Hi, and welcome to The Former Lawyer Podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Cottrell. I practiced law for 10 years and now I help unhappy lawyers ditch their soul-sucking jobs. On this show, I share advice and strategies for aspiring former lawyers, and interviews with former lawyers who have left the law behind to find careers and lives that they love.

Hello, my friends. So today we're going to talk about a topic that you will not be surprised by at all in terms of my stance, if you've listened to the podcast. But apparently, it's something that needs to be discussed again due to reasons that will become obvious.

Today, we're going to talk about the fact that DEI is not Biglaw's problem. By that, I mean too much DEI is not causing problems in Biglaw. To be honest, the idea that somehow excessive DEI in Biglaw is any sort of problem that any person, let alone someone in the highest office in the country, should be concerned about and think is a bad thing would be a joke if it was not actually happening.

There’s almost like, “What do you even say to something so patently absurd and detached from reality?”

We talk about Biglaw on the podcast all the time. I've had tons of people on the podcast who worked in Biglaw. I work with lots of people who are in Biglaw or were in Biglaw. So I have a lot of insight into a lot of different people's experiences in Biglaw spaces, and literally, my brain starts to shut down when I think of someone thinking that too much DEI in Biglaw is a problem.

Because yeah, we've been talking for years. There have been conversations in the industry about many of the problems that are inherent in Biglaw, especially when it comes to anyone who fits a mold other than cis-het straight white dude.

There certainly have been some attempts to recognize these sort of inherent, embedded problems in these structures, in these organizations. But we've been talking about it here on the podcast for five-plus years.

The reason I keep talking about it is not because it's significantly improved. I know I've said this on other episodes when talking with other people, but the stories that I hear from people in Biglaw, especially the stories from my clients who are Black or BIPOC, there literally are not words to tell you how outrageously untethered from reality any idea that there's too much DEI in Biglaw, there's just too much diversity, equity, and inclusion in Biglaw. There's too much inclusion in Biglaw.

Anyone who works in Biglaw knows that that's not true. Literally anyone who works in Biglaw knows that that's not true. If there's someone in Biglaw who's saying that, first of all, I would be surprised because people tend to try not to look like total idiots.

But if they are, to the extent that they are, my guess would be that it's mostly people who perceive that they otherwise would be, I don't know, excelling more than they actually are in these organizations.

I think that it's pretty apparent if you've listened to the conversations here on this podcast, if you listen to the conversations out in the world, if you're someone who's in Biglaw right now, or if you're someone who's worked in Biglaw before, one of the biggest problems in Biglaw is people in positions of authority who believe that they have obtained those positions solely due to their own merit.

The whole idea that Biglaw is a meritocracy is a complete farce. The idea that somehow Biglaw before was a meritocracy and then DEI came in and now it's not a meritocracy, so let's go back to that, is laughably ridiculous.

So people can tilt at windmills all that they want, but the reality is that yes, it's laughable for someone to think that DEI is a problem in Biglaw, as opposed to the many other problems that we know that Biglaw has.

But also, the fact that it's being made out to be a problem, that we're having rollbacks of commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and all of this stuff, even though the problem is manufactured, even though it's a made-up problem that doesn't exist, is not based in reality, is like a figment of someone's imagination, it's still having real impacts.

I've just been thinking a lot about lawyers who are working in Biglaw, particularly lawyers who do not fit the norm, which, as I said, the norm in Biglaw is still cis-het straight white man. I've been thinking a lot about what the experience of seeing this play out has to be like and feel like.

On the one hand, I think there is an element of we all know that Biglaw has paid lip service to all sorts of things over the years without meaningfully changing how it really structures, how the internal structures and incentives are actually directed.

So I think there's probably an element of feeling like, in the day-to-day, it's not going to affect things that much, because were they really all that committed to the things that they claimed they were committed to?

I mean, it's like with mental health, right? Every Biglaw firm is like, "We care about mental health. Have you considered doing yoga?" So I think there's a real sense, I imagine, for people who are in Biglaw right now that this isn't going to necessarily affect much about their day-to-day, because mostly what was happening was a lot of lip service.

I mean, that is just transparently true. I think anyone who has any connection to anyone in Biglaw knows that anything related to DEI—while there may have been some meaningful efforts in some corners and in some firms—in most cases, a lot of this stuff was lip service and did not actually have the kind of comprehensive support that was really needed to make it meaningful.

And so, in a sense, I think there can be this idea of, "Well, it's not really going to impact the day-to-day that much," and in a lot of ways, I think that is probably true on the individual level.

But here's the thing. There were a lot of reasons that I started this podcast. But one of the reasons that I started this podcast is that it really bothered me that when we talked about the legal profession—and specifically Biglaw, which is the part of it that I have some experience with—it really bothered me when there would be sort of a recognition of the problems, but then not really.

Then everyone would kind of act like, "Oh, it's so hard to know what we possibly could do." Like, give me a break. Because here's the thing: I think it matters. It matters whether or not the things that you're saying and doing are attached to reality.

When it comes to DEI and Biglaw, the idea that there's too much DEI in Biglaw or that having DEI in Biglaw is a problem—caring about diversity, equity, and inclusion, and thinking that those are things that are worth valuing—the idea that that is a problem in Biglaw, so much so that it needs to be canceled, is just truly detached from basically all lived reality.

So that's really the main thing that I wanted to talk about today, because I know when you're working in these spaces, even when something ridiculous happens that you know is completely contrary to your lived experience, to the facts, etc., it's still super disorienting.

Especially if you work in an organization or a system where the behavior and what they say does not match. That is often true in narcissistic systems. It's often true in places like Biglaw where they might say, for example, "We care about mental health," but then the lived experience is that you have people expecting you to work around the clock and work on vacations, etc., etc.

So there's this internal sense of—it's disorienting almost—because one thing is being said and another thing is being done. Then if you try to talk about what is being communicated by the behavior or by how things are actually being conducted, you'll end up being directed back to what is said. And what is said is, "We care about mental health."

So it's very hard to have a meaningful conversation about it. You're often made to feel like, "Well, if you think this is a problem, it's actually a you problem." Because here's what's real: you know that the narcissist says, "Here's what's real: whatever I say," and not whatever is actually happening.

DEI in Biglaw is not a problem. Or more to the point, having policies in place that support and encourage diversity, equity, and inclusion in Biglaw is not a problem. Biglaw is still egregiously woefully, problematically not diverse, not equitable, not inclusive. That’s facts.

So I have a lot of less organized ideas about ultimately what that means and where do we go. And I honestly don't know that I'm really the person to address that or talk about that, because that's not my area of expertise.

But I just really wanted to say today: Biglaw needs to be more diverse and equitable and inclusive. The idea that DEI policies are somehow a problem in Biglaw—having them, that we need to get rid of them—is bat-shit insanity.

If you feel that way, you're not crazy, because that's accurate. And let's be real, we have a lot of work to do in our profession for a lot of different reasons. I think it's very clear here in—I'm recording this in early April, 2025—as much work as I believed that our profession needed to do, which was a whole lot, clearly we need to do even more work. So let's do that work. Thanks for listening today. I'll talk to you next week.

Thanks so much for listening. I absolutely love getting to share this podcast with you. If you haven't yet, I invite you to download my free guide: First Steps to Leaving the Law at formerlawyer.com/first. Until next time, have a great week.