Diversity Scorecard Level the Next It’S No Longer Enough to Say That a Firm with a Lot of Minority Attorneys Is Diverse

diversity scorecard Level The Next It’s no longer enough to say that a firm with a lot of minority attorneys is diverse. How many minority partners does it have? By Emily Barker

What’s the best way to measure diversity? Ever since we began publishing the Diversity Scorecard, we’ve kept to a simple definition of “diversity”: the overall percentage of minorities within a law firm’s total number of attorneys. The higher this percentage is, the higher a firm ranks on the Scorecard. That’s the principle behind our latest rankings, which begin on page 30. Topping the charts is New York’s Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, a new winner, up from third place last year. Almost 27 percent of its attorneys belong to a minority group, an increase of more than four percentage points from our last survey. Palo Alto’s Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is number two for the second year in a row, with 25.3 percent lawyers of color [see “Diversity 2.0,” page 46]. The top-ranked firm in 2006 and 2007, New York’s Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, fell to number ten, with 22.1 percent minority lawyers, a three-percentage-point decrease. During the past few years, however, we’ve started to wonder whether this approach to ranking firms is missing something fairly important. After all, it assumes that all lawyers of color are more or less equivalent from a diversity stand- point. We give firms the same amount of credit for having a first-year minority associate as for a senior minority partner. But a glance at the Scorecard shows you that, at most firms, minority lawyers are concentrated in the ranks of nonpartners, such as associates and of counsel. diversity scorecard

MOST DIVERSE Some of the most extreme examples made gains, now accounting for 6.1 per- are found at the top of the Scorecard. At cent and 3.1 percent of all lawyers in Highest Percentage of Minority New York’s Cravath, Swaine & Moore the firms surveyed, respectively. The Attorneys (Partners and Nonpartners) (number six this year) and New York’s proportion of African American lawyers, Cleary Gottlieb 26.9% Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (number though, remained fixed at 3.6 percent, Wilson Sonsini 25.3% 11), more than a fifth of each firm’s law- the same as it was last year. Fenwick & West 23.2% yers are attorneys of color. Yet minority Encouragingly, we found that large lawyers make up less than 4 percent of firms are promoting more minority Knobbe, Martens 23.2% each firm’s partnership. The low figures associates to partner. That’s a key met- Orrick, Herrington 22.8% are even more striking when you look ric: Making more partners of color—as Cravath, Swaine 22.5% at actual numbers. Cravath has only two opposing to hiring laterally—is the most White & Case 22.5% minority partners, Simpson Thacher only effective way for firms to increase the Townsend and Townsend 22.3% six. It’s hard to argue that these firms pool of minority partners for the long Morrison & Foerster 22.2% really are among the most Paul, Weiss 22.1% diverse in the country when Davis Polk 22.0% their percentage of minor- About two-thirds of firms surveyed Simpson Thacher 22.0% ity partners is well below promoted at least one minority Milbank, Tweed 21.6% the average of the entire Scorecard, 6.2 percent. Debevoise & Plimpton 20.9% lawyer to partner last year. So this year, as we pre- Munger, Tolles 20.9% pared the Diversity Scorecard, we spent term. The percentage of minority lawyers Weil, Gotshal 20.8% some time pondering alternative ways of among new partners saw an uptick from Latham & Watkins 20.7% ranking firms, and we came up with a 11 percent to 13.3 percent—a total of Curtis, Mallet 20.4% new formula. Why not measure a firm’s 279 partners—with the biggest increase Best Best 20.1% diversity by combining its percentage of among Hispanic lawyers. (In 2007 3.4 O’Melveny & Myers 19.4% minority lawyers with its percentage of percent of new partners were Hispanic, minority partners? That way, we can rec- up from 2.5 percent the year before.) ognize a firm’s progress in adding attor- Overall, about two-thirds of the firms MINORITY PARTNERS neys of color at all levels—but especially surveyed promoted at least one minority at the most senior levels. lawyer to partner. However, the racial Highest Percentage For now, it’s a thought experiment. distribution of new partners remains rel- Curtis, Mallet 19.2% But next year will be different. We’ll start atively skewed: Almost half were Asian Wilson Sonsini 17.0% ranking firms using the new formula, American. Black lawyers made up about Knobbe, Martens 14.9% looking at partnership diversity as well as a quarter of new partners, and Hispanic overall diversity. How will your firm fare? lawyers another quarter. Irell & Manella 13.9% Our methodology this year includes Munger, Tolles 13.6% Taken as a whole, this year’s Diver- a few minor changes. As always, we White & Case 12.6% sity Scorecard results show that firms were most interested in the diversity of Akerman Senterfitt 12.2% continue to inch toward greater diver- firms’ American lawyers. In the past, Shook, Hardy 11.9% sity. We sent the survey to 254 firms that Townsend and Townsend 11.8% are among The Am Law 200 or The NLJ OVERALL DIVERSITY Best Best 11.5% 250 or both—the largest and richest law firms in the country. A total of 211 firms Among all U.S. attorneys, partners and Highest Number responded, compared to 209 in 2007. nonpartners Greenberg Traurig 68 What we found was that the percentage of minority attorneys at all firms African Holland & Knight 63 Americans increased from 12.4 percent in 2006 McDermott Will 48 3.6% to 13.4 percent in 2007. That rate of Kirkland & Ellis 44 increase—about one percentage point Asian DLA Piper 42 Americans per year—has been steady for the past 6.1% Sidley Austin 42 three years. The proportion of minor- Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 38 ity partners—including both equity and Hispanic Americans White Jones Day 36 nonequity partners—edged up from 5.7 3.1% Americans Littler Mendelson 34 percent to 6.2 percent. (As usual, we 86.6% asked firms to give us statistics as of Sep- Other Akin Gump 33 Minority Foley & Lardner 33 tember 30 of the previous year—in this Americans Lewis, Brisbois 33 case, September 30, 2007.) 0.6% Asian Americans and Hispanics both diversity scorecard

