Firm Managing Member Edward Kang, who serves on the AABAGP Board of Directors, participated in the evening’s program and joined fellow board members in recognizing the extraordinary contributions of local nonprofit organizations.

The Gala also featured a special AAPI history video, produced by AABAGP and presented during the program. The video highlights the rich and diverse history of AAPI communities and their contributions to the region.

Watch the video here: https://youtu.be/jzWxQPrBV_o

The evening served not only as a celebration of heritage and achievement but also as a reminder of the importance of supporting AAPI‑owned businesses, advancing economic opportunity, and strengthening community networks across the tri‑state area. Kang Haggerty is honored to support AABAGP’s mission and looks forward to continuing its partnership in uplifting and empowering the region’s AAPI business community.

Kang Haggerty is a proud member of the National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF). Our attorneys are active leaders in diversity initiatives with local and national legal associations. Siqi Cheng is also a volunteer with the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Pennsylvania (APABA-PA).

MyWIC is designed to help young girls gain knowledge of the construction industry through hands-on experience. During camp, girls learn and develop basic skills in carpentry, painting, taping, glazing, laboring, and more. They also have the opportunity to meet women in the industry, such as architects, engineers, and tradeswomen. Through this experience, young girls are given the tools to create a strong foundation for their careers. During the 2021 camp, the girls created a magazine highlighting their experiences.

NAWIC Philadelphia, PA Chapter 145 was chartered in 1967 with the goal of networking and enhancing knowledge of the construction industry for women. Since the start of MyWIC in 2009, the impact of NAWIC Philadelphia has expanded beyond this by supporting young girls interested in construction, an industry with a small percentage of women. Through MyWIC, girls gain invaluable knowledge and experience, and a young generation of girls is encouraged to pursue construction careers. As a firm committed to diversifying the legal industry, we are impressed by MyWIC’s efforts to support girls interested in the construction industry.

MyWIC is hosted by NAWIC Philadelphia Foundation, a 501(c)3 Educational Non-Profit Corporation. Learn more about this incredible organization here: https://nawicphl.org/mywic

Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty interviewed NAMWOLF’s new CEO Leslie Davis for  The Women in Law Issue of American Bar Association’s Law Practice Today.

The National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF) recently named attorney Leslie D. Davis as its new chief executive officer, succeeding Joel Stern. The longtime Chicago resident was a law firm partner and litigator at Riley, Safer Holmes & Cancila, Drinker Biddle & Reath, and SNR Denton (formerly known as Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal) before joining NAMWOLF. She is also a commissioner for the City of Chicago Community Development Commission.

NAMWOLF, founded in 2001, is a nonprofit trade association composed of minority and women owned law firms. Recently, Edward T. Kang, managing member of Kang Haggerty in Philadelphia, PA, and a law firm member of NAMWOLF, sat down with Leslie to discuss her career, what brought her to NAMWOLF, and the challenges she has faced in her life along the way.

Edward Kang (EK): Leslie, what led you to become a lawyer in the first place?

Leslie Davis (LD): I am a first-generation lawyer, and I did not have lots of examples of lawyers to watch or follow. I was a journalism major, and I covered the courts for The Daily Iowan at the University of Iowa. And when I was covering the courts, I sometimes recognized that I was getting so interested in what was going on that I did not have all the material for my story. I was really interested in what the lawyers were doing and that was the first time that I realized that I could actually be one of those lawyers. I could be doing trial work instead of just covering the trials. And that was really my first time even thinking that being a lawyer was a possibility.

EK: Did any of your other experiences growing up inspire you to be a lawyer?

LD: So, the truth of the matter is no. I really had a pretty great childhood. I was a Navy brat, and so we moved a lot. And I am an only child and an only grandchild. So, there was no absence of love. And there are only about seven people in my whole family, so there was not a lot of action. I was inspired to become a lawyer just by seeing the great work the lawyers were doing in the courtroom. Since that time, of course, as I became more mature and became an adult, I really understood the value of being a lawyer and how you could make real change, and the way in which you practice law can make a difference in the lives of other people.

