to create an inclusive environment and to be an inclusive leader.

I feel we are at an interesting intersection of the law and D&I. In the past, lawyers counseled our clients to be color blind. Knowing too much about employees’ personal lives can lead to employment discrimination claims, particularly in the event of an unrelated performance action or a cost-based restructuring. We struggled as lawyers when clients wanted to have metrics or quantitative data about diversity, for fear this information could be used in litigation. But D&I really requires us to embrace differences and be able to talk about them openly – and I think we all agree that if you don’t measure in some way, diversity doesn’t happen. The old way of counseling our clients just doesn’t fit the workplace of today or of tomorrow. We need to be thinking about what workplace interactions will look like in this very inclusive employment environment. How do we get there today, without increasing our risk of employment litigation? For a lot of companies, that is a big concern, but one that can be overcome as we embrace and create inclusive workplaces, with a focus on the employee as a unique individual, while we all learn how to speak openly about mental health and diversity issues.

Shining a Light

In the two years since GC last turned the spotlight on diversity and inclusion in the US, both the structure of the narrative – and, perhaps more importantly, the prominence afforded to it in the mainstream – has undergone a significant shift.

The impact of storytelling from high-profile individuals, together with similarly prominent incidents involving household-name companies, has shone a bright light on a host of diversity and inclusion issues, forcing companies and their counsel to take a hard look at their own policies.

As companies look inwards to pinpoint and understand their own locus on the spectrum of inclusion, one key problem emerges, according to Caren Ulrich Stacy, founder and CEO of Diversity Lab, an organization that promotes diversity and inclusion in the law.

‘“Inclusion” sounds very vague and amorphic. It’s like the word “culture” – no one truly knows what it is, unless you define usually a really bad culture or a really good culture. Inclusion seems to be on a similar scale.’

Verna Myers, vice president of inclusion strategy at Netflix, is often quoted as saying: ‘Diversity is being invited to the party, and inclusion is actually being asked to dance.’

In other words, the recruitment of diverse individuals is only one step towards true equality of potential, because without an unobstructed pathway to quality work and opportunities for development, enduring diversity is an illusion – and retention won’t happen.

Or to put it another way: ‘I think that when we talk about the war for talent, companies and law firms need to take care of their existing talent,’ says Christine Castellano, former general counsel of Ingredion Inc.

Hugh Welsh, general counsel of DSM North America, had an epiphany in his understanding of the need for inclusion after feeling like an outsider during business trips to company headquarters in the Netherlands.

‘It finally dawned on me that, for the first time in my career, I wasn’t part of the majority culture in these environments, and it altered my behavior. It made me hesitant, it made me less likely to speak up, it made me much more aware and in tune with all the little gestures and words that were made in the room – and that was exhausting,’ he explains.

the recruitment of diverse individuals is only one step towards true equality of potential.

‘After a few of those trips, I said to myself, if I feel like this when I go there, how do my female employees, my racial minority employees, how do they feel working in an environment that’s predominantly American white male?’

A blueprint for inclusion?

Developing a truly inclusive workplace – and an understanding of where flexibility or an openness to new approaches might be impactful – is a work in progress for most corporations, of course, and one that needs to be backed up by data. But are legal departments measuring the right things?

‘There are two different things in terms of inclusion that are very important. One is perception and one is reality. Perception is measured by whether or not everyone feels included: do they feel like they belong, do they feel like they are getting equal access to career-enhancing work and career-enhancing people?’ says Ulrich Stacy.

‘But the other half of that is the reality: are people included, are they getting equal access to work with different types of people who are influential in and outside of the organization? Are they getting equal access to the work that we know will help advance them? And that’s the piece that’s hard – and that’s the piece that has to get measured. I think for years we’ve measured the perception, and we’re really just getting to a point where we’re starting to measure the reality, and then fixing it.’

Ulrich Stacy argues that law firms and legal departments tend to work backwards – making assumptions about inclusion gaps in their teams, and then devising initiatives, such as mentoring schemes, to fill them, without any data or baseline against which to benchmark. In response, Diversity Lab and Chiefs in IP [ChIPS], a non-profit connecting women in technology, law and policy, have collaborated to design an ‘inclusion blueprint’ survey, intended to isolate and survey areas – for example, compensation, promotion, tracking access to career-enhancing work – that lead to inclusion and, eventually, a more diverse workforce. The hope is that the survey will allow teams to better understand their own efforts, benchmark themselves against other teams and, as data accumulates, understand specifically and statistically what inclusion activities correlate to higher diversity.