PARTNERS VS. NONPARTNERS we asked for figures on the number of all firms surveyed said they employed a minority attorneys who are U.S. citizens, full-time diversity director. (Among the Among all U.S. Among all U.S. but many firms have told us that this was top 20 firms on the Scorecard, the pro- partners nonpartners burdensome, so this year we began ask- portion was 65 percent.) Firms reported 93.8% ing simply for statistics on the number a range of diversity-related initiatives, 81.6% of minority attorneys working in a firm’s including minority scholarships, affinity U.S. offices. As a result, firms that have groups, expanded recruiting, retreats a significant presence abroad may get a and workshops for minority lawyers, slight boost in their minority numbers if and improved coaching and mentor- they have lawyers of color from overseas ing for all associates. In one of the working in the firm’s U.S. offices. Like- more intriguing programs, Finnegan, wise, if a firm has minority U.S. attorneys Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dun- 18.4% stationed in foreign offices, its minority ner (number 24 on the Scorecard), a head count would drop slightly. For most Washington, D.C., intellectual property 6.2% firms, however, the change should be firm, said that it sends lawyers to teach negligible. a patent law course at Howard Univer- White Minority White Minority For the first time, we asked firms to sity in hopes of expanding the number Americans Americans Americans Americans describe their diversity efforts. Half of of minority candidates who have both

A NEW MEASURE OF DIVERSITY How firms will rank under our revised formula.

ETHNIC BREAKDOWN law and science degrees. Washington’s with strong minority representation in Dickstein Shapiro (number 72) said that their partnerships. We also considered Among all minority U.S. partners it had found tying partner compensa- giving extra credit to firms for making African Americans 30.9% tion to diversity efforts to be “highly new minority partners—but in the end, effective.” in the interest of clarity, we decided to Asian Americans 34.7% Two firms reported that they had just stick with a simpler formula: a firm’s Hispanic Americans 29.8% begun observing Martin Luther King percentage of minority lawyers plus its Other Minority Americans 4.6% Day. It’s not a bad start. Perhaps now percentage of minority partners. The they can pick up the pace a little. practical effect: In order for a firm to do Among all minority U.S. nonpartners well on the Scorecard in the future, it African Americans 26.1% Once we’d collected this year’s won’t be enough simply to have a high Diversity Scorecard data, we began work- percentage of minority associates. The Asian Americans 47.8% ing on a new formula for ranking firms. firm must also have a high percentage of Hispanic Americans 21.3% We wanted to build on our old mea- minority partners. Other Minority Americans 4.8% sure—the overall percentage of minority Applying that formula to the data attorneys—while recognizing the firms from this year’s Scorecard, we calculated

A NEW MEASURE OF DIVERSITY (continued)

new, hypothetical rankings, shown in the table below. Inter- top 20 firms would be the same in both charts. That’s because estingly, the very top of this chart doesn’t look that different many of the firms that have a lot of minority attorneys, period, from the top of our current one. Wilson Sonsini would climb have also done a relatively good job of integrating their part- to number one. Cleary would drop to fourth. Seventeen of the nerships. Three firms that just missed the top 20 under the

AFRICAN AMERICANS ASIAN AMERICANS HISPANIC AMERICANS

Highest Percentage Highest Percentage Highest Percentage Littler Mendelson 8.5% Knobbe, Martens 21.2% Curtis, Mallet 13.6% Kilpatrick Stockton 7.4% Townsend and Townsend 18.5% Shutts & Bowen 12.5% Phelps Dunbar 7.3% Wilson Sonsini 17.6% Carlton Fields 10.3% Powell Goldstein 7.3% Fenwick & West 16.6% Akerman Senterfitt 9.4% Paul, Weiss 7.2% Finnegan, Henderson 15.3% Best Best 9.3%

