State Bar of Wisconsin

Diversity Outreach Committee Report

Presented to the Wisconsin State Bar Board of Governors
November 10, 1995

1995-96 Committee Co-Chairs:
Gerardo H. Gonzalez
Michelle A. Behnke

Survey Consultant:
Laura Olson, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Committee Formation and Background

In December 1993, the Greater Madison African American Lawyers Association ("GMAALA") invited then State Bar President Pam Barker to attend a meeting. The focus of that meeting was how to increase participation of minority lawyers in the bar. Pam indicated that she had been involved in similar discussions with member of the Milwaukee-based Wisconsin Association of Minority Attorneys ("WAMA"). She presented her thoughts and suggested that there were several possible ways to "formalize" the effort to increase minority participation. Pam suggested that a State Bar committee could be formed, or that minority/specialty bars could join together to seek the creation of a State Bar section.

After some discussion between members of GMAALA and WAMA, a small group of individuals decided to ask the State Bar to form a committee to address the issue of the lack of minority participation in the State Bar. Simultaneously to this ad hoc committee's request, Gary Sherman had a similar idea. He indicated to the group that it was his intent to form such a committee during his term as president of the State Bar. The Diversity Outreach Committee was then formed. The Committee was given an initial budget of $2,800, and Jerry Gonzalez and Michelle Behnke were named the initial co-chairs. The Co-Chairs provided Gary with the names of other minority attorneys who were interested in serving on the Committee. Gary named ten additional attorneys to the Committee. Kaye O'Kearny of the State Bar staff was named the staff liaison. The Committee held its first meeting during the Midwinter Convention in Madison. During this meeting the following mission statement was developed. The Diversity Outreach Committee is committed to fostering a racially and ethnically diverse legal profession, conscious of differences, committed to valuing those differences and ensuring equality. The Committee divided itself into four subcommittees. When the Diversity Outreach Committee was formed, the pre-existing Minority Placement Committee (which was a free-standing State Bar committee) was made a subcommittee of the Diversity Outreach Committee. Despite being named a subcommittee, the Minority Placement Committee retained all of its committee members and its co-chairs, and operated independently from the Diversity Outreach Committee. For the 1995-96 fiscal year, the Minority Placement Committee has been separated from the Diversity Outreach Committee.

Before the Committee could begin to address increasing ethnic and racial diversity in the State Bar, it had to gather information regarding the numbers of minority lawyers in the State of Wisconsin. Given that the State Bar of Wisconsin maintains no data on minority lawyers and their participation in bar activities, the Diversity in State and Local Bar Subcommittee decided to undertake a survey to gather information about diversity issues. Over the first year of its existence, the Diversity Outreach Committee created a database of approximately 375 minority attorneys. Although the Diversity Outreach Committee wanted to hear from minority attorneys, w quickly determined that a statistically sound survey should include information gathered from both minority and non-minority attorneys.

Gathering information was the first project of the Diversity in State and Local Bars subcommittee. However, we knew that the information gathered would ultimately assist all of the subcommittees with projects. While the Diversity in State and Local Bars subcommittee began to develope a survey, each subcommittee was given the task of exploring potential projects to address its specific area. The hope was that each subcommittee would begin to develop ideas and potential programs, and once the survey results were obtained, these potential programs could be re-examined and altered, if necessary, to more adequately respond to what was learned from the survey.

THE SURVEY

To assess attorneys' attitudes about the status of minorities in the legal profession, the Diversity Outreach Committee mailed a 66-item questionnaire to 664 Wisconsin attorneys. Separate forms of the survey were sent to samples of attorneys who were known to be members of racial or ethnic minority groups (African Americans, Native Americans, persons of Hispanic origin, Asian American/Pacific islanders) and non-minority (white, not Hispanic) attorneys. Only three questions (items 17, 19 and 28) differ in the two forms of the survey; these differences correspond to the respondent's race (non-minority or minority).

