Careers in Comparison

The 2016 Black Alumni Survey was designed to be comparable to a series of other CLP career study projects. First, and most notably, the 2016 survey is a direct follow-up to the 2000 HLS Black Alumni Survey, in most cases utilizing identical questions.⁶ As we discuss in more detail, because the survey questionnaires are largely identical, we can compare the responses of the more recent black HLS graduates with those of their predecessors, as well as observe how the careers of pre-2000 graduates have continued to change over time. The 2016 survey also allows us to capture the critical changes that have occurred since 2000, including the election of Obama, the nation’s first black president, who is also an HLS graduate. The 2016 survey therefore includes a set of questions not present in the 2000 version, most notably on the impact the Obama presidency has had on the legal profession.

Second, the 2016 (and 2000) black alumni questionnaire shares many similar characteristics with the Harvard Law School Career Study (HLSCS), which surveyed four HLS classes: those of 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2000. Conducted in 2010 by the CLP, the HLSCS focused primarily on how gender affected the professional and personal choices of HLS graduates; the full results of the study were published in 2015 in The Women and Men of Harvard Law School: Preliminary Results from the HLS Career Study.⁷ It is important to note that due to data limitations, specifically the relatively low response rate of minority students from the target classes, the HLSCS did not systematically address race-based issues. However, given the high comparability of the questionnaire with the 2000 and 2016 black alumni surveys, in the sections that follow, we can compare the experiences of black HLS graduates with those of the school’s alumni more generally.

Finally, the results of the 2016 survey are comparable to what is known about black lawyers’ careers nationally, including results from the After the JD (AJD) study.⁸ AJD is a longitudinal study that tracks the professional lives of more than four thousand lawyers who entered the bar in or around the year 2000. The first wave of the study, AJD 1, was conducted in 2002–2003 and provides information about the personal and professional lives of AJD respondents two to three years after passing the bar. The second wave of the study, AJD 2, was conducted in 2007–2008 and provides data about the same respondents seven to eight years into their careers. The third and final wave, AJD 3, was conducted in 2011–2012 and provides data on these same respondents ten to twelve years into their careers. AJD findings, along with other sources of publicly available data, allow us to draw comparisons between the experiences of black HLS graduates and a national population of black lawyers.

Data and Methods: Black Alumni Survey II

Our survey sample includes 687 black HLS graduates, representing 31 percent of those surveyed.⁹ For the purposes of this analysis, we focused exclusively on graduates with a JD (including joint degrees). This is due primarily to the low responses rates from LLM and SJD students, as well as the likely difference between the careers of this group and those of graduates with JDs.

As an additional check on the representativeness of our data, we conducted an analysis of respondents and nonrespondents using information from HLS records on black enrollment by cohorts and gender. Based on this analysis, and to account for any differences between the population and the survey responses, data was weighted for each cohort by gender. This weighting allows us to reach conclusions from our sample that are more representative of the population as a whole.

The majority of tables contain the following structure:

1. An overall column (shaded gray), which signifies all respondents in the sample
2. Male and female columns, which signify the responses from male and female respondents, respectively, from across the entire sample
3. Pre- and post-2000 era columns, which signify the responses from those who graduated from HLS on each side of the new millennium; those who graduated in 2000 are included in the post-2000 era

It is important to note that despite containing graduates from similar years, the pre-2000 era is distinct from the sample contained in the 2000 Celebration of Black Alumni (CBA) report, which surveyed black HLS graduates through 1999. While we refer to the original CBA report in our discussion, the individuals contained in the 2000 survey are not necessarily the same individuals contained in the pre-2000 era grouping of the 2016 survey. In addition, those pre-2000 graduates who participated in both surveys were at a different stage in their career when they filled out the 2016 survey. Both of these factors help explain why some of the findings contained in the full report for those in the pre-2000 era may differ from what was reported in 2000. For the sake of brevity, decade-based cohort breakdowns are not displayed. These breakdowns were, however, produced, and we refer to them when they contain important findings.

We also performed statistical significance testing on many tables. An indication of p < .05—denoted by * in the tables and figures in this chapter—means that we can be 95 percent confident that the observed difference between the variables in question reflects a true difference in the underlying population and not simply a sampling error. An indication of p < .01—denoted by ** in the tables and figures—means that we can be 99 percent confident that the observed difference between variables reflects such a true difference. The standard minimum confidence level for statistical significance for research of this kind is 95 percent.

Significance testing was run to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between men and women, between decade-based cohorts, and between eras. For example, do men present differently from women, or does the pre-2000 era differ from the post-2000 era? We have not yet conducted significant testing or other forms of regression analysis to determine whether there are interaction effects between these various groups—for example, differences between pre-2000 men and post-2000 women.

Finally, sums may not tally exactly to 100 percent due to rounding. Also, seven respondents did not identify their gender and therefore have been excluded from comparisons between men and women, but their answers have otherwise been counted in the response totals for all other purposes.

Law School Enrollment

We start our story at law school, where the ratio of black women to black men at HLS has increased significantly since gender and race numbers were first tracked in the 1980s (table 4-1). In decade-based cohort terms, more than half (54.8 percent) of the 1980s cohort were black men at HLS. With the 2000s cohort, that number had dropped to 40.2 percent. By comparison, the percentage of black women at HLS was just under half (45.2 percent) for the 1980s cohort; however, with the 2000s cohort, it had ballooned to 59.9 percent. This trend continues and appears to be accelerating for the yet-unfinished 2010s cohort, where the percentage of women has increased to 64 percent. Put differently, in the 2010s, nearly two out of every three black students at HLS were women.

Moreover, between 2000 and 2016, in every individual class (as separate from the decade-based cohorts just discussed) apart from 2012, the percentage of black women at HLS was substantially higher than the percentage of black men (table 4-2). Indeed, looking further back in data not shown here, apart from the classes of 1992 and 2012, black women have outnumbered black men in every individual HLS class since gender records have been kept.¹⁰

HLS is not alone in having higher percentages of black women than men. For instance, at Howard University School of Law, which has graduated more black lawyers than any other school, nearly two-thirds of its black students are women. National data also supports this finding. According to 2009–2013 American Bar Association data on full-time JD enrollment across all association-approved law schools, black women make up, on average, 61 percent of all black law students and black men, 39 percent. Black students constitute just 7.4 percent of all law students. Therefore, black women represent nearly two-thirds of all black law students across the United States.