Highest Number Highest Number Highest Number Skadden, Arps 82 Latham & Watkins 212 Greenberg Traurig 109 Sidley Austin 74 Sidley Austin 155 White & Case 75 DLA Piper 63 Skadden, Arps 144 Holland & Knight 68 Greenberg Traurig 58 Morrison & Foerster 135 Weil, Gotshal 60 Littler Mendelson 55 Wilson Sonsini 114 Latham & Watkins 57

A NEW MEASURE OF DIVERSITY (continued)

Revised Diversity Minority Percentage Minority Percentage Total Score Revised Diversity Minority Percentage Minority Percentage Total Score Rank Firm Name All U.S. Attorneys All U.S. Partners Rank Firm Name All U.S. Attorneys All U.S. Partners 119 Bracewell & Giuliani 11.4% 5.3% 16.7 143 katten Muchin 10.0% 4.3% 14.3 119 lowenstein Sandler 11.1% 5.6% 16.7 143 luce, Forward 10.6% 3.7% 14.3 121 Vinson & Elkins 12.1% 4.5% 16.6 145 Foley Hoag 11.1% 3.1% 14.2 122 hinshaw & Culbertson 11.1% 5.4% 16.5 146 Wachtell 10.2% 3.9% 14.1 123 Cahill Gordon 12.2% 4.2% 16.4 147 Duane Morris 9.1% 4.8% 13.9 123 sedgwick, Detert 12.9% 3.5% 16.4 148 Wiley Rein 8.6% 5.0% 13.6 125 lewis and Roca 12.0% 4.3% 16.3 149 Quarles & Brady 10.0% 3.5% 13.5 126 Phelps Dunbar 8.5% 7.7% 16.2 150 Vedder, Price 9.6% 3.6% 13.2 127 Jones Day 10.1% 6.0% 16.1 151 leClair Ryan 7.9% 5.2% 13.1 128 Bryan Cave 12.0% 4.0% 16.0 152 Ballard Spahr 9.0% 4.0% 13.0 129 Venable 9.8% 6.0% 15.8 152 Brown Rudnick 7.7% 5.3% 13.0 130 Patton Boggs 9.8% 5.9% 15.7 152 Chapman and Cutler 9.0% 4.0% 13.0 131 Buchanan Ingersoll 9.0% 6.6% 15.6 152 loeb & Loeb 9.5% 3.5% 13.0 132 Greenebaum Doll 9.4% 6.1% 15.5 152 schiff Hardin 9.5% 3.5% 13.0 132 seyfarth Shaw 11.2% 4.3% 15.5 157 Thompson Hine 7.9% 5.0% 12.9 134 snell & Wilmer 8.6% 6.8% 15.4 158 Miller & Martin 7.4% 5.1% 12.5 135 sutherland Asbill 11.7% 3.5% 15.2 159 adams and Reese 7.8% 4.4% 12.2 136 nixon Peabody 11.1% 4.0% 15.1 159 Butzel Long 6.9% 5.3% 12.2 137 Gibbons 9.5% 5.4% 14.9 159 Marshall, Dennehey 7.6% 4.6% 12.2 138 Troutman Sanders 9.3% 5.5% 14.8 162 saul Ewing 10.0% 2.1% 12.1 139 Wilson Elser 11.2% 3.5% 14.7 163 Drinker Biddle & Reath 8.7% 3.2% 11.9 139 Dechert 11.4% 3.3% 14.7 164 Barnes & Thornburg 8.1% 3.6% 11.7 141 strasburger & Price 9.0% 5.4% 14.4 164 kramer Levin 7.6% 4.1% 11.7 141 Wildman, Harrold 11.2% 3.2% 14.4 164 neal, Gerber 7.7% 4.0% 11.7 diversity scorecard old ranking would have enough minority partners to get there additional chance to improve their scores. Most firms have under the new formula: Littler Mendelson (10.5 percent many more nonpartners than partners, so the addition of a minority partners), Howrey (10.3 percent minority partners); few minority lawyers at the partnership level can have a big and Kenyon & Kenyon (10.2 percent minority partners). effect on percentages. Previously, if a firm promoted a minor- They would take the place of three firms with proportionately ity associate to partner, its overall score didn’t change. Now, fewer minority partners—Debevoise & Plimpton (6.1 percent at a 100-partner firm, a single newly promoted partner of minority partners), Simpson Thacher (3.9 percent minority color means an additional point. Or take the case of a lateral partners), and Cravath (2.3 percent minority partners)—that minority partner: If a firm with 400 lawyers, including 100 dropped between 11 and 32 places in the rankings. partners, hires one attorney of color, its overall percentage of The bottom of the new chart did not show a lot of change, minority lawyers will rise by 0.25 percent. If that lawyer is a either. Firms with few minority attorneys in general tend not partner, the percentage of minority partners rises 1 percent. to have many partners of color—so their scores would remain Total gain under our new ranking system: 1.25 points. Firms low. But in the middle, many firms would trade positions. The can still get credit for adding more lawyers of color at all biggest winners would be Irell & Manella (up 55 places to levels—but they’ll get even more credit for adding them at number 23); Akerman Senterfitt (up 42 places to number 31); more senior levels. and Shook, Hardy & Bacon (up 60 places to number 50). All The new formula for our Diversity Scorecard rankings three firms are average or below average in their overall diver- won’t be official until next year—and may be subject to fur- sity, but make up for it with far-better-than-average minority ther tweaks. We welcome your suggestions; please feel free partner percentages. to send comments to [email protected]. And in the mean- For firms that want to move up in the rankings, we think time, this might be a good year to make a few more minority the new formula will be good news, because it gives them an partners.