• Survey sent to samples of attorneys who were known to be members of racial or ethnic minority groups
• Survey sent to samples of non-minority attorneys

The response rate to the survey was good, but not overwhelming. Of the 400 non-minority attorneys who were mailed a questionnaire, 197 responded, producing a response rate of 49.3 percent. This rate was somewhat lower among minority attorneys. Only 104 of a potential 264 minority respondents returned their questionnaires, which yields a response rate of 39.4 percent. The discrepancy between the response rates of the two samples prompted the Diversity Outreach Committee to mail follow-up postcards to all attorneys in the minority sample. In all, 32 minority attorneys indicate on their postcards that they did not complete and return the survey. Half of them cite time as the reason for their failure to respond, while 28.6 percent state that they either never received or lost the questionnaire. Of the remaining 21.4 percent, half blame a lack of interest in the survey, while the other half make statements such as I didn t like the questions and the implication they were serving stereotyping and diversity is not an issue that I see the Bar addressing. There is no real interest in diversity. It s a show.

Fortunately, the discrepancy in response rate does not create a problem for the statistical analysis of the data culled from the questionnaires. The minority sample is sufficiently large (N = 104) to be compared with the non-minority sample (N = 197). As a result, the responses of non- minority attorneys and minority attorneys to each item may be compared directly.

It is also possible to test for statistically significant differences between the two groups' responses to each item. A statistically significant difference between non-minority and minority attorneys on any given item indicates that there is an unusual (i.e., mathematically unexpected) association between race and the question at hand. The presence of a statistically significant difference between the two groups does not mean that race is a causal factor in shaping attorneys' opinions; instead, it simply suggests that the two variables (race and the question at hand) may be correlated (i.e., the two dimensions move together). It is important to remember in this context that correlation does not imply causation, so the notion that race causes one or another opinion should not be inferred from this study. What follows is an item-by-item discussion of the more interesting questions in the survey.

The first section of the survey deals with the attorneys' education and employment background. The results of item 1 support conventional wisdom suggesting that members of minority groups have only recently entered the legal profession vis-a-vis their non-minority counterparts. Minority respondents graduated more recently from law school than non-minority respondents, and the difference between the two groups is statistically significant. Among minority attorneys, one-third (33.0 percent) graduated before 1981, compared with 53.5 percent of non-minority attorneys.

Item 2 reveals a related phenomenon: non-minorities who enter law school are, on average, younger than their minority classmates. Nearly half (49.5 percent) of the non-minority respondents report that they began law school before the age of 23, but only 33.0 percent of minority attorneys did the same. This difference is statistically significant, and it is possible that financial concerns prevent members of minority groups from entering law school immediately after graduating college more frequently than is the case for non-minorities.

There are also important differences in the work settings of the two groups of attorneys. Item 5 indicates that minority attorneys are somewhat more likely than non-minority attorneys to be employed outside of the legal profession. While this difference falls short of statistical significance, it may behoove the State Bar to investigate the factors that may explain this phenomenon. One unanswered question is why minority attorneys would appear to retain their legal licensure when they are not practicing professionally. Item 6 confirms a commonly held assumption that minority attorneys tend to be employed in government service. Fully 46.5 percent of minority respondents indicate that they are employed as government attorneys, as compared with only 17.5 percent of non-minority respondents. It is also important to note that virtually none of the minority attorneys are partners or associates in private firms. Only 10.1 percent (eight partners and two associates) classify themselves in these categories, as compared with 44.8 percent of non-minority attorneys.

The working conditions of the two groups also differ somewhat. Reflecting the findings from item 1, item 9 reveals that minority attorneys have had shorter tenures in their present jobs: 41.7 percent have been in their jobs for four or fewer years as compared with only 24.4 percent of non-minority attorneys. This difference is statistically significant, but it is almost certainly due to the late entry (relatively speaking) of members of minority groups into the legal profession.

Item 11 demonstrates another important difference between the working conditions of these two groups. An overwhelming 75.9 percent of non-minority attorneys report that they have no colleagues who are ethnic minorities. This reflects a general under-representation of persons of color in the legal profession.