It should be noted that the higher proportion of black female law students tracks a more general trend of increased gender parity at law schools, both at HLS and nationally. At HLS, the class of 1975 was 85 percent male and 15 percent female. In 2013, it was 52.4 percent male and 47.6 percent female. For the class of 2019, women outnumber men at time of enrollment—51 percent to 49 percent. Nationally, in 2016, the number of women JD students at American Bar Association–accredited schools was higher than that of men—55,766 to 55,059, with female first-year law students representing 51 percent of new students and male first-year law students 48.6 percent. This trend is not limited to the United States. In Norway, women now make up 64 percent of graduating law school classes and have made up more than 60 percent for more than a decade.¹¹ The case is similar in many other countries around the world. Thus, the fact that black women outnumber black men is not necessarily surprising, given the more general increase in the number of women going to law school. Nevertheless, three points should be stressed.

First, as figure 4-1 illustrates, while black women continue to outnumber black men at HLS, there has been a steep decline in the overall number of black students at the school since 2013, with a 3 percent drop between 2015 and 2016. This decline affects both black men and black women; however, in the most recent years, the greatest drop in numbers is among black women (perhaps due to their greater starting numbers). More research must be done to determine what is driving this drop at HLS.

Second, law schools and those in the profession need to be cognizant of the gender gap when it comes to black law students and, in particular, the increasingly low numbers of black men entering the profession.

Finally, precisely because substantially higher numbers of black women are graduating from law school, the profession has a serious problem as they face significant challenges arising from their race, their gender, and the intersection between the two in building successful and meaningful careers. We turn to examine this issue and the careers of black women lawyers on the basis of our survey data.

First Jobs Post-HLS

As table 4-3 illustrates, the overwhelming majority of black HLS graduates—71.9 percent—entered private practice for their first job post-HLS. This trend holds across eras, with 72.2 percent of pre-2000 graduates entering private practice as their first job post-HLS and 71.5 percent from the post-2000 era. These percentages are slightly higher than the 68 percent of black graduates who reported beginning their careers in this sector in our 2000 report. It is also marginally greater than the percentage of all HLS alumni reported in the HLSCS, which found that, across all cohorts in the sample, 61 percent went to a private firm as their first job post-HLS. Finally, as reported here, the percentage of black HLS graduates beginning their careers in private practice is substantially higher than the percentage reported in AJD 1, where only 57.3 percent of black lawyers were working in private law firms of any size two to three years into their careers.

When a gender variable is added, the picture becomes more complicated. Overall, male and female respondents reported entering the private sector at largely the same rate (71.2 percent of men and 72.8 percent of women). However, this overall similarity masks some interesting cohort and era differences. In the 1970s, the percentage of men entering private practice (69.6 percent) was higher than the corresponding percentage of women (40 percent). By the 1980s, however, these percentages had flipped, with 72.2 percent of men entering private practice, as compared with 85.7 percent of women in this cohort. These percentages held stable for the 1990s, with 73.7 percent of men and 85.6 percent of women entering private practice, before arriving at virtual parity for the 2000s cohort (71.9 percent men, 70.9 percent women) and then switching back to the pattern of the 1970s, where men outnumber women in private practice (this time by 82.1 percent to 63.5 percent) in the partial 2010 cohort.

The fact that the percentage of women entering private practice as their first job out of law school exceeds the comparable percentage for men is consistent with what we found in the first black alumni survey in 2000. As we reported in the study, 72 percent of the women in our sample began their careers in private practice, as compared with only 64 percent of men—a gap that was even larger (81 percent to 64 percent) for the 1990s cohort. Viewed from this perspective, the results for the post-2000 era in our current survey constitute a significant development.

Although our data does not allow us to explain these shifting patterns fully, the fact that the percentage of women who started their careers in government in the 1970s was more than three times greater than the percentage of men who did so (25 percent to 7.2 percent), while the percentage of men entering this sector is greater than the percentage of women for every other cohort except for 2010 (where no men went directly into government service), undoubtedly plays a role. At the same time, the percentage of men who began their careers in businesses where they were not practicing law is almost three times that for women whose first job was in this sector, although the percentage of women who started their careers this way has increased nearly tenfold (from 0.6 percent to 5.6 percent) between the pre- and post-2000 eras.

With respect to those entering the public interest and legal services sectors as their first jobs out of law school, the picture looks similar to what we found in 2000. In the 2000 survey, approximately 9 percent of our sample was initially employed across these two sectors. This is almost identical to the 8.6 percent of respondents whose initial job was public interest or legal services in our current sample. Moreover, there is virtually no difference between the pre- and post-2000 eras on this point, with 8.9 percent of pre-2000 era respondents and 10.5 percent of post-2000 respondents initially joining this sector.

Given all the changes in the world during the six decades covered by this study—including changes in the cost of HLS and the introduction of programs specifically designed to boost the percentage of students going into public interest and legal services—the consistency of these percentages suggests that other factors besides student debt and law school programs are influencing whether graduates begin their careers in these fields. Having said this, women continue to be more likely to start their careers in public interest and legal services jobs than men—a difference that, unlike what we found in 2000, where the difference between women and men starting in these areas had largely disappeared by the 1990s cohort, does not appear to be going away, according to our new study. This is particularly true with respect to public interest, as, shockingly, none of the men in the post-2000 era who responded to our survey began their careers in this sector.

Firm Size, First Job Post-HLS

For those black graduates who began their careers in private practice, the overwhelming majority did so by joining large law firms, with 82 percent in firms with more than 100 lawyers and 61.7 percent in firms of 251 or more lawyers (table 4-4). There is a significant cohort and era effect, with more than 92 percent of the post-2000 era starting in large law firms (82.6 percent in firms of 251 or more lawyers). Results are parallel to the 2000 report and the HLSCS.