A NEW MEASURE OF DIVERSITY (continued)

Diversity Rank Minority Percentage Minority Percentage Total AttorneysU.S./Non–U.S. African American Asian American Hispanic American Other Minority/Multiracial diversity scorecard All U.S. Attorneys All U.S. Partners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Adams and Reese New Orleans 165 7.8% 4.4% 255/- 3/9 1/2 2/- 1/2 Akerman Senterfitt Miami 73 13.8% 12.2% 477/- 4/7 2/7 24/21 1/- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld National 32 17.5% 10.1% 963/75 12/36 10/68 10/27 1/5 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis Los Angeles 51 15.6% 4.8% 244/- 1/4 3/15 2/13 -/- Alston & Bird Atlanta 82 13.1% 5.6% 799/- 9/42 5/26 2/12 1/8 Andrews Kurth Houston 126 10.8% 7.1% 407/3 3/6 2/16 7/7 2/1 Arnold & Porter Washington, D.C. 40 16.5% 8.3% 601/38 5/32 7/32 5/17 -/1 Baker & Hostetler National 108 11.6% 7.8% 603/- 7/18 10/14 7/13 1/- Baker & McKenzie International 39 16.7% 9.7% 657/2861 5/13 17/46 10/19 -/- Baker Botts Houston 73 13.8% 8.3% 725/51 10/14 2/24 6/25 3/16 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz Memphis 187 6.7% 4.7% 535/- 8/17 1/4 3/3 -/- Balch & Bingham Birmingham 211 3.0% 1.4% 237/- 2/3 -/- -/1 -/1 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll Philadelphia 149 9.0% 4.0% 522/- 5/10 2/10 1/12 1/6 Barnes & Thornburg Indianapolis 160 8.1% 3.6% 430/- 6/13 2/11 -/1 -/2 Bass, Berry & Sims Nashville 192 6.4% 1.1% 220/- -/11 -/2 1/- -/- Best Best & Krieger Riverside, California 19 20.1% 11.5% 194/- 1/2 4/13 5/13 -/1 Bingham McCutchen National 44 15.9% 8.7% 903/84 6/18 19/63 5/23 2/8 Blackwell Sanders1 Kansas City, Missouri 181 6.9% 2.7% 346/2 4/6 1/7 -/5 -/1 Blank Rome Philadelphia 178 7.0% 2.2% 525/5 3/13 1/12 2/3 -/3 Boies, Schiller & Flexner National 61 14.9% 10.5% 221/- 2/7 2/8 5/9 -/- Bracewell & Giuliani Houston 114 11.4% 5.3% 403/18 2/15 -/8 8/13 -/- Briggs and Morgan Minneapolis 200 5.1% 2.7% 177/- 1/1 1/3 -/2 1/- Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels New York 167 7.7% 5.3% 181/16 1/3 3/6 1/- -/- Bryan Cave St. Louis 102 12.0% 4.0% 826/54 6/36 4/30 2/17 -/4 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Pittsburgh 149 9.0% 6.6% 524/- 5/9 7/13 9/3 -/1 Burr & Forman Birmingham 209 3.8% 2.7% 186/- 3/2 -/1 -/- -/1 Butzel Long Detroit 181 6.9% 5.3% 232/- 2/4 -/5 4/- 1/- Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft New York 60 15.0% 7.0% 647/83 1/15 5/52 1/19 -/4 Cahill Gordon & Reindel New York 98 12.2% 4.2% 286/4 1/7 1/16 1/8 -/1 Carlton Fields Tampa 37 16.8% 10.8% 262/- 2/9 -/1 11/16 3/2 Chadbourne & Parke New York 81 13.3% 7.4% 294/130 2/8 3/15 2/9 -/- Chapman and Cutler Chicago 149 9.0% 4.0% 221/- 3/3 1/10 1/2 -/- Choate, Hall & Stewart Boston 174 7.2% 3.4% 194/- 1/3 1/5 1/3 -/- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton New York 1 26.9% 10.4% 590/395 3/35 2/64 6/46 -/3 Cooley Godward Kronish Palo Alto 47 15.8% 4.3% 644/- -/8 6/54 3/24 -/7 Covington & Burling Washington, D.C. 50 15.7% 4.1% 586/64 5/34 -/30 2/16 -/5 Cravath, Swaine & Moore New York 6 22.5% 2.3% 493/15 1/25 1/45 -/25 -/14 Crowell & Moring Washington, D.C. 54 15.4% 8.7% 337/30 3/9 7/17 2/14 -/- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle New York 18 20.4% 19.2% 147/56 2/2 -/6 8/12 -/- DLA Piper National 64 14.5% 6.3% 1515/2203 13/50 17/85 11/31 1/11 Davis Polk & Wardwell New York 11 22.0% 9.2% 559/86 1/13 8/64 3/29 1/4 Davis Wright Tremaine Seattle 93 12.6% 6.6% 493/9 2/9 10/25 5/6 2/3 Day Pitney Hartford 95 12.4% 5.5% 364/- 2/12 3/9 3/9 1/6 Debevoise & Plimpton New York 14 20.9% 6.1% 530/178 2/27 3/49 1/26 1/2 Dechert National 114 11.4% 3.3% 857/176 3/23 2/51 2/16 -/1 Dewey & LeBoeuf National 26 18.5% 7.9% 961/412 4/36 7/79 6/31 3/12

