Building Inclusive Law Firms

Law firms aren’t exactly known for their inclusivity. Built on a foundation of toxic resilience, firms tend to see exhaustion as dedication, dissent as petulance, and requests for help as weakness. It’s a professional environment where “suck it up” somehow passes for management philosophy and “it is what it is” substitutes for institutional response.

The harm is well-evidenced. Seventy-one percent of attorneys of color and 84% of women report experiencing inherent prejudice and exclusion embedded in firm culture.¹ Even knowing these numbers, firms keep the machine running based on precedent. We respect what came before. And if a partner was once an associate who had to walk uphill both ways in the snow, then by God, so do you.

That’s not resilience. It’s institutional exclusion masquerading as professional standard. Yet those who question these firmly entrenched cultures are labeled hypersensitive.

The events of 2020 ripped away the comfortable fiction that systematic discrimination was someone else’s problem. Suddenly, the talent pipeline and client base demanded diversity and inclusion. Numerous firms rebranded themselves as beacons of social change. They published mission statements on their websites that touted a commitment to diversity. They initiated trainings on equitable workplaces. Several big law firms announced that DEI work would receive billable credit and contribute to bonus thresholds.² And it worked. Firms received enhanced reputations while attracting better employees and clientele.

Meanwhile, in schools, workplaces, and elsewhere, frustration and resistance began against DEI programming. People sat through hour-long, prepackaged lectures on unconscious bias without any real clarity on how to address it. They started to see themselves as excluded from a movement aimed at inclusion. Their resistance crystallized into a narrative that pitted “merit” against “diversity,” as if competence and fairness were mutually exclusive, or creating a workplace where people feel valued somehow diminished the quality of work.

This resistance set the stage for an anti-DEI purge in 2025. The new presidential administration capitalized on the frustration, issuing executive orders to condemn “unlawful DEI programming” with threats to withdraw funding for non-compliance.³ They established hotlines to report violations. They even blamed aviation crashes and bridge collapses on DEI.⁴ It was government coercion in its rawest form, designed to intimidate private organizations into abandoning any effort to create equitable workplaces.

And then they came for us. The lawyers. They sent intimidating letters to major firms, demanding data about minority hiring.⁵ They threatened that continuing diversity efforts would cost firms federal contracts, security clearances, and access to government work.⁶ Nine major firms folded and entered agreements to provide millions in pro bono work to the administration’s initiatives, often against the explicit pleas of their own employees.⁷ Other firms scrubbed diversity commitments from their websites, cancelled programming, and terminated DEI positions.⁸

On the one hand, the response reflected a commitment to their clients, whose federal work had also been threatened. On the other, it revealed a sobering truth about the performative nature of their equity initiatives: that when the chips were down, firms cared more about government contracts than their lawyers. That the most talented organizations in a profession responsible for upholding the rule of law will still bend to government bullying.

The Trump administration claims authority for their anti-DEI crusade from Title VII and recent Supreme Court decisions.⁹ It specifically prohibited programs that “give a preference to a protected group with respect to a palpable benefit.” It prohibits giving preferences or discrimination based on protected characteristics, just as Title VII always has.

It doesn’t prohibit creating inclusive workplaces. It doesn’t prohibit treating people with respect, giving fair treatment, and taking steps to make sure all employees feel valued.

The end of corporate DEI programs doesn’t mean the end of inclusion. Lawyers should know the difference between prohibited discrimination and permitted efforts to create equitable workplaces. Firms should not abandon their efforts entirely. If anything, it’s an opportunity to do this work right instead of treating it like a prepackaged, abstract compliance exercise.

For firms that want to maintain their commitment to inclusion while navigating the current political landscape, the solution is to evolve their practices by focusing on inclusion over diversity metrics. Inclusion isn’t about quotas or preferences or checking boxes. Inclusion means creating workplaces where people can do their best work. It means recognizing that not everyone processes information the same way, communicates the same way, or thrives under the same conditions. It’s understanding that the traditional law firm model, designed by and for a very specific type of person, isn’t the only way to practice law effectively. That’s not coddling. That’s basic management.

This approach embraces Title VII, because when you create genuinely inclusive workplaces, you’re not giving preferential treatment to protected groups, but creating environments where everyone can succeed.

