Tag: lawyers

Large law firms are hiring more minority associate attorneys, according to a recent national survey conducted by The American Bar Association (“ABA”). Specifically, large law firms hired more Asian, Black, and Hispanic associates in 2020 than they did the year prior. The ABA’s study further showed that, despite the number of equity partners that are minorities slowly increasing, the vast majority of law firm leaders are still white male attorneys.

ABA’s Model Diversity Survey
The study was the ABA’s second annual survey on diversity, referred to as the ABA Model Diversity Survey. The ABA’s Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession (“CREDP”) conducted the nationwide study. The CREDP surveyed more than 285 law firms across the nation, comprising more than 100,000 lawyers. CREDP’s survey measured several aspects of the law firms including hiring, promotion, attrition, demographics, initiatives on diversity, and highest paid firm partners.
The reason behind the survey originated from an ABA resolution from 2016 urging the legal industry to expand opportunities for minority attorneys. The resolution further urged companies that use legal services to retain diverse lawyers for their needs. The report provides companies a way to assess a law firm’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts–so that these companies can determine whom to hire for their legal needs. The ABA issued a public report that includes country-wide results and also private reports that compare law firms to one another on the issues surveyed.

ABA’s Diversity Survey Findings
While the ABA’s surrey does not make specific recommendations on how to approach diversity on the issues surveyed, some of its findings include:
● Large law firms hired 4% fewer white associate attorneys and instead hired 1.5% more Hispanics, nearly 1% more Blacks and 0.6% more Asian associate attorneys in 2020 when compared to 2019;
● According to the survey, in 2020 about 60% to 70% of law firm leaders were white male lawyers, with the number of leaders varying depending on the size of the law firm;
● When it came to minority law firm leaders, 20% to 50% were white females, 5% to 8% were ethnically and racially underrepresented males, and 2% to 5% were ethnically and racially underrepresented females;
● The large majority of equity partners were white attorneys–between 81% and 93%,
depending on firm size–in 2019, with the number decreasing by nearly 2% in 2020;
● While the number of HIspanic, Black, and multi-racial equity partners increased slightly
in 2020, the greatest rate of attrition was experienced by Black (23%) and Asian (19%)
lawyers and irrespective of firm size female lawyers experienced a higher attrition rate
(16%) than their male counter parts (11%).
● In 2020, most law firms did not hire any attorneys who self-identify as LGBTQ+, Native
American, Pacific Islander, or having a disability.
The ABA’s full diversity report can be accessed here.

If you need assistance with service of process, contact Ancillary Legal.

If you need assistance with court reporting, contact Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. 

In the second part of our trial tips series, we continue to provide guidance for young lawyers and more experienced ones who want to succeed at trial, or at least put their best case forward. Below are more tips from the American Bar Association (“ABA”) on preparing and conducting trials.
● Create Witness Outlines, Not Questions. The best way is to prepare an outline of areas of questions for witnesses instead of preparing questions ahead of time. Doing so allows you to tell a story through conversation instead of reading exact questions that prevent a fluid question-and-answer witness session. Do, however, have certain questions prepared to ask on redirect to establish a fact or to impeach on cross-examination.
● Expect evidentiary issues. Know the rules of evidence extremely well prior to trial. Re-read the rules so that they are fresh in your mind. Expect to anticipate objections and be prepared to address those objections. If you have a complicated evidentiary issue, prepare a short memo ahead of time so you have a roadmap for your arguments before the court. Be sure to include legal citations and provide the memo to the judge during arguments.
● Use Effective Visual Aids. Even in civil litigation cases, both judges and jurors expect a visual presentation of the case. These visuals should be used during opening statements, when you are examining witnesses, and during closing arguments. The aid will help tell your story visually and support your theory of the case.
● Draft Closing Arguments. Make sure that your closing statement cites both the evidence and the applicable law that supports the merits and theme of your client’s case. Your closing argument should be prepared before trial begins. Create an outline prior to trial that cites testimony and exhibits you expect to be admitted at trial; you can modify your closing as the evidence evolves during trial.
● Observe and Listen. Pay attention to the facial expressions of the jurors and the judge during trial. Also, be sure to listen to the messaging being given to the judge and jury. The questions asked or rulings made by a judge will typically indicate how he or she is thinking regarding important issues and who may be winning the case.
While trial textbooks and other books are vital to preparing for trial, it is best to take a practical approach. Make sure you are prepared for unexpected surprises. Also, ask for help from an attorney who has tried cases before. Experience is the best teacher.
For more trial tips, go to the ABA’s website. For assistance with depositions and court reporting visit us today.