As we found in 2000, black women are significantly more likely than men to begin their careers in the largest law firms, with 70 percent of women joining firms of 251 lawyers or more and only 53.3 percent of men joining firms of the same size—a highly statistically significant difference. Moreover, this gender difference is increasing over time. In the 1990s cohort, roughly equal percentages of women and men joined law firms of 251 or more lawyers (similar to what we found in 2000). For post-2000 era graduates, however, women joined such firms at significantly higher percentages than men (87.5 percent women versus 76.2 percent men). It is important to note that these percentages are the inverse of those in national studies such as the AJD, where black women are shown to be significantly less likely than black men to start their careers in private firms.

The fact that black women are both graduating law school at higher rates than black men and starting their careers in the largest law firms at higher rates than black men is important context as we examine the percentages of black women who remain in private practice, obtain partnership, and enter firm leadership.

Current Jobs

Overall, our data shows a dramatic migration out of private practice and into other employment sectors—71.9 percent (first job in private practice) to 26.6 percent (current)—a 63 percent decrease (figure 4-2). While this finding confirms what we know about lawyers’ careers over time, it should be stressed that black HLS graduates—both men and women—migrate out of private practice at much higher rates than both white and black lawyers nationally. Thus, the AJD study found that 38 percent of black lawyers in private practice in AJD 1 had left the sector by AJD 3—10 percent more than the 28 percent of white lawyers who did so, but a full 22 percent below our finding here.

This, of course, raises the question of where black HLS graduates are migrating to when they leave private practice. Again, our data confirms what we know about HLS and national legal careers more generally. The largest movement was toward business (practicing law)—from 1.6 percent initially to 14.9 percent for current jobs. There was also significant migration into government (7.2 percent to 17.5 percent), education (2 percent to 12.1 percent), public interest (4.7 percent to 6.9 percent), and business (not practicing law) (6.9 percent to 10.1 percent). Legal services (2.4 percent to 2.2 percent) remained relatively stable.

Adding in the gender variable, male respondents were significantly more likely to remain in private practice (33.8 percent) and business (not practicing law) (12.9 percent) as compared with female respondents (19.6 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively) (table 4-5). This difference is statistically significant. These trends remained true across the pre- and post-2000 eras. Thus, while both men and women migrate out of practice over time, women do so at greater rates than their male colleagues. Men are also more likely to be in business (not practicing law) than women. Both findings are supported by the HLSCS and the AJD study, offering evidence that these trends hold for black and nonblack populations.

At the same time, both in the aggregate and across the pre- and post-2000 eras, female respondents were more likely to be in public interest (10.4 percent) and legal services (4.4 percent) at the time of the survey than their male colleagues (3.4 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively). Women were also represented at higher rates (14.3 percent) than men (9.9 percent) in education.

Firm Size, Current Job

For those respondents who reported being in private practice for their current jobs, we see a distinct shift regarding the size of their firms relative to the size of firms reported for first jobs post-HLS. The majority of both male and female respondents who went into private law practice right out of law school joined firms of 251 or more lawyers, with only 7.6 percent going into firms with 2–50 lawyers and less than 1 percent into solo practice. By contrast, the firm size of respondents who reported currently being in private practice was bimodal (table 4-6). On the one hand, 49.4 percent reported working at firms of 251 or more lawyers. On the other hand, almost an equal percentage (41.3 percent) reported that they were either in solo practice (13 percent) or in a firm of 2–50 lawyers (28.3 percent).

This pattern is largely the result of age, with a higher percentage of respondents from older cohorts reporting that they were in solo practices or small firms, while those from more recent cohorts report being in the large law firms where they typically began their careers. Thus, respondents from the 1970s were heavily skewed toward solo practice and smaller firms (27.8 percent in solo practice and 50 percent in firms with 2–50 lawyers). The 2010s cohort, by contrast, reported 73.4 percent in firms of 251 or more lawyers, although the 23.2 percent in firms of 2–50 is still greater than the percentage of this cohort who started out in firms of that size. The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s cohorts generally follow this pattern, which is clear from the era-based differences.

Respondents from the pre-2000 era reported being in solo practice 24.9 percent of the time and at firms with 2–50 lawyers 33.9 percent of the time—for a combined percentage of 58.8 percent. By contrast, 69.8 percent of respondents in the post-2000 era reported being in firms of 251 or more lawyers. All these differences are highly statistically significant.

Law Firm Partnership

Nationally, black lawyers of both genders continue to be underrepresented in large law firms, particularly among the partners in these institutions. Available data from the National Association of Law Placement underscores the extent of the problem. Thus, the average black partnership rate between 2005 and 2016 is just 1.7 percent, with a peak of 1.81 percent in 2016 and a low of 1.55 percent in 2005. As dreary as these percentages are, those pertaining to black female partners in these institutions are even worse. In 2016, for example, African American women constituted just 0.64 percent of all partners in the National Association of Law Placement sample, up only slightly from the 0.59 percent of black female partners reported in 2006. One of the goals of the survey project is to see whether black HLS graduates are doing better than the picture painted by these bleak statistics.

There are reasons to believe that black HLS graduates may indeed be more likely to become partners in law firms than these averages suggest. As indicated earlier, more black HLS graduates begin their careers in large law firms than what data from the AJD study suggests is true for black graduates nationally. Moreover, a study of all black partners listed in the 1992–1993 edition of the American Bar Association’s Directory of Partners at Majority/Corporate Law Firms indicated that nearly half (47 percent) of all the black partners listed obtained their law degrees from either Harvard or Yale, with more than three-quarters (77 percent) having attended one of the country’s twelve most prestigious law schools as ranked by U.S. News and World Report.¹² Anecdotal reports from interviews with black lawyers underscore that attending HLS or another similarly elite school dramatically improves a black lawyer’s chances of succeeding in a large law firm—or any other sector of the legal profession.¹³

Data from our 2000 survey provided additional support for the hypothesis that black HLS graduates are making partner in larger numbers than the overall statistics cited earlier would suggest. In that study, we found that among those who were in private practice at the time of the survey, 42 percent were partners, with 37 percent reporting being equity partners. That study also revealed, however, that in one important respect the careers of black HLS graduates appeared to mirror national trends: controlling for cohort, black men were far more likely than black women to report being partners. For example, among those in the 1980s cohort who were still in private practice, 74 percent of men reported being equity partners, as compared with only 48 percent of women—although this latter percentage is still large compared to the negligible percentage of all equity partners who are African American women nationally.

