Recent debates surrounding diversity within the legal industry have amplified following a dispute that originated from the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) strategies of the major law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine, as viewed through the lens of one of its chiefs, Yusuf Zakir. Zakir took to his LinkedIn profile to articulate his dissatisfaction about how his remarks were recently presented in a Bloomberg article titled “Law Firms Boost Diversity Defenses After Conservative Backlash.”
Traditionally, diversity advocates within legal circles have pressed for tangible actions towards achieving their objectives. The approach of Martin Luther King III and Al Sharpton, who urged President Biden to nominate more Black judges, and Kimberlé Crenshaw’s encouragement for individuals to learn about Critical Race Theory are illustrative examples.
However, the SFFA v. Harvard decision has seemingly spurred a shift in approach towards diversity advocacy by law firms. There appears to be ever-growing focus on discussions and statements regarding the need for diversity, without explicit mention or explanations of the tactics for achieving such diverse representation. For instance, Bloomberg’s aforementioned report on how law firms are bolstering diversity defenses, which includes statements from Yusuf Zakir, provides little detail about the implementation process of these diversity strategies.
Davis Wright Tremaine has been noted as an example of this approach. The firm’s diversity efforts, as referenced in the Bloomberg report, have not specified strategies that could yield tangible outcomes, such as donor efforts to organizations like the Black Lives Matter movement.
However, Zakir has reacted strongly to this interpretation of the firm’s strategies. He contends that his quote in the Bloomberg article was taken out of context, and did not encapsulate all of Davis Wright Tremaine’s DEI initiatives. He further stated that his commitment to rallying support for DEI through panels and LinkedIn has significantly grown and now consumes more of his time.
Regardless of these assertions, there is a push for transparency and actionable strategies for law firms. There is a call for firms to marshal the implementation of diversity efforts, rather than simply discussing and defending diversity. This is seen as a more appropriate “active defense of diversity”.
This shift in ideas does not circumvent Davis Wright Tremaine’s existing diversity infrastructure. The firm’s “four pillars” – Community, Growth, Education, and Engagement – may still be robust, but they did not receive mention in the Bloomberg interview. A call for clarity and demonstrable actions towards firm’s diversity agendas is therefore not only inevitable but quite apt.
The advancement towards real diversity within the law industry is not a simple journey and certainly requires a multi-faceted approach. However, through concrete actions and explicit strategies, the legal industry could move closer towards a more inclusive and representative future.