When it comes to international litigation, things can get complicated. Not only are you dealing with international laws and foreign sovereigns, but the rules and regulations governing international service of process also differs vastly from rules applicable to domestic cases. The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial & Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”) is a multilateral treaty. This treaty was adopted on November 15, 1965 by member nations of the Hague Convention on Private International Law (the “Convention”). This treaty created unified rules on several issues, including international service of process. Approximately 74 countries have ratified the Convention.

The Convention Explained

The Convention provides a streamlined way to effectuate service of process through the Central Authority of each signatory nation. Under Article II, each nation designates its Central Authority to receive documents for and effectuate service on its domestic subjects. When countries have no agreements or treaties like the Hague Service Convention, a common method for service of process is through diplomatic channels. Because this method usually involves agencies, like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of both countries to transmit the documents, it takes much longer.

Efforts of International Service

In order to have a more predictable time frame of effectuated service and reduce costs for serving through the Central Authority, many parties who bring international lawsuits against a foreign defendant try to do so via service by mail. In such a scenario, the plaintiff directly sends legal documents to the defendant by express delivery (such as DHL, UPS, or FedEx) or mail service.

Article 10(a) of the Convention states that it would not interfere with direct service by mail provided the state of destination does not object. Historically, there were two interpretations of Article 10(a):

• The sending of judicial documents does not include service of process, and the only method of service allowed by the Convention is through the Central Authority. Whether or not the destination sovereign has objected, service by mail is prohibited; or
• The sending of judicial documents does include service of process, and if the destination sovereign has not objected, service by mail is allowed. If the destination sovereign has objected, then it is prohibited.

As can be seen, international service of process can be complicated. More details on this case can be found in our second part of this series.

More on this topic can be found here.

A recent American Bar Foundation report based on interviews and focus groups with female lawyers revealed that the most cited reasons for female lawyers leaving law firms was unfair or biased compensation systems. The report was based on 12 focus groups located in six cities as well as 12 individual interviews.

The Issues

According to the study, female lawyers reported that they originated more work than some of their male counterparts and still received lower pay. The study and report was done in collaboration with the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Commission on Women in the Legal Profession as part of the ABA’s initiative on long-term careers for female attorneys.

According to the ABA’s May 3, 2021 press release, among the combination of factors that affected women’s decisions on whether to remain at their law firms, leave the profession, or move to a different legal job after being in the legal profession for more than 15 years was unfair compensation. A large number of the women in the study were their family’s breadwinners with spouses who were either low-paid or unpaid. The women reported that the pay disparities affected their ability to support their families as well as engage in leadership opportunities at their firms.

Multiple female lawyers reported that their firms told them they were making less than their male counterparts because the men had to support a wife and children. Many respondents also noted an inequitable distribution of origination credit for cases.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

In addition to inequitable compensation, additional factors that influenced the women’s decisions to leave the profession included:

• Poor collegiality due to a bullying atmosphere and a hyper-competitive culture;
• Driven isolation from colleagues due, in part, by ever-increasing demands for billable hours and lack of women in leadership;
• Behavior that was sexist and racist;
• The want for more fulfilling, interesting, or challenging work that would remain with senior partners;
• Being looked over for promotions, particularly to equity partner, especially for women who worked fewer hours; and
• Unpredictable schedules and long hours, making it difficult to manage personal and professional schedules.

There were, however, positive aspects of the profession that respondents identified even if the final decision was to leave the law. This included:

• Intellectual stimulation in the law;
• Relationships with colleagues at the firm;
• The ability to help clients solve legal issues;
• Autonomy in their work;
• The social impact of the work;
• Monetary compensation compared to other professions.

More information on this topic can be found here.

Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting is proud to be a woman-owned company.