EK: What was your favorite part of practicing law and your least favorite part?

LD: My favorite part hands down was trial work. I absolutely loved trial work. I was good at it, and I really enjoyed it because it was the culmination of all the hard work. From getting the complaint, spotting the issues, all the way to having 12 people listen to my arguments and rendering a verdict…that was an adrenaline rush. I felt great because I was helping clients solve problems.

The worst part was when, in some situations, I felt like my existence as an African American women lawyer was not as valued as my counterparts. My voice was not as valued, the expertise I brought to whatever the situation was not freely accepted. And so, in some regards, I saw the worst of people sometimes. There were many days when I had to look at myself in the mirror and remind myself that I am a great lawyer, and I do know what I’m doing. And my voice matters.

EK: Can you tell us some of your career highlights to date?

LD: There were a lot of great trials and that was a highlight. One of the highlights for me was not something that ended well. I had been involved in a criminal case with a criminal defense lawyer leading the team. It was a difficult case, with several eyewitnesses claiming our client was guilty. Everybody told me that we would probably lose but hope sprang eternal. I really wanted to win, and I really wanted to believe that we would win. The accused was a few years older than my son, and I saw how the defendant’s rough childhood impacted his entire life. Unfortunately, we lost—and I remember when the verdict came in and going back to the holding cell where he was crying and I was crying. Nobody else was in there, and the guard asked if I wanted to go in and I did. And as I held this young man, it was clear to me that I would be the last motherly touch that he would ever have. And it made me understand better that, the justice system doesn’t work the same for everybody. There are all kinds of social ills that can lead people to be in situations where the best lawyering cannot get them out of those unfortunate situations. It really made it crystal clear to me that I could do more in terms of helping young people: mentoring, doing things that really made a difference before kids ever get to a courtroom, or find themselves in situations where they make decisions that would lead to incarceration or death. So, that was a highlight for me because it made me even more resolved that as a lawyer I would do more than just fight over money. That I would use my voice and use my expertise, and use my effort, my skill, my desire, my passion, all the things that make me who I am, that I would utilize all of that in this profession. And I would do more than just what I was doing at that time.

EK: Leslie, talking about mentoring as it relates to the answer you just gave. Can you tell us some of your mentor/mentee experiences from the perspective of each side?

LD: One of my mentees recently became an equity partner at Jenner & Block. I met her, Precious Jacobs-Perry, on the first day of her summer internship. And from there, the relationship continued to grow and blossom. She was a great mentee. I learned from her what a great mentee looks like, by the way in which she kept me engaged and she was interested in what I was doing, not just a taker always asking for something that I could do for her. And I’ve seen her grow and develop. She became a mom while she was a partner, just as I had. She became an equity partner and she has two children, just like I do. She’s married. And I am just so proud of her because, one, I do see a lot of myself in her but I see more than myself in her. She has done extraordinarily well and I just really feel grateful to have had a small role in her success.

But I have mentored many associates and young lawyers over the course of my career. I have always felt that it was my responsibility, whether I was asked to be a mentor or not. If I was working with a young lawyer – and it didn’t just have to be a diverse lawyer—and I saw them making mistakes that I knew they could avoid or that I had made I felt compelled to help.

As it relates to me being mentored, for sure, I have had the benefit of having mentors. I don’t think I understood at the time that the people helping me were mentors. Back when I was a young lawyer, there was not as much conversation about mentorship versus sponsorship. And so, there were just some people that I took a liking to, and they took a liking to me, and it worked out well. Not every mentor was African American or was a woman. I spent the majority of my career at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, which is now Denton, and I have had many sponsors and mentors who invested in me when I was an associate and moving to partnership. I’ve even had mentors who were not lawyers. I credit my now late secretary, Mary Sarver, in a huge way with a lot of my early development as a lawyer. When we met, I was a young lawyer: no children, not married. By the time she passed, I was 15 years into marriage, two kids, a successful lawyer, and a business developer. Mary was one of the people who helped me understand very early that it’s not just lawyers that you can learn from, but that people like her, who had been in a law firm setting—for 20 years when I met her—have a lot of knowledge and could guide me in ways that maybe other people may not have been interested in doing.