The firms that understand this distinction will continue to attract and retain the best talent while their competitors are busy scrubbing websites and terminating positions.

From Perspective to Practice: Implementing Inclusion

Conduct a Comprehensive Audit

Before you implement anything, figure out what you’re actually trying to accomplish. What are your firm’s values? How do your policies reflect those values?

Look at your hiring practices, promotion criteria, feedback systems, and workplace policies. Ask where the gaps are. Do the systems in place help all employees succeed, or do they only work for people who fit a specific mold?

Most importantly, how will you measure your objectives? What data would you be looking for to determine whether you’ve met your objectives or not? By making your goals evidence-based, you remove any room for subjectivity.

Revise Your Trainings

Many of us are tired of hearing that the cause of DEI backlash was “shoving it down [their] throats.” This isn’t the fault of the programs themselves, and no one shoved anything down anyone’s throat. If anything, people were spoon-fed information and still didn’t have the capacity to handle it. But we have to work with what we have.

A lot of frustration toward inclusion comes from feeling singled out as “the culprit” during inclusion trainings. Training that blames dominant groups for DEI problems may activate rather than reduce bias.¹⁰ Be mindful of how messaging can cause resistance and possibly activate what the EEOC has suggested may cause a hostile work environment for members of a dominant group.¹¹

Effective training embraces useful feedback and recognizes different communication styles. It’s interactive, ongoing, and tied to real workplace scenarios. A lot of inclusion training is resented because it focuses on abstract concepts instead of practical skills. People leave feeling lectured rather than equipped. Trainings should be based on evidence rather than morality. This requires a multidimensional approach that integrates empirical research, critical theory, and lived experience. We’re not going to eliminate bias, so we must teach how bias affects outcomes.

Trainings should focus on the benefits of inclusion, not the penalties. Instead of teaching the consequences or liabilities of not being inclusive, highlight the proven advantages: better retention, increased innovation, stronger client relationships, and more.

Reconsider mandatory trainings. Forcing people to conform to mindsets and punishing them for non-compliance goes against everything we know about behavioral change. Humans are not that malleable. Voluntary training, comprised of people who actually want to learn, produces the opposite result. When individuals perceive themselves as choosing to participate, they reinforce their pro-inclusion stance. This outcome emphasizes the importance of respecting human agency. We don’t want inclusion training to deprive people of the autonomy to reach their own conclusions, and we certainly don’t want an environment where people feel pressured to simply parrot back the message they think they’re supposed to adopt.

After a workshop, it’s easy for staff and supervisors alike to feel the work is done because they’ve checked off a box. The work is not the workshop. The real work begins after. It’s for this reason that firms should have a concrete action plan as to how the teachings of the trainings will come into place when it ends.

Hypocritical inclusion initiatives will never succeed. Firm leaders must walk the talk. When trainings deliver boilerplate messaging about inclusive practices from executives making six-figure salaries while simultaneously cutting healthcare benefits, the contradiction is stark. Employees don’t see equity or inclusion in those decisions.

Open Up Channels of Communication for All Voices

Only 43% of employees felt comfortable speaking up in their workplaces without fear of negative consequences.¹² Lack of open communication and hierarchical intimidation will silence bold proposals and challenges to the status quo. No, that’s not a good thing. New perspectives drive meaningful reform, and when your firm loses out on them, it also loses out on the innovative problem-solving that comes with inclusion.

Ideas should be welcomed at different levels, with plenty of forums to receive them. Consider actively seeking input, especially from junior employees, through direct communication or even anonymized surveys. Employees feel a sense of ownership when they can witness the success of their contributions.

Open communication means open communication, even for perspectives you don’t agree with. Inclusion means allowing people to express their concerns honestly, listening to their opinions, and creating spaces for real dialogue, not just echo chambers where everyone agrees. This will mean tolerating discomfort as you treat good-faith questions as opportunities for education, not attacks to be shut down. Only then can we work through conflicts constructively.

Include Your Firm’s Administrative Professionals

The traditional law firm hierarchy separates lawyers from staff. Administrative professionals make up 50% of most firms’ workforce.¹³ Yet all too often, we systematically exclude the very people who make our legal practice possible.

Most inclusion efforts focus extensively on lawyers but leave out administrative workers. Ask yourself whether your most senior business services professionals have a voice in decisions that affect their careers. Are they included as true members of the firm at annual gatherings, or on your website?