Our current survey echoes these prior findings. Of respondents still in private practice at the time of the survey, 40.4 percent reported being either equity or nonequity partners in law firms (table 4-7). Not surprisingly, there is a significant era impact, with only 8.9 percent of respondents in the post-2000 era reporting being partners, compared to a stunning 72.8 percent of those in the pre-2000 era.

There is also a strong gender effect, with male respondents more than 1.5 times more likely to be made partner (47.3 percent) than female respondents (28.6 percent), suggesting that whatever the firm size, black women continue to be especially disadvantaged by the partnership process. This is particularly troubling to the extent that the majority of black law graduates are women, and black men and women are entering law firms at largely the same rate (indeed, black women at a slightly higher rate than black men) for their first jobs post-HLS.

Moreover, in assessing these findings, it is important to remember that while many in the pre-2000 era may be partners, a significant percentage of these lawyers are likely to be partners in small or midsize firms. As we indicate shortly, a large number of the black graduates who begin their careers at the largest law firms end up leaving well before they become eligible for partnership. This impacts the foregoing finding in two important respects.

First, although the percentage of respondents from the pre-2000 era who remained in private practice and reported being partners is quite high (and considerably higher than the 42 percent who reported being partners in our 2000 survey), the actual number of lawyers in this category is relatively small since, as we also indicate later, many of the lawyers have left the private sector and now work in jobs in the public sector or have left the workforce entirely. Of the 369 lawyers in our sample who started their careers in private practice, fewer than one-third (120) were still in private practice at the time that we asked them about their current jobs.

Second, of those who were still in private practice at the time of our survey, many had migrated to small and midsize firms where they have become partners, often equity partners. As table 4-6 indicates, of those currently in private practice, 44.4 percent are in law firms with fewer than 100 lawyers, with 41.3 percent in firms of 50 lawyers or fewer. As a result, the high partnership percentages do not necessarily tell the whole story about whether black HLS graduates are making partner in large law firms in significantly greater numbers than black graduates from other law schools.

Overall partnership levels also mask important differences in the power, prestige, and pay garnered by partners who have equity in the firm and those who do not. To test whether black partners were disproportionately represented in the nonequity category, we asked those who reported that they were partners whether they had equity in their law firms (table 4-8). Nearly three-quarters (73.9 percent) answered yes, describing themselves as equity partners in their firms. Although obviously high, this percentage is still nearly 10 points below the 82 percent of HLS graduates as a whole who reported being equity partners in the HLSCS. Interestingly, a higher percentage of female respondents reported being equity partners (40.1 percent) than male respondents (21.1 percent); however, this difference was not found to be statistically significant, primarily because the overall number of black equity partners (thirty-three) is so small.

Firm Management

As we reported in the HLSCS, research on the legal profession makes clear that in today’s law firms, making partner is just the beginning of a new competition to become a “partner with power” within the organization.¹⁴ To that end, we asked respondents who indicated that they had been an equity partner in a law firm at any point in their career whether they had been actively involved in the management of their firm (e.g., served on a firm committee or in a leadership role, such as department chair or office head), and if so, on which committees and in which roles (e.g., member of the compensation committee, chair of the diversity committee, or office managing partner). As indicated earlier, the number of respondents eligible to respond to these questions—those who had ever been equity partners—is relatively small, with most coming from the pre-2000 era. Nevertheless, even with these caveats, the results are instructive. Overall, nearly 80 percent of respondents indicated that they were involved in firm management at some point in their careers.

A similarly large percentage of respondents reported serving on one of the eight common law firm committees—management, compensation, recruiting, associate evaluation, work assignment, diversity, ethics or conflicts, and pro bono—that we identified in the survey. Although the highest percentage of respondents reported serving on the recruiting committee (81 percent), which is not considered to be an especially powerful committee in most law firms, a significant percentage reported serving on committees that are widely considered among the most important in law firms, including the management committee (71.6 percent) and the compensation committee (62.1 percent). Indeed, a far greater percentage of respondents reported serving on these important committees than on committees such as diversity (58.5 percent), ethics or conflicts (32 percent), and pro bono (25.4 percent), which, though undoubtedly important, are not thought to produce important career advantages.

Moreover, of those who served on the most important committees, a very high percentage reported that they had at one time been the committee’s chair. Thus, 62.1 percent of those who had ever served on the management committee and 47.2 percent of those who had ever served on a compensation committee reported that at some point they served as that committee’s chair. When one adds the fact that nearly two-thirds of respondents (64 percent) reported serving as either a department chair or the firm’s managing partner, it appears that black HLS graduates have managed to break through the “concrete ceiling” that so many black lawyers have found in large law firms.

But just as was true with the partnership rates discussed earlier, these percentages are likely to mask important differences. As indicated, many of those in our sample who have become equity partners have done so in small and midsize firms. As a result, many of those who report having served in leadership positions are likely to have done so in smaller firms. However, three pioneers, all from HLS, have broken through the concrete ceiling by becoming managing partners of top law firms: John W. Daniels Jr., managing partner of Quarles & Brady, 2007–2013 (currently chair emeritus); Benjamin F. Wilson, managing partner (2007–present) and chair (2017–present) of Beveridge & Diamond; and Maurice Watson, chair of Husch Blackwell (2012–2018).

Moreover, regardless of firm size, the overall percentage of black lawyers in leadership positions obscures very significant differences between the opportunities and experiences of men and women in virtually every leadership category we investigated. Our survey found that 92 percent of all black HLS graduates to ever serve as managing partner or as a department head have been men. Similarly, 79.1 percent of those reporting that they have been on the management committee and 89.3 percent of those reporting having served on the compensation committee are male. Indeed, these percentages hold for every committee we identified—and become even more skewed toward men with respect to leadership on committees. For example, 87.5 percent of all those reporting that they have chaired the management committee are men. Clearly, the disadvantages faced by black women attempting to move into leadership positions in law firms apply even to women who have obtained a prestigious law degree from HLS.