1 Merged in February 2008 to form Husch Blackwell Sanders.

Diversity Rank Minority Percentage Minority Percentage Total AttorneysU.S./Non–U.S. African American Asian American Hispanic American Other Minority/Multiracial diversity scorecard All U.S. Attorneys All U.S. Partners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Dickinson Wright Detroit 129 10.5% 7.5% 239/- 6/8 3/2 3/1 -/2 Dickstein Shapiro Washington, D.C. 72 13.9% 5.8% 404/- 5/18 1/19 2/10 1/- Dinsmore & Shohl Cincinnati 207 4.0% 2.4% 326/- 2/6 1/3 1/- -/- Dorsey & Whitney Minneapolis 137 9.8% 8.1% 613/61 6/8 8/27 5/- 2/4 Drinker Biddle & Reath Philadelphia 154 8.7% 3.2% 669/- 6/17 -/21 2/9 1/2 Duane Morris National 148 9.1% 4.8% 602/18 8/8 7/19 3/8 1/1 Dykema Gossett Detroit 124 10.9% 7.0% 349/- 6/8 2/13 4/1 2/2 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge Boston 73 13.8% 5.6% 326/- 4/10 2/15 2/11 -/1 Epstein Becker & Green National 63 14.7% 9.1% 382/- 10/14 2/15 4/8 -/3 Faegre & Benson Minneapolis 149 9.0% 2.6% 467/49 3/10 1/16 1/6 1/4 Fennemore Craig Phoenix 110 11.5% 5.4% 191/- -/2 1/5 4/4 1/5 Fenwick & West Mountain View, California 3 23.2% 7.1% 259/- -/4 5/38 1/10 -/2 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner Washington, D.C. 24 18.6% 5.7% 333/8 3/6 4/47 -/2 -/- Fish & Richardson National 65 14.4% 5.7% 452/2 2/8 6/40 2/6 -/1 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto New York 30 18.3% 3.7% 153/- 1/2 1/22 -/2 -/- Foley & Lardner Milwaukee 124 10.9% 6.6% 1039/2 10/25 14/31 8/21 1/3 Foley Hoag Boston 119 11.1% 3.1% 235/- 2/7 1/13 -/3 -/- Ford & Harrison Atlanta 146 9.3% 7.7% 194/- 4/4 1/3 3/3 -/- Fowler White Boggs Banker Tampa 175 7.1% 3.6% 212/- 1/5 -/3 4/2 -/- Fox Rothschild Philadelphia 194 5.9% 4.2% 424/- 3/3 5/8 2/4 -/- Fredrikson & Byron Minneapolis 204 4.4% 2.4% 227/1 -/2 1/4 1/- 1/1 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson New York 44 15.9% 5.6% 535/134 2/13 2/44 2/17 1/4 Frost Brown Todd Cincinnati 199 5.3% 1.8% 359/- 1/9 -/4 2/- -/3 Fulbright & Jaworski Houston 98 12.2% 6.3% 927/47 7/34 6/26 7/23 3/7 Gardere Wynne Sewell Dallas 159 8.3% 2.4% 278/14 1/5 1/5 2/7 -/2 Gibbons Newark 142 9.5% 5.4% 220/- 2/8 1/4 2/4 -/- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher National 83 13.0% 4.0% 798/91 2/9 2/51 5/25 1/9 Godfrey & Kahn Milwaukee 175 7.1% 2.9% 197/1 1/3 1/5 1/2 -/1 Goodwin Procter Boston 89 12.8% 4.0% 819/- 3/19 6/56 3/14 -/4 Gordon & Rees San Francisco 71 14.2% 8.6% 337/- 1/4 4/8 3/19 3/6 Goulston & Storrs Boston 187 6.7% 2.9% 194/1 1/1 -/8 2/1 -/- Greenberg Traurig National 65 14.4% 8.9% 1700/66 17/41 14/60 36/73 1/2 Greenebaum Doll & McDonald Louisville 145 9.4% 6.1% 180/- -/3 2/6 2/1 2/1 Harris Beach Rochester, New York 197 5.4% 1.0% 184/- 1/4 -/3 -/1 -/1 Haynes and Boone Dallas 95 12.4% 7.7% 458/18 4/6 5/17 6/17 -/2 Heller Ehrman San Francisco 78 13.6% 6.5% 596/35 4/10 9/45 3/9 -/1 Herrick, Feinstein New York 181 6.9% 1.5% 189/- -/1 1/5 -/4 -/2 Hinshaw & Culbertson Chicago 119 11.1% 5.4% 476/- 3/11 6/10 6/12 1/4 Hogan & Hartson National 83 13.0% 6.4% 954/244 8/26 7/44 11/20 1/7 Holland & Hart Denver 162 7.9% 2.9% 369/- -/- 1/4 1/18 3/2 Holland & Knight National 67 14.3% 9.5% 1153/- 22/30 6/21 29/39 6/12 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn Detroit 181 6.9% 2.5% 232/- 3/6 -/4 1/- -/2 Howrey National 26 18.5% 10.3% 574/110 6/27 14/36 4/13 -/6 Hughes Hubbard & Reed New York 24 18.6% 7.1% 318/25 1/18 1/20 4/15 -/- Hunton & Williams Richmond 102 12.0% 6.3% 931/71 10/38 4/19 10/28 -/3 Husch & Eppenberger 2 St. Louis 210 3.5% 2.6% 288/- 2/5 1/1 1/- -/-