‘I think the only way we’re going to solve this challenge of the legal industry needing to be more inclusive and diverse, is we’re going to have to do this in collaboration, not against each other, or in competition with each other, shaking our fingers at each other. There is definitely a concerted effort for law firms and legal departments to work together in collaboration to solve these challenges. And if working in silos or in isolation as an organization is no longer working, then we have to try to collaborate,’ says Ulrich Stacy.

Some of the general counsel we interviewed were taking a more collaborative approach to supplier diversity, shouldering some responsibility for external provider achievements in D&I and emphasizing the importance of supporting law firms to achieve diversity – rather than penalizing them.

Wesley Bizzell, senior assistant general counsel at Altria Client Services Inc, trained as a social worker alongside his legal qualifications.

‘One of the foundations of social work is that you don’t start from where you want the client to be, or from where you think they should be, but you start from where they are,’ he explains.

‘The same is true when dealing with D&I within organizations. Corporations and law firms are made of people who may be in vastly different places in their D&I journey, so sometimes the work is slower than you’d like it to be – sometimes it takes more time to get the individual on board, sometimes it takes a little bit of effort to get leaders to talk about D&I issues because they were not brought up in a corporate culture where that was encouraged or expected. But I’m a firm believer that there are ways to reach almost everyone.’

The hope is that the survey will allow teams to better understand their own efforts.

At Peabody Energy, chief legal officer Verona Dorch’s legal team meets with affinity groups and law firm associates to discuss how the legal team can help achieve inclusion goals and, as a result, has implemented a system of writing letters to law firm committees handling promotions, highlighting any excellent work done by associates. ‘We’re here to influence, not criticize,’ she says.

Accountability

Yet many believe that a crucial piece of the puzzle – that of true accountability – is still missing from many D&I efforts.

‘Most law firms and legal departments don’t have diversity and inclusion goals, at least not ones they say out loud and are held accountable for – which is so different from every other business thing that matters,’ says Ulrich Stacy.

‘A legal department of a Fortune 500 company is expected to report their earnings on a quarterly basis, they have to be transparent and they have to be accountable to the shareholders, to the board, and to the public to some degree. So if diversity matters as a business imperative, why aren’t we transparent, why aren’t we accountable, and why aren’t we reporting where we are and what we’ve done to our shareholders or to our board or to the public?’

Many of the general counsel we spoke to are asking themselves the same question, and coming up with novel approaches to increasing transparency and accountability. Starbucks, for example, published its civil rights assessment report online, alongside unconscious bias training and certain diversity stats, on its website.

A topic of controversy is whether inclusion and diversity performance should be connected in some way to compensation measures, and some GCs support such a measure.

‘We haven’t done it yet, but that is a big one, that’s an important one, that could be a very effective tool,’ says Carrie Hightman, CLO of NiSource, Inc.

Adds Dorch: ‘We don’t yet tie metrics to people’s goals, and that is where I think it would be most effective. The companies where I’ve seen it take hold are the ones that start to tie it to individual goals and commitments, which then moves the company’s commitment.’

Doing things differently often means accepting an element of risk into the process, and perhaps an awareness that too much rigidity in criteria, whether in hiring or promotion, can mean overlooking diverse individuals for the sake of missing skills traditionally perceived as essential – effectively missing the wood for the trees.

Private Practice Perspective: Working Together for a Better Future

Achieving diversity has long been a struggle for law firms. Over the last several years, however, corporations have catalyzed change through carrots and sticks – promising and withholding work depending on whether diversity objectives are met. More can be done.

As the readers of this publication well know, corporations have pushed firms to attract, retain and promote diverse lawyers by demanding that firms demonstrate their diversity before they are awarded – or are even considered for – work. Among other things, companies grade firms on the diversity of their associate, partner, and leadership ranks, as well as the staffing of their matters, and dole out or deny assignments depending on the scores achieved.

This system of carrots and sticks effectively focuses firms on making meaningful progress on diversity. At Weil, we have adopted the score-card model to apply it to our own attorneys, grading our most senior leaders based on their success in meeting a variety of diversity objectives, including their own personal involvement in the firm’s diversity efforts.