Job Changes

In addition to looking at mobility generally, the survey also attempts to track whether black HLS graduates are changing sectors as well as jobs. To investigate this question, we looked at the current jobs of all the lawyers who started their careers in private practice (consisting of solo practice and law firms of all sizes) and public service (including government, public interest, and legal services). Of particular interest for this chapter are those who started in private practice.

As table 4-9 demonstrates, only 28.5 percent of all black HLS graduates who started their careers in private practice were still working in that sector at the time of the survey. This is down dramatically from the 71.9 percent of our sample who began their career in this sector. Not surprisingly, there is a large era effect, with 40.7 percent of post-2000 graduates remaining in private practice, as compared to only 20.8 percent of those who graduated in the pre-2000 era, a difference that is statistically significant at the highest confidence level. Interestingly, this latter figure is also much lower than the 39 percent of graduates who started their careers in private practice who were still in this sector as of the time of our first survey in 2000, suggesting that older cohorts have continued to move out of private practice since we conducted that initial investigation.

For the more than two-thirds of respondents no longer in private practice, the most common destination for their current employment was business (practicing law), which typically means in-house legal departments (17.7 percent). This result, which holds relatively constant across both eras and cohorts (with the exception of the partial 2010 cohort, of which, not surprisingly, relatively few have moved into in-house legal departments), reflects the general trend found both in the AJD study and in the HLSCS of lawyers moving from private practice to positions in corporate legal departments. It is also consistent with what we found in 2000, where 18 percent had moved from private practice into in-house legal departments. The pattern of movement from private practice to other areas (e.g., public interest, education, or business) remains remarkably stable between the 2000 and 2016 surveys, with the exception of business (not practicing law)—a category that encompasses everything from investment banking to selling insurance, although black HLS graduates are more likely to be doing the former than the latter—which actually declined as a destination of those starting out in private practice from 14 percent in 2000 to 8.6 percent in 2016.

Again there are, however, important gender differences that underscore the difficulties faced by women in general, and black women in particular, in private practice. The survey found that men are much more likely than women to still be working in private practice at the time of the survey (36 percent versus 20.9 percent), a difference that is highly statistically significant. The fact that barely 20 percent of all the black HLS women who started out in private practice remain in this sector as their current jobs will certainly come as bad news for those who seek to increase the diversity of large law firms. Conversely, black women who started work in private practice are significantly more likely than their black male counterparts to be currently working in the public interest sector (8.6 percent versus 2.8 percent), providing further support for the view that women are more likely than men to be involved in various kinds of public service, a finding supported by the HLSCS.

Race and Career Advancement

Both scholars seeking to study the legal profession and activists seeking to improve it have long struggled to understand how race affects legal careers. To investigate this critical issue, we asked questions designed to explore different avenues in which race might affect career opportunities for black lawyers. More specifically, we asked respondents to rank a set of factors internal to the workplace (table 4-10) and in the external environment (table 4-11) that other studies have suggested may influence career opportunities for black lawyers. With respect to both questions, respondents ranked the factors listed on a seven-point scale, where 1 is “not important at all” and 7 is “extremely important.”

Table 4-10 examines the interaction of race with several issues that are common to the typical legal workplace. As an initial matter, this table confirms the view that the issues black HLS lawyers believe to be most important to their careers are similar to what research tells us is important to the advancement of any lawyer’s career.¹⁵ Thus, black HLS graduates ranked having an influential mentor or sponsor and gaining access to difficult or prestigious assignments as the two most important factors in their career success, and the only factors that crossed the line into being “extremely important” on our seven-point scale. Table 4-10 also underscores, however, that there are internal areas where black HLS graduates believe that race plays a distinct role in their career advancement—areas that are seen differently by women and men, and by black lawyers in the pre-2000 era and those in the post-2000 era.

With respect to gender, black HLS men were significantly more conscious about “not making mistakes,” while black HLS women were significantly more focused on the “quality” of their work, concentrating on the necessity of doing higher-quality work than their white counterparts rather than simply avoiding mistakes. Female respondents were also acutely aware of the social dimensions of their jobs, paying significantly more attention than their male counterparts to networking with other black professionals, practicing in a racially diverse community, and socializing with their white peers.

There were also interesting differences across eras. Black lawyers from the post-2000 period ranked having an influential mentor or sponsor and socializing with white peers as important at higher levels than their pre-2000 counterparts—though both view these factors as key. Those in the pre-2000 cohort, on the other hand, are more focused on getting access to difficult assignments and not making mistakes. Although admittedly speculative, these results are consistent with the view expressed by many scholars and diversity advocates that the battleground has shifted from combating pervasive stereotypes about black intellectual inferiority (through, among other things, doing difficult assignments and not making mistakes) to being able to “fit in” with white coworkers who can sponsor one’s career.¹⁶

Table 4-11 applies this same kind of analysis to a range of factors external to the workplace. As this table starkly demonstrates, the most important factor that has affected the careers of the black HLS graduates in our sample is the law school’s prestige. This “H-bomb effect,” as one of the study’s coauthors has heard countless black alumni refer to the benefit of their HLS degree, is the only factor that rises above neutrality among the list of things commonly mentioned by scholars and career counselors as being career enhancing. Even connections with HLS alumni—including black alumni—barely registers as an important career-building factor among black HLS alumni. Interestingly, while employer diversity initiatives do come close to being viewed as “moderately important” by respondents, client- and bar association–sponsored initiatives and government “set aside” programs were not. This view that formal diversity and affirmative action programs have not played a significant role in advancing the careers of the black HLS graduates in our survey is consistent across eras, cohorts, and gender, and is very similar to what we found in 2000. These findings provide support for the work done by Frank Dobbin and colleagues indicating that formal diversity efforts are often largely ineffective, and sometimes even counterproductive.¹⁷

Satisfaction

It is the hope of every law school graduate that he or she will be able to build a satisfying career. The survey therefore asked a series of questions designed to investigate whether black HLS graduates believe that they have been able to achieve this goal. Specifically, we asked respondents to rank on a seven-point scale, where 1 is “extremely dissatisfied” and 7 is “extremely satisfied,” their level of satisfaction with their current job and their decision to become a lawyer. We also asked whether, knowing what they know today, they would still attend law school. Of those who were dissatisfied with their decision to become a lawyer, we asked whether their unhappiness with the profession was due to race. Finally, we asked respondents whether they would recommend to a young person that he or she enter the legal profession, and if not, whether that decision was because of race. When taken as a whole, the data provided by these questions underscores that black HLS graduates are very satisfied with their careers, a conclusion that should not be surprising given their talent and accomplishments. The data also reveals, however, important differences in satisfaction levels across practice areas, cohorts, and eras, as well as between women and men. These differences have important implications for those seeking greater racial diversity in the legal profession.