Diversity Rank Minority Percentage Minority Percentage Total AttorneysU.S./Non–U.S. African American Asian American Hispanic American Other Minority/Multiracial diversity scorecard All U.S. Attorneys All U.S. Partners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Ice Miller Indianapolis 197 5.4% 1.7% 260/- 2/7 -/4 -/1 -/- Irell & Manella Los Angeles 78 13.6% 13.9% 221/- 3/1 6/13 2/4 -/1 Jackson Lewis National 93 12.6% 6.7% 429/- 2/13 6/18 5/8 -/2 Jackson Walker Dallas 133 10.0% 6.8% 320/- 2/3 3/3 7/13 1/- Jenner & Block Chicago 110 11.5% 5.4% 503/- 6/9 2/28 4/6 -/3 Jones Day National 132 10.1% 6.0% 1699/668 13/38 14/68 8/28 1/1 Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrére & Denégre 178 7.0% 3.3% 228/- 2/9 -/- 2/3 -/- New Orleans Katten Muchin Rosenman Chicago 133 10.0% 4.3% 658/11 4/14 6/28 3/11 -/- Kaye Scholer New York 85 12.9% 4.9% 502/35 4/20 2/20 1/18 -/- Kelley Drye & Warren New York 41 16.4% 3.6% 365/2 -/17 3/22 2/11 -/5 Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman Charlotte 200 5.1% 2.3% 196/- 1/5 1/1 -/2 -/- Kenyon & Kenyon New York 26 18.5% 10.2% 173/- 1/4 5/19 -/3 -/- Kilpatrick Stockton Atlanta 85 12.9% 5.4% 448/33 4/29 4/9 1/5 2/4 King & Spalding Atlanta 85 12.9% 6.0% 798/33 4/48 3/27 8/11 -/2 Kirkland & Ellis National 61 14.9% 9.0% 1232/101 9/28 25/86 8/22 2/4 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis National 98 12.2% 7.0% 1163/218 11/27 18/52 8/24 1/1 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear Irvine, California 3 23.2% 14.9% 198/- -/1 14/28 -/3 -/- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel New York 169 7.6% 4.1% 341/21 1/2 3/17 -/3 -/- Lane Powell Seattle 181 6.9% 3.8% 175/- 2/4 1/3 -/- 1/1 Latham & Watkins National 17 20.7% 7.5% 1680/524 5/25 9/203 14/43 4/45 LeClair Ryan 3 Richmond 162 7.9% 5.2% 216/- 5/4 2/2 -/3 1/- Lewis and Roca Phoenix 102 12.0% 4.3% 192/- 1/2 1/6 2/7 -/4 Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith Los Angeles 47 15.8% 9.9% 603/- 5/3 10/44 17/15 1/- Littler Mendelson National 26 18.5% 10.5% 649/- 16/39 4/26 14/20 -/1 Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell 4 Dallas 91 12.7% 5.3% 716/1 7/25 5/22 4/21 2/5 Loeb & Loeb Los Angeles 142 9.5% 3.5% 284/- 2/7 3/13 -/2 -/- Lowenstein Sandler Roseland, New Jersey 119 11.1% 5.6% 271/- 2/10 -/11 3/4 -/- Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps San Diego 127 10.6% 3.7% 207/- -/3 4/11 -/4 -/- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips Los Angeles 23 19.0% 8.4% 327/- 2/11 8/25 4/9 -/3 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin Philadelphia 169 7.6% 4.6% 384/- 6/12 2/2 1/5 -/1 Mayer Brown National 67 14.3% 4.4% 1122/469 7/44 7/65 3/24 2/9 McDermott Will & Emery National 67 14.3% 8.6% 1054/133 14/25 26/58 8/18 -/2 McGuireWoods Richmond 130 10.3% 7.0% 690/25 15/23 4/19 4/5 1/- McKee Nelson New York 31 17.7% 7.8% 209/- 1/6 2/21 2/3 -/2 McKenna Long & Aldridge National 52 15.5% 6.8% 433/1 3/20 6/24 4/7 -/3 Michael Best & Friedrich Milwaukee 207 4.0% 2.8% 224/- 2/1 1/2 1/2 -/- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy New York 13 21.6% 8.8% 499/114 2/13 3/51 5/25 -/9 Miles & Stockbridge Baltimore 190 6.5% 2.6% 215/- 1/8 1/2 -/1 1/- Miller & Martin Chattanooga, Tennesee 171 7.4% 5.1% 188/- 6/7 -/- 1/- -/- Miller, Canfield, Paddock andS tone Detroit 178 7.0% 3.0% 341/37 4/12 1/5 -/1 -/1 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo Boston 119 11.1% 7.0% 476/6 6/13 4/16 5/8 -/1 Moore & Van Allen Charlotte 187 6.7% 4.2% 284/- 1/10 1/1 4/1 -/1 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius National 54 15.4% 6.6% 1245/96 9/37 14/84 6/40 -/2 Morris, Manning & Martin Atlanta 140 9.6% 7.2% 167/- 3/7 2/3 -/- 1/- Morrison & Foerster San Francisco 9 22.2% 9.4% 967/200 6/22 17/118 7/41 -/4 2 Merged in February 2008 to form Husch Blackwell Sanders. 3 Submitted numbers as of January 1, 2008. 4 Submitted numbers as of October 10 to reflect demographics following the merger of Locke Liddell & Sapp and Lord, Bissell & Brook on October 2, 2007.