All business professionals are relevant to the equity conversation. And firms who continue to treat non-lawyers as expendable will find themselves losing their best staff.

Increase Flexible Work Policies

Innovation requires building upon ideas, experimentation, and error. Overly structured firms impose strict norms that crush exactly the kind of creative thinking they desperately need.

Inclusion recognizes that different people work differently. Some people think out loud; others need quiet reflection time. Some people thrive in open offices; others need private spaces. Some people work best during traditional hours; others are more productive with flexible schedules. Rigid, one-size-fits-all policies don’t maximize performance. They exclude people whose working styles don’t match the template.

When you overwhelm teams with rigid processes that don’t work for them, you eliminate space for reflection and improvement. You’re not only overmanaging every step, you’re signaling that compliance matters more than creativity.

There is a fundamental shift happening with younger lawyers who are unwilling to sacrifice flexible work options for career advancement. Companies that cling to traditional corporate structures while expecting innovative outcomes are pursuing a contradiction. If firms continue to demand increasing output from people they refuse to trust with basic workplace autonomy, they will lose the talent war to competitors who understand the need for flexibility.

We have to stop characterizing flexibility as letting youngsters run the show. It’s just about maximizing work productivity so you can get the most from them and they from you.

Make Your Office Accessible

Physical and digital accessibility is critical for both legal compliance and to remove barriers that prevent people from doing their best work. This includes obvious things like wheelchair accessibility and assistive technology. But it also includes less obvious barriers: constant interruptions that derail focused work, meeting structures that favor certain communication styles, technology that’s difficult to navigate.

Over a third of workers still don’t understand what neurodiversity means, a statistic that reveals more about our collective commitment to surface-level inclusion than any diversity training evaluation ever could.¹⁴ Instead of opposing requests without thought, we should provide the tools to work with neurodiverse perspectives and reap the benefits of their innovative thinking.

Sometimes, resources are requested that the firm cannot afford to implement. Lawyers deserve the courtesy of honest responses (not the barking involved in defensive dismissal) about workplace modifications even when those modifications aren’t possible.

Encourage Mentorships and Sponsorships

Mentorship and sponsorship programs help people develop skills and navigate workplace culture. This is especially important for people from non-traditional backgrounds who might not have built-in networks or cultural knowledge. But don’t limit mentorships to formal programs or specific categories. Instead, generally create cultures where sharing knowledge through all types of different demographics is expected and rewarded.

Reverse mentorships can help bridge generational divides within the firm. This is particularly relevant considering tensions between younger generations who advocate for inclusion and established practitioners who cling to traditional institutional frameworks. True inclusion requires welcoming perspectives from all demographic groups, including those from older generations who bring decades of professional intelligence and wisdom. This bidirectional learning model acknowledges that both emerging and established professionals contribute essential knowledge to a firm’s development.

Implement Inclusive Leadership Practices

Inclusion cannot exist without inclusive leadership to guide it. They are the first step in making inclusion a core part of the identity and values of their firm. Don’t assume that your employees simply know that you feel this way. You must communicate why you are incorporating inclusion, what the goal is, and how to achieve it in an unambiguous way related to the firm’s goals.¹⁵ To be able to articulate that vision is harder than it seems, especially when so many lawyers have lost faith in the movement.

A partner may successfully communicate the vision of inclusive policies to their staff, but if they continually fail to provide clear communication regarding expectations and instructions, they’re not doing any favors toward the goal of inclusivity. Inclusive environments help people get out of the dark, providing reasonable directions instead of allowing younger lawyers to fail based on information they didn’t have the resources to attain themselves. Scolding lawyers for not following guidelines that were never communicated is a surefire way to stoke fear and create barriers to an open and inclusive workplace. Feedback must be more than hasty expressions of disappointment or frustration. Feedback should clarify the change that a partner wants their junior attorney to make.

Leaders must genuinely listen to and value diverse perspectives. This includes resisting the urge to flee the room during difficult conversations. Shutting down an employee’s vulnerable approach for help with an important matter, simply because the emotions involved make you feel uncomfortable, will surely shut down the open channels of communication that are so critical to an inclusive workplace.