Table 4-12 reports respondents’ overall satisfaction with their careers by employment sector. As the data indicates, black HLS graduates tend to be highly satisfied with their current jobs (an overall average of 5.7), with only a modest difference between the satisfaction levels reported by men (5.8) and women (5.6). This finding is consistent with the AJD study, which found that more than 70 percent of lawyers are moderately to extremely satisfied with their careers.

When we look more closely at particular employment sectors and eras, however, important differences in career satisfaction begin to emerge. While average satisfaction across all employment sectors is above 5 on our seven-point scale, private practice has the lowest average (5.3) of any sector, substantially below the levels of satisfaction reported by those in public-sector careers (which range from 5.7 for government lawyers to 5.8 for those in public interest and legal services) and in business (5.7 for both those practicing and those not practicing law)—let alone the average satisfaction level of 6.4 for those in the education sector. Moreover, the average satisfaction level of those in private practice has been steadily falling over time, with those in the post-2000 era reporting satisfaction that is a full point lower than their pre-2000 counterparts (4.8 for post-2000, 5.8 for pre-2000). Indeed, those in the most recent classes to graduate from HLS (2010–2016) expressed the lowest satisfaction with private practice of any cohort in our study (4.3), which was more than two full points below the average satisfaction of those who graduated in the 1970s (6.4). Given that the overwhelming majority of those who are in private practice in the 2010s cohort are still in large law firms, the fact that on average these graduates are barely satisfied with their careers to date does not bode well for diversity efforts in these institutions.

Perhaps most critical, the black women in our sample consistently reported being less satisfied with their careers in private practice (4.8) than their black male counterparts (5.6). Once again, women in the post-2000 cohort are even less satisfied with their private-practice careers (4.3) than their pre-2000 counterparts (5.6), who report average satisfaction levels that are close to those reported by men (5.8). Women in the 2010s cohort reported the lowest satisfaction levels (4.1) of any cohort in our study. Given that black women graduating from law school significantly outnumber black men, including at HLS, the low levels of satisfaction with private practice—and large law firms in particular—reported by HLS black female graduates post-2000 should be particularly concerning for those seeking greater diversity in this sector.

Notwithstanding these differences in satisfaction levels with their current jobs, the overwhelming majority of respondents expressed high levels of satisfaction with their decision to become a lawyer, reporting an average of 5.9 on our seven-point scale (table 4-13). As the foregoing would suggest, those in the pre-2000 era expressed significantly greater satisfaction with this decision than graduates from the post-2000 era (6.1 pre-2000, 5.6 post-2000). Men were also significantly more satisfied than women with this decision (6.1 men, 5.8 women), again particularly troubling given that black women constitute the majority of black lawyers.

When asked whether, knowing what they know today, they would still obtain a law degree, as table 4-14 documents, the overwhelming majority of respondents (87.7 percent) answered yes. This result is remarkably consistent over time. Indeed, those in the post-2000 era actually expressed slightly higher support for obtaining a law degree than their pre-2000 counterparts (90 percent post-2000, 86.3 percent pre-2000), with those in the 2010s cohort expressing agreement at a level that is nearly identical to the average for the sample as a whole (87 percent). Given that many in this last cohort are still in large law firms, where, as indicated earlier, many are only marginally satisfied with their careers, this underscores that the black lawyers in our sample do not conflate the value of getting a law degree with the satisfaction that they have so far found with their first legal job in a large law firm. These results are consistent with—indeed, even slightly more positive than—our findings in the HLSCS, where 85.7 percent of all HLS graduates reported that they would still obtain a law degree today.

The data tells a similar story with respect to gender. Notwithstanding the many differences in satisfaction levels—and the underlying professional opportunities that no doubt contribute to satisfaction—between women and men documented in this report and other similar studies, the overwhelming majority of black female HLS graduates (86.4 percent) would still obtain a law degree today, even knowing everything they now know about the disproportionate burdens that black women are likely to encounter in the profession. The fact that women in the post-2000 era are even slightly more positive about their decision to go to law school than their pre-2000 counterparts (87.4 percent post-2000, 85.6 percent pre-2000), and that there is only a modest decline in agreement for women in the 2010s cohort (82.4 percent), underscores that as challenging as law may be for black women, many still believe that it is a better option than the available alternatives. Moreover, even for those women and men who would not choose to go to law school today, very few reported that race would be their reason for not doing so.

Finally, we asked respondents whether they would recommend law to a young person seeking advice about potential careers. Here, the results are less encouraging for the profession (table 4-15). Although nearly 90 percent of respondents indicated they personally would still obtain a law degree, only 66.2 percent reported that they would recommend doing so to a young person seeking career advice. Moreover, as with career satisfaction in general, the percentage of those who would recommend law as a career has been declining over time. Indeed, only 57.9 percent of graduates in the post-2000 era would encourage a young person to go to law school, as compared to more than 70 percent of those graduating in the pre-2000 era, a statistically significant difference. And as was true with satisfaction generally, those in the most recent 2010s cohort reported the lowest percentage of those willing to recommend law as a career, with just a little more than half (54.6 percent) reporting that they would do so—a far cry from those graduating in the 1970s and 1980s, where, respectively, 75.3 percent and 77 percent of black graduates would encourage a young person to go to law school. Once again, this data—which is similar to what we found in the HLSCS, where more than 85 percent of respondents reported that they would still get a law degree today, but only 70 percent would recommend law to a young person—does not bode well for the profession’s future.