Diversity Rank Minority Percentage Minority Percentage Total AttorneysU.S./Non–U.S. African American Asian American Hispanic American Other Minority/Multiracial diversity scorecard All U.S. Attorneys All U.S. Partners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Partners/Nonpartners Munger, Tolles & Olson Los Angeles 14 20.9% 13.6% 182/- 2/2 8/15 2/9 -/- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg Chicago 167 7.7% 4.0% 196/- 2/2 1/7 2/1 -/- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough Columbia, South Carolina 172 7.3% 3.7% 409/- 4/15 3/5 -/1 1/1 Nixon Peabody National 119 11.1% 4.0% 728/3 4/26 6/25 4/12 -/4 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart Greenville, South 105 11.9% 8.1% 411/- 12/15 3/7 2/10 -/- Carolina O’Melveny & Myers Los Angeles 20 19.4% 8.6% 857/131 3/19 10/81 4/35 2/12 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe National 5 22.8% 9.8% 747/303 4/23 15/91 3/28 2/4 Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein Charlotte 160 8.1% 3.1% 223/- 1/9 -/2 1/2 1/2 Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler New York 42 16.3% 3.4% 178/- 1/5 -/21 1/1 -/- Patton Boggs Washington, D.C. 137 9.8% 5.9% 519/8 7/14 -/9 4/10 2/5 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker National 44 15.9% 8.7% 940/239 5/24 9/72 8/26 1/4 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison New York 10 22.1% 9.6% 665/32 3/45 5/71 2/18 -/3 Pepper Hamilton Philadelphia 165 7.8% 3.0% 514/- 3/17 3/15 -/1 -/1 Perkins Coie Seattle 110 11.5% 6.4% 659/2 5/7 12/40 3/6 1/2 Phelps Dunbar New Orleans 158 8.5% 7.7% 259/- 7/12 -/- 2/1 -/- Phillips Lytle Buffalo 206 4.1% 0.0% 171/- -/4 -/1 -/2 -/- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman National 36 17.1% 9.3% 806/16 6/26 16/64 6/17 2/1 Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus Kansas City, Missouri 154 8.7% 1.6% 312/- 1/14 1/9 -/- -/2 Powell Goldstein Atlanta 105 11.9% 6.3% 260/- 4/15 -/6 1/1 3/1 Quarles & Brady Milwaukee 133 10.0% 3.5% 472/- 4/7 2/14 3/14 -/3 Reed Smith National 73 13.8% 6.4% 1053/414 9/22 19/68 3/23 -/1 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Minneapolis 57 15.2% 7.2% 250/- 4/9 2/12 1/6 -/4 Ropes & Gray Boston 52 15.5% 7.5% 883/4 4/15 13/91 2/12 -/- Ruden McClosky Fort Lauderdale 34 17.4% 6.1% 178/10 2/8 1/3 3/13 -/1 Saul Ewing Philadelphia 133 10.0% 2.1% 269/- 1/11 1/8 1/5 -/- Schiff Hardin Chicago 142 9.5% 3.5% 400/- 5/15 2/13 1/1 -/1 Schulte Roth & Zabel New York 21 19.2% 6.4% 452/13 -/18 3/47 2/10 -/7 Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold San Francisco 85 12.9% 3.5% 395/12 1/6 1/29 1/11 1/1 Seyfarth Shaw National 116 11.2% 4.3% 751/2 2/31 8/24 2/15 2/- Shearman & Sterling International 22 19.1% 7.3% 498/431 1/19 6/61 1/7 -/- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton Los Angeles 95 12.4% 5.4% 469/4 4/6 2/27 4/14 -/1 Shook, Hardy & Bacon Kansas City, Missouri 110 11.5% 11.9% 514/9 7/13 3/7 9/16 3/1 Shutts & Bowen Miami 59 15.1% 11.2% 192/1 1/2 1/1 12/12 -/- Sidley Austin National 32 17.5% 7.2% 1558/258 10/64 26/129 5/35 1/3 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett New York 11 22.0% 3.9% 745/94 2/30 3/79 1/38 -/11 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom National 37 16.8% 6.4% 1686/326 7/75 9/135 9/46 -/3 Smith, Gambrell & Russell Atlanta 175 7.1% 2.2% 183/1 1/4 1/6 -/1 -/- Snell & Wilmer Phoenix 156 8.6% 6.8% 431/- -/- 2/10 11/13 -/1 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal National 77 13.7% 7.7% 666/3 7/16 14/26 3/15 3/7 Steptoe & Johnson Washington, D.C. 89 12.8% 7.0% 429/39 2/12 5/20 3/10 1/2 Stinson Morrison Hecker Kansas City, Missouri 202 4.9% 1.8% 366/- 2/4 1/7 -/3 1/- Stites & Harbison Louisville 190 6.5% 0.8% 278/- 1/11 -/4 -/1 -/1 Strasburger & Price Dallas 149 9.0% 5.4% 178/1 1/2 2/1 3/6 -/1 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan New York 67 14.3% 4.9% 363/- -/9 1/21 4/14 -/3 Sullivan & Cromwell New York 34 17.4% 5.4% 540/153 1/18 -/50 6/10 -/9