EK: Leslie, I agree with you about your view on mentorship. It transcends beyond just the profession or age, it can take place anywhere anytime and that can have a tremendous impact on your career and life. Let’s talk a little bit about NAMWOLF. What did you know about NAMWOLF before joining the association?

LD: I knew that the folks who were involved in NAMWOLF really loved the organization and found it to be extremely helpful. I knew that NAMWOLF was a connected, tight group, and the meetings and interactions between the law firms and the corporations were a big, important part of the organization. They had skilled and wonderful lawyers, many of whom came from large law firms and decided to go out on their own, and now are in a minority or women-owned law firm.

EK: What was the primary driver that led you to take the position as CEO of NAMWOLF?

LD: I felt like there was more that I could do to make a difference. I had been practicing law for over two decades, and I’ve always known that there was more to my career than being a practicing lawyer my whole career. When the opportunity came along, it all seemed to be right. It was an opportunity to continue to develop relationships and help minority and women lawyers but in a different yet meaningful way.

For years I’ve been doing many of the responsibilities this position brings—business development, connecting people, ensuring that minorities and women are getting the utilization they deserve, having a seat at the table, and partnering with other organizations. The only difference is I had been doing that for myself, for my partners, or for my firm.

I’m advocating now on a much bigger platform across the country for all of the NAMWOLF firms. And we’re over 200 firms in 43 states, giving me the opportunity to talk about how utilizing NAMWOLF firms bring about the kind of diverse perspectives and great outcomes that our clients all want.

EK: Talking about this job, what do you see as the greatest challenge?

LD: I see one of the challenges of this job being that since NAMWOLF firms tend to be smaller, some corporations don’t understand that NAMWOLF law firms have the expertise, client service, and deep relationships to handle their needs. Our firms handle complex matters and are experts—many of them are true experts in their practice areas. When you’re looking to hire a minority or women law firm, you are not looking for some group of people who are less talented, less educated, less capable. On the contrary, you’re looking at people who I admire, with the skills and the strengths who have decided to practice law in a way that is better for them, their families, and their livelihood.

EK: Leslie, what is it like starting this new, major undertaking during a pandemic?

LD: I’ve been joking with people – I could be a hologram! This whole process and almost all of my interactions have been virtual. I would have preferred meeting people in person, but it was just not possible. Luckily, I’ve been meeting with our firms virtually, and they have all been very warm and engaged. So, it hasn’t been hard, it’s just been strange making this transition virtually.

EK: Last year, we saw some major and significant events. Such as events relating to George Floyd, COVID, and the political climate. How have these events of last year changed our mission at NAMWOLF for better or worse?

LD: I don’t think that the events have changed the mission. The mission is clear: to promote diversity in the legal profession by fostering successful relationships among preeminent minority and women-owned law firms and private/public entities. So that mission has not changed, but what I can tell you has changed: the desire and the zest for corporations and governmental entities and others to really get in the game.

I’ve had over 100 meetings already with corporations since I started! And this isn’t me cold-calling, this is either corporations who have already been a part of NAMWOLF who want to do more, or folks who have heard about NAMWOLF and were thinking about it and are now ready to engage. And some corporations and agencies who didn’t know anything about NAMWOLF but recognized that their company or their organization are not as diverse as they want or needed to be have inquired about NAMWOLF firms. I see a vigor and sense of urgency to be doing the right things for the right reasons in the right ways.