Nor does the fact that male respondents were much more likely to recommend law to a young person (70 percent) than female respondents (62.1 percent), again a statistically significant result. Moreover, female respondents from the post-2000 era are even less likely to encourage a young person to go into law than those in the pre-2000 era (59 percent post-2000, 64.6 percent pre-2000), with women in the most recent 2010s cohort even less likely to do so (55.1 percent). This drop over time is particularly worrisome. Although very few of those who would not recommend law to a young person cited race as the primary reason for not doing so, these results nevertheless underscore just how difficult it is going to be to make progress on achieving diversity in the legal profession if those who have arguably been among the most successful black lawyers are not enthusiastically encouraging young black women and men to follow in their footsteps.

Attitudes of Racial Progress

In addition to investigating how race and other factors have structured their individual careers, we also asked respondents to report their views about racial issues more broadly. Specifically, we asked respondents to respond to two questions, the first asking for their views about a range of issues relating to racial progress generally (table 4-16), and the second regarding what—if any—effect Barack Obama’s presidency has had on opportunities for black lawyers (table 4-17). For each question, we asked respondents to rank their agreement or disagreement with particular statements on a seven-point scale, where 1 equals “strongly disagree” and 7 equals “strongly agree.”

Table 4-16 reports the results for the question regarding racial progress. Overall, there are significant differences in the levels of support for the various propositions addressed in the question. The most salient finding is that African American HLS graduates believe quite strongly that black lawyers continue to face discrimination in the workplace (5.7), and that employers should engage in affirmative action to counteract this disadvantage and to promote diversity in the profession (6.1). Black men were significantly more likely to support this latter proposition than black women (6.2 versus 5.9), although support for affirmative action was high among both genders. These rankings are only slightly lower than what we found in 2000 (5.92 for discrimination, 6.3 for affirmative action), suggesting that events over the intervening sixteen years—including the election of President Obama—have not changed black HLS graduates’ perception of the way race continues to structure legal careers. Outside of this bedrock perception, attitudes about precisely how race continues to structure careers—and what to do about its continuing effects—were considerably more mixed. The only other statement in table 4-16 that elicited average agreement above 5 was that “[b]lack lawyers have an obligation to use their legal skills for the black community” (5.3), signaling broad support for what one of the authors of this chapter has elsewhere called “the obligation thesis.”¹⁸

Although there was widespread agreement that black lawyers have such race-based obligations, far fewer respondents agreed (3.7) that black lawyers were currently doing enough to discharge this duty. Similarly, there was fairly widespread disagreement with the proposition, “My race is an advantage in getting access to good work and/or professional opportunities” (3.2), suggesting that although in results not reported here we found that black lawyers report having received projects because of their race, black HLS graduates do not view their race as having been beneficial to their careers overall.¹⁹ Both results are similar to what we found in the 2000 report, where, on average, respondents agreed with the obligation thesis (5.23) and disagreed with the suggestion that their race has been generally beneficial to their careers (2.96).

With respect to potential solutions to the problems that the color line still poses for black HLS graduates, both self-help (“Black lawyers need to take more responsibility for their own careers”) and diversity training (“Diversity training is an effective tool for combating the obstacles facing black lawyers”) garnered equal levels of modest support (4.5). Interestingly, men were more likely to report supporting both self-help and diversity training than women (self-help: 4.7 men, 4.3 women; diversity training: 4.6 men, 4.3 women), as were those from the pre-2000 era when compared to those who graduated HLS in the post-2000 era (self-help: 4.7 pre-2000, 4.3 post-2000; diversity training: 4.5 pre-2000, 4.3 post-2000). Indeed, the pre-2000 cohort was much more positive about diversity training than those who responded to our 2000 survey, where the average was 4.01. On the other hand, pre-2000 respondents were more negative about self-help, where the average in the 2000 survey was 4.98. The only other important differences to note are that men are significantly more likely than women to believe that professional opportunities for black lawyers have improved since they entered the bar (4.5 men, 4.1 women), and that their racial identity has become less important during the course of their career (3.5 men, 2.8 women). There is an era effect with respect to both of these variables as well, with pre-2000 era respondents significantly more likely to agree with these statements than those in the post-2000 era (improved prospects: 4.7 pre-2000, 3.6 post-2000; race less important: 3.3 pre-2000, 2.9 post-2000). These latter results are not surprising given that post-2000 era graduates have had less time to observe these changes.

Finally, men are significantly more likely than women to believe that “[p]rogress for black Americans now depends more on economic change than on legal change” (4.6 men, 3.9 women). Men, women, and graduates from the pre-2000 era reported agreeing with this statement less than who responded to the 2000 survey, where the average level of agreement was almost 5 (4.94). This last result provides some support for the view that the economic progress that many blacks made during the Obama years has not translated into the kind of racial progress that black women in particular would like to see. This may in turn help to explain why blacks remain only guardedly optimistic about the future for black lawyers (4.7), a response that is identical to what we found in 2000.

This ambivalence is evident in respondents’ views about the effect of the Obama presidency. As table 4-17 demonstrates, none of the statements about the beneficial effects of Obama’s election garnered strong agreement of 5 or more on our seven-point scale, with only the statement that it “improved perceptions about the leadership potential of black lawyers” coming close to this level (4.7). Not surprisingly, those in the post-2000 era were significantly more likely to agree that Obama’s election inspired more blacks to go to law school, since many of those graduating in this era may be among this group and certainly are more likely to know those who are.

None of the other three questions relating to the direct benefit of Obama’s presidency for black lawyers garnered more than mild agreement, with two of the three eliciting even less support. Men, however, are significantly more likely than women to believe that the Age of Obama improved opportunities for mobility and career advancement for black lawyers, as well as perceptions about their leadership potential. This finding suggests that even with respect to what arguably has been the most historic development in black American history, the election of the country’s first black president, African American women perceive that they have received fewer benefits than their black male peers. In a world in which black women are likely to constitute an even larger proportion of the nation’s black lawyers than they do today, this reality raises serious questions about how much progress the legal profession and the nation as a whole will make in the coming years.