DEFINING DIVERSITY

METHODOLOGY—We surveyed 254 of the largest and highest-grossing attorneys. The heading “other minority” includes Native Americans and those firms in the country. We included the 250 biggest firms as ranked by The attorneys who said they were multiracial. Unless noted otherwise, all figures National Law Journal, as well as four firms that made The American Law- are as of September 30, 2007. yer’s Am Law 200 but didn’t make the NLJ 250. (The National Law Journal Our view is that ethnic diversity is defined first and foremost in American and The American Lawyer are both sibling publications of Minority Law terms. When you ask whether a firm is achieving ethnic diversity, you’re asking Journal.) A total of 211 firms reported ethnic data for this year’s Scorecard. how well it’s doing in hiring minority Americans. In the past, several firms had Firms are identified by the office with the largest concentration of attor- difficulty accurately reporting the citizenship of all their attorneys. For this neys. If a firm has no more than 45 percent of its attorneys in one region, it reason, we’ve changed our methodology this year. We asked firms to count is considered national. If more than 40 percent of the attorneys are located only their minority attorneys who are employed in U.S. offices. Then we divide outside the United States, the firm is designated international. that number by the number of attorneys at the firm who are employed in the Partner statistics include both equity and nonequity partners. Nonpartner U.S. The result gives the percentage of a firm’s U.S. attorneys who are mem- figures include associates as well as special counsel, of counsel, and other staff bers of ethnic minorities.

nonrespondents—The following firms did not report ethnic data: Arent Fox; Armstrong Teasdale; Baker & Daniels; Bell, Boyd & Lloyd; Bradley Arant Rose & White; Broad and Cassel; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck; Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs; Calfee, Halter & Griswold; Cozen O’Connor; Dow Lohnes; Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott; Fisher & Phillips; Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy; GrayRobinson; Hiscock & Barclay; Hodgson Russ; Holme Roberts & Owen; Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro; Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman; Kutak Rock; Lathrop & Gage; Leonard, Street and Deinard; Lindquist & Ven- num; McCarter & English; McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter; Porter Wright Morris & Arthur; Proskauer Rose; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges; Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren; Robinson & Cole; Roetzel & Andress; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis; Shughart Thomson & Kilroy; Sills Cummis & Gross; Squire, Sanders & Dempsey; Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC; Stevens & Lee; Stoel Rives; Taft Stettinius & Hollister; Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease; Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis; Warner Norcross & Judd.