Section II of the questionnaire addresses compensation issues. These items are somewhat difficult to interpret, given the wide range of work situations represented in the sample and the corresponding range of the respondents salaries. Item 14 reveals a slight difference between the two groups levels of satisfaction with the financial rewards of their jobs, but this difference is not statistically significant. Minority attorneys are only slightly more likely (26 percent) than non-minority attorneys (18.6 percent) to respond that they are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Item 17 asks respondents to indicate whether their salary and fringe benefits are comparable to colleagues in comparable positions of other races. To interpret it, two groups of respondents must be excluded from the analysis: those who are solo practitioners and those who have no minority colleagues. For such individuals, item 17 is impossible to answer. When these respondents are excluded from the analysis, however, it is still clear that a sizable proportion of the minority attorneys feel that their salary and benefits are less generous than those of their non- minority peers. Only 4.1 percent of the non-minority respondents, however, share this opinion, as they frequently respond that they do not know (57.3 percent).

Finally, minority attorneys reply in item 18 that their employers are highly unlikely to pay their memberships and dues in professional organizations. While 44.7 percent of non-minority attorneys enjoy this benefit, only 21.9 percent of minority attorneys can say the same. This difference is statistically significant, but when all government attorneys are excluded from the analysis, significant differences vanish.

Leadership and community involvement is the subject of the third section of the survey. The results of this portion of the study are notable for the lack of differences they reveal between the two groups of attorneys. Item 21 shows that approximately equal proportions of both minority and non-minority attorneys occupy positions of leadership in churches and synagogues (21.2 percent overall), charity and business (45.1 percent), politics (11.1 percent), academic or school settings (13.7 percent).

The involvement of the two racial groups in bar organizations is also comparable. Item 22 reveals that very few attorneys of either race are involved in national bar associations (3.8 percent overall). There is no difference between their involvement in local bar associations, either (11.1 percent). Minority attorneys report involvement in the Wisconsin State Bar, however, somewhat more frequently than their non-minority counterparts (15.4 percent versus 8.9 percent, respectively).

Minority attorneys who are not involved in any of the leadership activities mentioned in items 21 and 22 provide substantially different reasons than non-minority attorneys, as item 24 suggests. While both groups cite time equally and most frequently (62.9 percent overall), minority attorneys are more likely than non-minority attorneys to blame their perceptions of the organizations foci (11.1 percent versus 4.9 percent respectively). Minority attorneys are also less likely to blame a lack of interest in the organizations (16.7 percent versus 27.9 percent respectively).

Section IV of the questionnaire is designed to measure the respondents attitudes regarding the status of minority attorneys in the legal profession. The fact that three of every four non- minority respondents have no colleagues of color, however, renders this section quite difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, the minority attorneys responses are enlightening. For item 28, 22.1 percent of minority attorneys assess their management and policy contributions as receiving less weight than those of their non-minority peers. They almost never report, however, that minority attorneys in their workplaces have similar jobs with different titles (item 29): only 12.4 percent provide either of the two affirmative responses ( a and b ). The actual work assignments minority attorneys receive, however, would appear to be somewhat less equitable, as item 30 suggests. Only 32.0 percent of minority respondents state that the work assignments of both minority and non-minority attorneys are always comparable in complexity and importance.

Item 34 is of particular interest to the Diversity Outreach Committee. It asks respondents to indicate whether they would be willing to provide information as to their racial and ethnic background on a voluntary basis, if the State Bar were to request it. Overall, 86.6 percent say that they would be willing to provide such information. Minority attorneys, however, appear significantly more willing than their non-minority peers to do so. Fully 93.5 percent of minority respondents answered affirmatively as compared with 82.9 percent of non-minority attorneys. This difference is statistically significant, and raises interesting questions about why non-minority attorneys are more likely to make comments such as to me, race and ethnicity are just irrelevant.