Authentic leaders engage in continuous self-reflection about their own biases, power dynamics, and unconscious assumptions. They model the inclusive practices they wish to see in their firm. The more senior the leader, the more impactful their inclusive behavior. Leaders must watch even the words they use in casual conversations, especially if multiple members of a majority group are using traditionally offensive epithets. No firm needs leaders who cannot resist the temptation of clinging to cruelly hierarchical workplaces, lack the self-adequacy to build up lawyers who work beneath them, or fear losing existing power imbalances as their only source of power.

Accept Personal Accountability for What You Can Control

If you’re not in a leadership position at your firm, ask what you can do individually to advance inclusion.

If these inclusion changes give you fear, anxiety, or anger, it’s worth setting aside some time to reflect on why you’re resisting. It’s apparently natural for members of a dominant group to feel an emotional surge during inclusive trainings. Ask yourself what the worst-case scenario is in your head. Whether it’s the horror of pronouns, being held accountable for occasional racism, or existing in a workplace that might become slightly less miserable for people who aren’t exactly like you, conducting a brief psychological inventory on yourself will help you name the fear you’re facing.

For others, it’s their external environment that’s the controlling factor. Articulating how your office makes you feel worthless or disempowered may be the best contribution you can make to the cause of inclusion. Challenging the status quo and normalizing asking for help will break down the problematic structures of firm life.

By the same token, inclusion encourages us to know our limits and say no when we need to. If you’re telling multiple partners “yes” on similar deadlines even though you know you won’t have the time, maybe it’s time to slow down jumping on projects. If you can’t do that for yourself, at least do it for the benefit of your clients.

Recognizing that there is some personal accountability on behalf of individual employees respects that not all the work falls to managers, and that we are all collectively involved in whether our law firm culture is toxic or invigorating.

Deeper Reflections on Implementing Inclusivity

The world of equity and inclusion is especially confusing right now. It lacks sufficient guidance. Yet despite the practical steps in this article, firms must know that there are no quick and easy tools or guidebooks for this. Inclusion is deep work. It’s a longstanding commitment, and it takes time.

Inclusion must be an intentional practice, not just a word, and not just lip service. Anything less signals passive inclusion initiatives with no real intention to actively embrace differences. And that is easily detectable by your employees. Even during these trying times, don’t try to implement inclusive policies simply as a means of reacting to current pressures or displaying a “brand.” Successful implementation is going to require regular assessments of your workplace culture to make sure there is adequate access to resources and learning opportunities. And it’s going to require staying informed of how the environment could be evolving in a way that requires you to adapt some of your policies. Most importantly, it’s going to require a growth mindset that sees mistakes as learning opportunities.

It’s true, inclusion has been scientifically proven to boost a firm’s bottom line. That’s a great statistic to share to help bring fellow leaders and firm members on board with the movement. But it’s problematic that 80% of companies exclusively have bottom line justifications for valuing inclusive practices while less than 5% had reasons based on treating their employees with fairness and belonging.¹⁶ Commitment on behalf of our firms should not solely be based on the business case, but also the human case. Supportive firms don’t sigh upon hearing suggestions for more belonging in the workplace. They don’t go blue in the face with long rants about how “sensitive” people are these days. And they don’t get so bent out of shape trying to imitate complex pedagogies that they forget the point of it all: the way we treat one another. As Colorado lawyers, we swore an oath to “treat all persons whom [they] encounter in [the] practice of law with fairness, courtesy, respect, and honesty.”¹⁷

Firms who truly value inclusion must reaffirm their commitments and stay connected to their people. If you are really committed, this is not the time to abandon this work. Stay the course. Building firms where all lawyers feel valued will make us stronger, more resilient, and more competitive. Those most committed will not flee from challenges, but instead, figure out how to solve problems and move forward despite the intimidation coming from the government.¹⁸

Having a welcoming and inclusive workplace would not normally make a business a target for intimidation or retaliation. It’s just a business concept, not a “woke” move or a form of charity or a political trend. High-performing businesses are inclusive because it’s a critical ingredient of a high-performing workplace. They know that being smart about performance management leads to innovation and problem-solving. They know that effective feedback and open communication are beneficial for the bottom line. These are best business practices. And it just so happens when you follow best business practices, workplace inclusion happens organically. You can have both. In fact, that’s what everyone’s been trying to convince the legal profession of for years: the performance and profit of your firm will increase with inclusion.¹⁹