More can be accomplished if companies take a more active role in developing diverse firm lawyers to meet their legal needs. As I know from personal experience, mentoring is critical to a diverse attorney’s prospects for advancement. Mentoring by senior law firm partners not only helps diverse attorneys improve their technical lawyering skills, it also provides a vehicle to introduce diverse lawyers to influential firm leaders, the business aspects of firm management, important firm clients, and business development initiatives. In short, mentoring helps diverse attorneys learn all of the non-technical skills that are equally important to climbing the ranks of a major corporate law firm.

Who better to mentor many of these aspects of lawyering than the in-house lawyers whom diverse attorneys hope to serve? In-house lawyers are uniquely situated to mentor young, diverse firm attorneys in the most critical aspects of client relations and development. Through taking the time to teach diverse firm lawyers about their businesses and the legal issues that are unique to their companies, what matters to them as clients, how they can be best served, and introducing them to other influential potential clients within their organizations, in-house lawyers can set diverse lawyers up for a meaningful long-term relationship with their companies, which will critically impact the attorney’s prospects for success at the law firm by enhancing the ‘business case’ for their retention and promotion.

But in-house lawyers can achieve even more through mentoring. By introducing diverse firm attorneys to in-house lawyers at other companies in their industry, in-house lawyers can provide diverse firm attorneys opportunities to make potential client contacts and develop business that would otherwise not be available to them. In turn, these diverse attorneys would be able to use all of the skills learned from their mentors to make the most of those opportunities. All of this would meaningfully support the diverse attorney’s prospects for retention and advancement.

And what do the clients get out of all of this mentoring? They get outside attorneys who are better able to serve them because they know their organizations and their industries better. They also get the satisfaction of having made a meaningful difference in a diverse attorney’s prospects for success and in creating more diverse law firms.

At Weil, we believe so strongly in this hypothesis that we have initiated a pilot program with a handful of our clients through which senior in-house lawyers serve as mentors to our diverse associates. We are extremely grateful to our client-partners for their participation in this program. It is too early to say what level of success this pilot program will achieve, but it is hard to see how it will not be successful.

Chris Garcia

Partner and co-chair of Diversity Committee

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

‘When trying to get women on the board, you can’t insist that people have a CEO background, because you’re going to find maybe five women who fit that. You have to be willingly flexible on the requirements,’ explains Dorch.

Kimberley Harris, general counsel of NBCUniversal, adds: ‘We need to think about relevant experience in a much broader way – identifying skills that we need that might be expressed in a less familiar way … I had the benefit of that broader, more flexible thinking – I had no experience in the entertainment industry when I was hired as general counsel of NBCUniversal, but the CEO took a risk on hiring somebody with a different background. That broader thinking gave me an opportunity I wouldn’t otherwise have had, and, in turn, I added a different perspective to the executive ranks at NBCUniversal.’

Storytelling

On top of a thorough, metric-based understanding of challenges and a clear system of accountability, is the power of storytelling – the qualitative aspect that adds flesh to the bones of data. Much understanding and awareness in the inclusion and diversity context can be built through the telling of personal stories, and what campaigns like #MeToo have illustrated is the power of shared experience to build empathy and momentum.

The legal profession, often risk averse and traditional, can especially benefit from testimony and its potential to remove taboos – particularly in the field of mental health. Castellano talks candidly of her own struggle with burnout, and the importance of storytelling:

‘The biggest piece is really to remove the stigma around the topic of mental health and bring it into the light of day. The next generation of lawyers needs to know that they are not alone’.

An even more powerful tool in the arsenal of inclusion is that of role-modelling. Michael Wasser, assistant corporation counsel at New York City Law Department, has muscular dystrophy and, astonishingly, has never encountered a similarly diverse attorney as an adversary. He is keenly aware of the impact his professional presence can have, for both diverse and non-diverse colleagues:

‘Just me being in a room at a closing or in court, sitting across a table from an adversary or discussing things with clients – the importance of that is immeasurable. The best way to learn is by observing, and the best way for that is to have people with disabilities more visible in every facet of life,’ he explains.

‘Frequently I’m the first person that non-disabled people have a professional experience with, and that takeaway is enormous, because these people go back to their firms, go back to their lives in business, and maybe there’s a conversation at the dinner table, or maybe their kids hear something about it.’

Doing things differently often means accepting an element of risk into the process.

The New York City Law Department frequently makes introductions between attorneys with disabilities, and Wasser places great emphasis on the importance of providing support and ‘a friendly ear’ to others, as well as hosting department tours for high school and college students with disabilities, to remind them that a legal career can and should be on their radar.