The penultimate, and arguably most valuable, section of the survey addresses equity issues. First, respondents are asked to consider a series of sixteen scenarios within which they may have witnessed racially discriminatory behavior. There are four types of behaviors and four possible culprits. The behaviors include (1) inappropriately attempting humor that could be interpreted as racist; (2) treating minority attorneys with less respect than non-minority attorneys (e.g., use of first names or nicknames in reference to minority attorneys); (3) inappropriately questioning a minority attorney s competence in private; and (4) inappropriately questioning a minority attorney s competence in public. The possible culprits include judges, attorneys, law enforcement personnel, and clients.

In all cases, there are statistically significant differences between minority and non-minority attorneys responses to this series of questions. For the most part, minority attorneys are more likely to report observing racially discriminatory scenarios, but this is not the most interesting story these data have to tell. Instead, it is the somewhat alarming frequency with which non- minority attorneys admit to witnessing such events (despite the fact that they seem to see discrimination in action less frequently than their minority peers).

Attempts at humor that may be interpreted as racist appear to be somewhat commonplace, based on the results of items 35 through 38. Respondents implicate judges least frequently, but even so, 50.5 percent of minority attorneys and 20.5 percent of non-minority attorneys have seen them making racist jokes at least once (item 35). There is a consensus among both groups that attorneys tell racist jokes: fully 70.0 percent of minority attorneys and 53.0 percent of non- minority attorneys have seen this behavior one or more times (item 36). Law enforcement personnel, according to respondents, are also guilty of this behavior on a relatively frequent basis. Item 37 reveals that 61.7 percent of minority attorneys and 38.4 percent of non-minority attorneys have witnessed law enforcement personnel telling racist jokes. Finally, item 38 produces a very interesting result. Non-minority attorneys actually report observing clients engaged in racially discriminatory attempts at humor more frequently than their minority counterparts. Two of every three non-minority attorneys (67.2 percent) have observed this behavior at least once, as compared with 57.0 percent of minority attorneys.

Very large differences distinguish the response patterns of minority attorneys and non-minority attorneys to items 39 through 42. On the whole, minority attorneys are much more likely to report that they or a minority colleague has been treated with less respect on account of race. Half of all minority respondents have witnessed this behavior among judges at least once, as compared with only 7.8 percent of non-minority respondents (item 39). Similarly, 53 percent of minority attorneys say that fellow attorneys have treated them less respectfully, while only 10 percent of non-minority attorneys state that they have observed this phenomenon (item 40). The pattern of responses is essentially the same for law enforcement personnel (item 41: 49.0 percent minority attorneys, 13.0 percent non-minority attorneys) and clients (item 42: 48.0 percent minority attorneys, 13.0 percent non-minority attorneys).

When it comes to the practice of inappropriately questioning minority attorneys' competence in private, the study shows that some groups may be much more guilty than others. Specifically, items 43 and 45 indicate that neither minority attorneys nor non-minority attorneys have witnessed judges (24.0 percent minority attorneys, 5.0 percent non-minority attorneys) or law enforcement personnel (28.0 percent minority attorneys, 9.0 percent non-minority attorneys) privately questioning the competence of minority attorneys. More frequently, however, respondents of both racial groups report that attorneys and clients privately question minority attorneys' competence. Item 44 shows that 46.0 percent of all minority respondents have witnessed this behavior by attorneys on at least one occasion, as have 14.0 percent of non- minority attorneys. Clients would appear equally likely to follow suit, as item 46 suggests (40.0 percent minority attorneys, 13.0 percent non-minority attorneys).

Finally, the practice of inappropriately calling a minority attorney's competence into question in public appears to be a relatively infrequent behavior by either judges, attorneys, law enforcement personnel. Once again, minority attorneys are more likely than non-minority attorneys to report witnessing such incidents, but the results for all four potential culprits are virtually identical. Item 47 reveals that 31.0 percent of minority attorneys and only 3.0 percent of non-minority attorneys have witnessed judges engaged in this behavior. Attorneys may be slightly more likely to question minority colleagues in public inappropriately (item 48: 39.0 percent minority attorneys, 2.0 percent non-minority attorneys). Respondents report similar patterns for law enforcement personnel (item 49: 31.0 percent minority attorneys, 3.0 percent non-minority attorneys) and clients (item 50: 33.3 percent minority attorneys, 8.0 percent non-minority attorneys).