But if the financial impact of inclusion – as proven by multiple studies – doesn’t make inclusion enough of a no-brainer, consider the moral argument: we should have expressions of respect and value for our colleagues. This may be shocking, but lawyers are people with feelings. Partners often forget that helping people feel seen and valued isn’t a side quest; it’s part of being a leader. And it isn’t their fault they’ve forgotten this. At some point, they too were victims of the historical cruelty of firm life that neglected to embrace empathy. Empathy allows us to focus on how others actually feel, not just on how you would feel in their situation or how you think they should feel. Law firms must abandon the lack of empathy that has for too long prohibited lawyers with different opinions from engaging in meaningful and constructive dialogue. We must leave behind the outdated way firms have escaped communication by simply responding “suck it up,” or “it is what it is.” It never just is what it is. We’ve always had the choice of dismissing or honoring, invalidating or connecting.

I hope these practical steps will help you implement the noble, profitable, and moral cause of inclusion at your firm. Let’s get to work.

ENDNOTES

1 Djordjevich, V., 2023 Millenial Survey, Above The Law (2023), found at https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/most-lawyers-believe-a-diverse-and-inclusive-workforce-should-be-a-priority/.

2  Zaretsky, S., Biglaw Firm Offers Associates Unlimited Billable Hours For Diversity & Inclusion Work, Above The Law, Apr. 22, 2021.

3  “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” Federal Register 2025-01-29.

4 Sanger, David E. (January 30, 2025). “President Blames D.E.I. and Biden for Crash Under Trump’s Watch”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 31, 2025; Wise, Alana, Baltimore Mayor Faces Racist Attacks After Bridge Collapse, NPR (Apr. 4, 2024).

5 “Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLLP,” The White House, Mar. 6, 2025.

6 “Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts,” The White House, Feb. 25, 2025.

7 Baker, S., “Law firms pledge almost $1 billion in free work to Trump,” Axios, Apr. 12, 2025.

8 Levine, S., “US law firms quietly scrub DEI references from websites to appease Trump,” The Guardian, Apr. 11, 2025.

9 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” The White House, Jan. 21, 2025.

10 Singal, J., “What If Diversity Trainings Are Doing More Harm Than Good?” New York Times, Jan. 17, 2023.

11 At the same time, diluting your firm’s initiatives to accommodate a majority group that historically has not faced marginalization may isolate your minority employees. This is something to consider and gather feedback about.

12 Psychological safety and leadership development, McKinsey & Co., Feb. 11, 2021, found at https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/psychological-safety-and-the-critical-role-of-leadership-development.

13 Johnson, J., Inclusion in Law Firms Should Be About Everyone—Not Just Lawyers, Calibrate Strategies, Sept. 18, 2020.

14 Erbil, C., Neuronormativity as ignorant design in human resource management: The case of an unsupportive national context, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 35, Issue 2, Sept. 12, 2024.

15 Marianne Coleman, Leadership and Diversity, 40 EDUC. MGMT. ADMIN. & LEADERSHIP 592, 592 (2012).

16 Georgeac, O., “Diversity messages may backfire when companies focus on diversity’s benefits for the bottom line,” American Psychological Association, June 9, 2022.

17 Attorney Oath of Admission, Colorado Lawyers and Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, Colorado Supreme Court.

18 In the words of the ABA’s address regarding the executive orders challenging firms’ DEI practices, “if [the] lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar? Who will speak for the judiciary? Who will protect our system of justice? If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?” “The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession,” American Bar Association, Mar. 3, 2025.

19 Polden, D., Teague, L., More Diversity Requires More Inclusive Leaders Leading by Example in Law Organizations, Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 48, Issue 3, March 1, 2020.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Megan Bishop is a Texas Law alum who began her career as an investigator with the D.C. Public Defender Service. She then proudly served seven years as a Colorado State Public Defender. Today, Megan is a private criminal defense attorney in Denver. She defends against all levels of accusations, but is most known for her litigation in appeals and DUI chemical testing. Megan is a recent graduate of  COBALT, the Colorado Bar Association’s Leadership Training Program. When not working, Megan enjoys dance, design, music editing, and giving pen recommendations that no one asked for.