Some of the material printed in our publications is useful in that it can be collected, rearranged, studied, analyzed, combined and taken apart to form conclusions about a law firm’s performance and prospects. Some of the material, however, is more immediately apprehended and conclusions are drawn more rapidly. Such is the annual Diversity Scorecard.
Each spring’s number of The Minority Law Journal contains the Diversity Scorecard, a statistical summary of how the largest U.S.-based law firms are doing in expanding opportunities and achieving results for minority attorneys. The percentage of minority attorneys among the firm’s U.S.-based attorney count was translated into a rank. This rank was published as the default setting of the Diversity Scorecard and was an important element in the calculation of the A-List rankings. In the 2009 Diversity Scorecard, this methodology will change.
This change was announced in the 2008 Minority Law Journal article. Rather than explain it myself, I think it is far better to quote Emily Barker, author of the Diversity Scorecard article:
“Once we'd collected this year's Diversity Scorecard data, we began working on a new formula for ranking firms. We wanted to build on our old measure-the overall percentage of minority attorneys-while recognizing the firms with strong minority representation in their partnerships. We also considered giving extra credit to firms for making new minority partners-but in the end, in the interest of clarity, we decided to stick with a simpler formula: a firm's percentage of minority lawyers plus its percentage of minority partners. The practical effect: In order for a firm to do well on the Scorecard in the future, it won't be enough simply to have a high percentage of minority associates. The firm must also have a high percentage of minority partners.”
The 2008 article from Minority Law Journal is here.
Comments