Respondents are also asked whether they have been racially harassed in the legal profession, and if so, to elaborate on the situation and their response to it. This set of questions is somewhat problematic for two reasons. First, the question does not provide a concrete definition of racial harassment ; several respondents expressed confusion about the meaning of this term. Future surveys must provide better definitional foundations in this regard. The second difficulty is that almost never do non-minority attorneys respond affirmatively to item 51; this is not a severe flaw because the harassment of minority attorneys is the Committee s true interest in this subsection of the questionnaire.

Among minority respondents to the survey, 52.9 percent report having been the target of racial harassment. Item 51 reveals that such harassment transpires more frequently in law school than any other setting, 52.7 percent report that they were harassed as law students. Minority attorneys who have been harassed, however, take action in response to it only infrequently. A mere 31.5 percent of those who have been harassed filed an official report of the incident (item 52). Even more striking is the fact that exactly half of the minority attorneys who did make official reports believe that their action had no result (item 54), and only 45 percent of them indicate that reporting the harassment had no negative effect on their careers (item 55).

Items 57 through 60 address the possible impact of race on various aspects of respondents work situations. Items 57, 58, and 60 reveal no clear patterns (especially among minority attorneys), but item 59 reveals that 40.0 percent of minority attorneys believe their race has hindered their progress in the legal profession. Only 11.6 percent of minority attorneys, on the other hand, state that their race has helped them to progress. Because there is no consensus among minority respondents about the effect of race on determination of practice area (item 57), client contact (item 58), or overall job satisfaction (item 60), the very existence of a clear plurality who state that race has hindered professional progress is particularly noteworthy.

The final section of the questionnaire is designed to glean demographic information from the respondents. Item 61 shows that the sample is overwhelmingly (67.6 percent) male, but among minority attorneys, both genders are represented nearly equally (55.1 percent male, 44.9 percent female). Non-minority attorneys are also significantly more likely to be married than their minority peers (item 62: 78.9 percent versus 63.9 percent respectively). Furthermore, 58.5 percent of all respondents identify themselves as white; 16.9 percent African American; 9.0 percent Hispanic; 5.6 percent Native American; 1.7 percent multiracial; 0.7 percent Asian or Pacific islander; and 7.6 percent did not respond to item 66.

Finally, items 63 and 64 are most meaningful when government attorneys are excluded from the analysis. Even when this control is imposed, there is a statistically significant difference between the 1994 pre-tax salaries of the two groups: 45.6 percent of non-minority attorneys earned in excess of $75,000, but only 22.8 percent of minority attorneys claimed the same income range. The same applies to billing rate: 30.5 percent of non-minority attorneys charge more than $120 per hour as compared with only 8.6 percent of minority attorneys. These differences may be due to the relatively junior status of minority respondents in the profession.

THE COMMITTEE RESPONSE

In response to the survey, the subcommittees have developed the following objectives and have undertaken the following projects. As mentioned earlier, the Diversity Outreach Committee is organized into four subcommittees:

1. Diversity in state and local bars
2. Diversity in the judiciary/law school faculty
3. Utilization of minority lawyers
4. Minority law student (new lawyer) support

Diversity Outreach Committee Objectives

The objectives of the Diversity Outreach Committee are listed opposite the subcommittee assigned to address the objective:

Objective	Subcommittee
Establish minority law student initiatives	Minority Law Student Support
Influence sections and divisions of the State Bar to become more active in promotion or implementation of cultural diversity	Diversity in state and local bars
Expand support of minority law firms and lawyers	Utilization of minority lawyers
Significantly stimulate diversity activities of state and local bar associations	Diversity in state and local bars
Support minority lawyers in majority law firms	All subcommittees
Increase media coverage of minority issue	All subcommittees
Encourage minorities to seek tenure track faculty positions at the Wisconsin law schools	Diversity in the judiciary/law school
Encourage corporations to increase the use of minorities as outside counsel	Utilization of minority lawyers
Encourage the selection of racially and ethnically diverse judiciary	Diversity in the judiciary/law school

Diversity In State and Local Bars

The focus of this subcommittee is, as its name implies, focused on increasing diversity in both the State Bar and local bar associations. One of the 1995-96 projects for this subcommittee is to conduct a diversity training program for local bar leaders with participation by the State Bar Board of Governors.

The subcommittee has already identified several potential consultants who could present a diversity training program. Information about these consultants was obtained from the Otto Bremer Foundation.

The subcommittee presented the Local Bar Leaders Conference planning group with a proposal to include a diversity training component in its conference. However, diversity training did not seem to fit into the agenda they had already set. The subcommittee is considering a stand-alone diversity training program to be held during the 1996 Summer Convention. In addition to searching for a consultant for the workshop, the subcommittee has already been awarded a $500 grant from the ABA Young Lawyers Division for the project. The Diversity Outreach Committee anticipates co-sponsoring the diversity training workshop with the State Bar Young Lawyers Division.

Law Student/New Lawyer Subcommittee

One goal of this subcommittee is to build relationships between minority law students and minority lawyers in Wisconsin. The goal is to provide a network that increases minority law students' desire to remain in Wisconsin to practice law.

Another goal of this subcommittee will also be to encourage minority attorneys and minority law students to participate in the well established Mentor Council. By encouraging minority lawyers and law students to participate in this program, the subcommittee will avoid duplication of resources, and in a small way, increase the diversity of the mentor program.

The hope is that in achieving these two goals, minority law students and new lawyers will become involved in bar activities early in their careers and will remain active in the bar, thereby increasing the diversity of the bar itself.

Utilization of Minority Lawyers

The goal of this subcommittee is to expand support of minority laws firms and minority lawyers within majority law firms. This subcommittee has modeled its program after the ABA Minority Counsel Demonstration Project. The mission and objectives of the program are to increase the opportunities for minorities and women within the legal profession. The program is designed to provide minority and women counsel an opportunity to demonstrate services to majority and government consumers of legal services, and also to develop joint relationships with majority law firms. The program provides a platform for addressing issues and concerns pertaining to the barriers associated with utilizing minority and women counsel in areas where they traditionally are not, or are rarely utilized. The program is not an affirmative requirement of its participants to use minority or women counsel, but rather, an effort by its members to reduce barriers that may exist.

The subcommittee is in the process of identifying potential minority and women attorneys as well as corporations and governmental entities that are interested in participating. The program will be presented in May 1996.

Diversity in the Judiciary/Law School Faculty

The goals of this subcommittee include encouraging the selection of a racially and ethnically diverse judiciary and increasing the number of minority tenure track faculty at the two Wisconsin law schools.

This subcommittee envisions presenting informational "seminars" on pursuing careers in the judiciary or as a law professor. This subcommittee is currently working on a project in conjunction with the Participation of Women in the Bar Committee involving the preparation of a brochure that "debunks" the myths about seeking judicial office. This brochure will be distributed widely.

By providing such information, the subcommittee hopes that minority lawyers may better prepare themselves to pursue these avenues. Better prepared candidates for either the judiciary or law school faculties will increase the number of "qualified" candidates and therefore, increase the number of minorities in these areas.

Conclusion

The Diversity Outreach Committee, in its second year, is hard at work. The information gathered from the survey will enable the Committee to focus on areas, such as diversity training, which may foster an appreciation of the racial and ethnic differences of minority attorneys and thereby increase the participation of minority lawyers in bar activities. Through its projects, the Committee is working to instill the belief that diversity is an issue that the State Bar is addressing and that there is a real interest in diversity.

Research & reports