What the Future Holds

In 2000, we concluded the first report on the state of black alumni by invoking the ringing aphorism typically made by presidents during the State of the Union Address—“The state of our union is good!”—to underscore that the state of HLS’s black alumni at the dawn of the new millennium was good as well. Today, this conclusion still holds. HLS’s African American graduates are flourishing in every sector of society, reaching unprecedented heights in law firms, business, public interest organizations, and government—including, of course, the most important political office in the free world. During the opening years of the twenty-first century, these extraordinary women and men have used their positions of power and influence to build a more prosperous, just, and inclusive America, even as the nation’s age-old problem of the color line continues to shape—but never totally define—their lives and careers. The data presented in this chapter, however, also underscores that the legal profession still has a long way to go to provide an environment in which black lawyers have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Notwithstanding the considerable progress that has been made, HLS’s African American graduates continue to face significant barriers in the workplace—barriers that are undoubtedly even more daunting for black lawyers who do not have the benefit of the “H Bomb” effect of graduating from HLS or another similarly highly ranked law school. The fact that our data shows that those graduating in the post-2000 era are consistently less satisfied with many aspects of their careers than their pre-2000 counterparts, and that just over half of those graduating in the new millennium would recommend to a young person that he or she obtain a law degree, highlights that these challenges will not simply dissipate with time.

This is particularly true for black women. As our data underscores, even African American women who have graduated from one of the world’s top law schools continue to face a number of unique challenges at the intersection of race and gender that make it more difficult for them to build satisfying and successful careers in the legal profession than their black male peers—let alone achieve the career success enjoyed by white male and female HLS graduates. Even more depressingly, our data suggests that these disadvantages may actually be increasing as women continue to form a larger percentage of the overall black lawyer population—particularly for black women in large law firms. Indeed, the increasing obsession with short-term profits that characterizes many sectors of today’s legal profession threatens to exacerbate the problems faced by black HLS graduates in the coming years. A forthcoming book based on in-depth interviews with a number of black women confirms this bleak assessment.²⁰

Finding ways to move beyond this state of affairs will undoubtedly not be easy. But sixty-five years after the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education, it is imperative that the legal profession make it a priority to address the continuing problems faced by black lawyers in general and black female lawyers in particular. In a world in which increasingly diverse teams of lawyers must learn to work together effectively to solve problems for clients who are themselves increasingly diverse, the legal profession can ill afford to lose the talent and leadership that the black male and female graduates from HLS and other law schools have consistently displayed.

NOTES

1. Full text of Obama farewell speech available at https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/president-obama-farewell-speech/index.html.

2. For the full report, see David B. Wilkins and Bryon Fong, Harvard Law School: Report on the State of Black Alumni II, 2000–2016 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession, 2017), https://clp.law.harvard.edu/assets/HLS-Report-on-the-State-of-Black-Alumni-II-2000-2016-High-Res.pdf.

3. See Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989, no. 1 (1989): 139–167.

4. For a discussion on the pivotal influence that law school status has on an entrant’s career prospects, see, e.g., Ronit Dinovitzer et al., After the JD: First Results of a National Study of Lawyer Careers (Overland Park, KS, and Chicago: NALP Foundation for Law and Careers and the American Bar Foundation, 2009), 43 (documenting a statistically significant correlation between law school status and the incomes of young lawyers, with graduates of top-ten schools like Harvard earning more than 30 percent more than the graduates of law schools ranked 2-20, and more than double the average amount earned by graduates of schools ranked in the bottom category of law school rankings).

5. Robin Ely, Pamela Stone, and Colleen Ammerman, “Rethinking What You ‘Know’ about High-Achieving Women,” Harvard Business Review, December 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/12/rethink-what-you-know-about-high-achieving-women.

6. See David B. Wilkins et al., Harvard Law School: Report on the State of Black Alumni, 1869–2000 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School Program on the Legal Profession, 2002), https://clp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Report-on-the-State-of-Black-Alumni-I-1869-2000.pdf.

7. See David B. Wilkins, Bryon Fong, and Ronit Dinovitzer, The Women and Men of Harvard Law School: Preliminary Results from the HLS Career Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession, 2015), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2609499.

8. To learn more about the After the JD study, see “After the JD,” American Bar Foundation, accessed January 3, 2019, http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/research/project/118.

9. We thank Arevik Avedian, who performed the statistical analysis underlying this research.

10. See Wilkins et al., Harvard Law School.

11. See “Women in the Global Legal Profession,” in “Women as Lawyers and Leaders,” The Practice 1, no. 4 (May/June 2015), https://thepractice.law.harvard.edu/article/women-in-the-global-legal-profession/.

12. See David B. Wilkins and G. Mitu Gulati, “Why Are There So Few Black Lawyers in Corporate Law Firms? An Institutional Analysis,” California Law Review 84, no. 3 (1996): 493–625.

13. See David B. Wilkins, “A Systematic Response to Systemic Disadvantage: A Response to Sander,” Stanford Law Review 57, no. 6 (May 2005): 1915–1961.

14. See Wilkins, Fong, and Dinovitzer, Women and Men of Harvard Law School.

15. See Wilkins and Gulati, “Why Are There So Few?”

16. See David B Wilkins and G. Mitu Gulati, “Reconceiving the Tournament of Lawyers: Tracking, Seeding, and Information Control in the Internal Labor Markets of Elite Law Firms,” Virginia Law Review 84 (1998): 581–681.

17. See, e.g., Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” Harvard Business Review, July–August 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail.

18. See David B. Wilkins, “Two Paths to the Mountaintop? The Role of Legal Education in Shaping the Values of Black Corporate Lawyers,” Stanford Law Review 45, no. 6 (July 1993): 1981–2026.

19. See Wilkins and Fong, Harvard Law School, table 27, “Received project because of race.”

20. See Tsedale M. Melaku, You Don’t Look like a Lawyer: Black Women and Systemic Gendered Racism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, forthcoming, 2019).