In addition, he believes that more community outreach would be of enormous benefit to overcome attitudinal barriers and broaden the horizons of people with disability.

‘Engage the community: invite schools over and have open house – like our disability mentoring day, or “bring your children to work day”. Things like that are really important, because you want to teach people from a young age that there are options and choices – that inclusion works.’

Bizzell also tells of how storytelling can boost representation, even when role models are not obviously available:

‘At MOSAIC, our LGBTQ employee resource group at Altria, we have utilized storytelling to create empathy and understanding within our employee base and create instances where people who may not think they have met an LGBTQ individual, or who may not have LGBTQ individuals in their group of friends or family, get it.’

Through the collective effort of sharing experiences – in-writing or in-person – individuals can bypass stereotypes and understand what true diversity looks like. But that involves both candid disclosure, and the buy-in of leaders and team members to confront issues. It means that challenging concepts must be continually addressed, and assumptions disrupted.

As we continue the journey towards a more inclusive and diverse profession, the future looks bright, however, as those assuming leadership roles demonstrate higher and higher expectations of inclusion and diversity, and are increasingly willing to vocalize them.

We hope that this report has provided some potential methodologies to explore, and perhaps sparked some ideas for growth in your own legal department.

‘It’s important to have conversations that are difficult, and that require us to lean into that discomfort. The typical workplace attitude, certainly from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, was that “It creates too many issues, it’s disruptive, it’s not helpful”, but I think we have reached a point where we realize that those conversations are necessary for us to truly develop that inclusive environment, culture and ecosystem,’ says Bizzell.

Striking a Balance

We asked some of the participants in our report for their sense of how the recent avalanche of stories and related activism has impacted corporate and legal life.

more community outreach would be of enormous benefit to overcome attitudinal barriers.

‘Taking the #MeToo movement as an example, there’s not enough data yet to say exactly what the impact has been but, anecdotally, it’s been both positive and negative. It’s been positive because more folks who have experienced sexual harassment feel comfortable coming forward, and law firms and legal departments have done a better job of making sure that they have structure and formal policies and procedures in place to manage complaints and to manage investigations,’ says Ulrich Stacy.

‘The downside – and there are statistics to prove this – is that in a lot of instances men are reading about this and fearing being wrongly accused, or fearing being perceived as bad, and they are pulling back from mentoring and from going on work trips with women that will take them somewhere overnight.’

That’s an issue – with the current makeup of many corporates, pressing ahead with diversity needs people in positions of power to work with people coming through the ranks. But Welsh is clear that senior executives – legal or otherwise – need to search for solutions instead of excuses.

‘I think the Time’s Up and #MeToo movements have catalyzed a whole cottage industry of sexual harassment compliance programs, and provided an excuse for a whole generation of middle-aged white men like me to say “Oh wow, I’m no longer going to take one-on-one meetings with women in my office or have business dinners with female employees, because it’s just too risky,”’ he says.

‘It sets back the concept of inclusion a great deal, because we know that the next generation of leaders are developed and promoted not just from an annual review or the results on a project and the financial results of the business, but as a consequence of sponsorship, which happens informally in these one-on-one meetings and dinners while travelling together.’

For lawyers, in particular, the informal nature of #MeToo and the timescale of allegations causes a specific problem of process. Castellano articulates the difficult position of in-house lawyers in balancing a culture of listening with fairness when dealing with allegations:

‘I think it’s important, with any type of investigation, that it is a real investigation. This is difficult with allegations that date back a decade or more, particularly when they cannot be proven – there’s no way to factually investigate them,’ she says.

‘I think in the workplace, when a #MeToo allegation comes forward, it needs to be investigated with the same rigor as any other allegation, and I think it’s particularly important that you enforce confidentiality around the investigation, because we are in a time period where people feel that their entire career could be destroyed based on an allegation alone. But having said that, we need to continue to encourage people to speak up and to make use of the compliance communication channels within their corporation. If the channels aren’t being used, we need to take a look at what we could do better, how we could make it easier for employees to speak up.’

In the pages that follow, we see a striking variety of approaches to inclusion and diversity on display in the leading corporates and organizations that feature in our updated report. But many common threads were also identifiable – culture, individuals and iteration being uppermost in the minds of those legal professionals driven to foster inclusive teams and corporations in the US and beyond.