EK: Joel Stern recently retired as NAMWOLF’s CEO after seven years. Do you envision your approach to this position differently from Joel?

LD: Joel has different experiences than I have had, so I can imagine that there will be some things that I may see differently or do differently. But I am not into change for change’s sake. There are a lot of things going really well: programs, relationships, partnerships, and all kinds of initiatives that were put in place during his leadership. But I do think I bring a unique perspective; I’m an African-American woman who was a law firm partner for many, many years. Obviously, Joel has a different profile. I think that part of what I bring to this role is just a different understanding of what some of the challenges and issues may be for our law firms. I would love to work myself out of a job. It would be fantastic for me to be able to say, “There is no need for NAMWOLF. Minority and women-owned law firms, and LGBTQ law firms are being highly utilized. We are all on one accord. Everybody is in sync and being treated fairly and included and equity is here.” But, as you know, we are not there yet. NAMWOLF still has an important role to play in increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal profession. My background experiences give me a great lens by which to focus on the ongoing work needed to accomplish our goals.

EK: My firm has been a NAMWOLF member for the last five years. We learned something new each time we went to the annual meeting, or the business meeting. What would you tell a new, incoming law firm to the association as to what they might expect?

LD: You get out of NAMWOLF what you put into it. It is clear to me already that there are many firms who are very engaged, and they are part of practice area committees or networking and/or cross-marketing efforts or being a board member, and they are getting the full benefit of what NAMWOLF has to offer. It may take some time to find your fit or get to know people in corporations or other firms but business development usually takes patience. NAWMOLF is no different in that aspect

EK: Leslie, what have you learned from your first few months on the job from conversations with both member firms and corporate counsel?

LD: I’ve learned a lot. I have met with over 95 NAMWOLF firms already—and what I’ve learned is that people have a great affinity for NAMWOLF. They love this organization and have been helped by it in many ways. I’ve also learned that members want to see that the work continues in a very robust way and they want to see us continue to grow and improve.

I’ve also learned we still have to get more information out about NAMWOLF. We have to keep reminding people that NAMWOLF is here to help meet the legal supplier diversity needs, and moreover that we’re not selling diversity. We’re certainly not asking anybody to forgo relationships that they have nurtured and are working on. What we are asking is that everybody recognizes that diverse teams get better outcomes and that if you don’t have a diverse team and if you want to have better outcomes for your clients, then NAMWOLF is absolutely a great way to ensure that.

EK: How do you identify the companies that are sincere in wanting to improve their diversity as opposed to those who may just be box-checking?

LD: It’s the blessing and the curse of having been an African American woman in these environments for over 20 years. I have been in those conversations, in those meetings, a part of those efforts where it was clear that this was a check-the-box kind of thing or a window-dressing exercise. And so, in that way, I rely on some of my instincts and discernment to understand who is serious and who is not, because I have had both good and bad experiences with DE&I (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). But the truth of the matter is, beyond that I can tell you that lots of the people who have been reaching out to me are sincere, because they already have plans, policies, and procedures in place and they are ready to increase their engagement, or they have outlined their goals and are ready to partner with NAMWOLF. When I see corporations and agencies talking in very real terms about timelines, metrics, and data, and wanting to ensure that they are doing all the things they can on their end to move the needle—those are the kinds of things that give me hope and that make me feel like this is not just box-checking.

EK: So you’re married with two children, can you tell us a little more about your family?

LD: Yes, I’m married and my husband is in educational sales. NAMWOLF celebrates its 20^th anniversary in October, and that’s my 20^th year wedding anniversary as well. I have two children. My son is 17, he’s an elite basketball player and excited about having just finished his junior year in high school and looking at college prospects. And I have a 15-year-old daughter who is also fantastic—she’s a singer, dancer, strong academic, and her class student council president. And so, family life is busy and exciting. I also have the support of my mother, father, and mother-in-law. I feel extremely blessed.

EK: Who is your favorite kid? You don’t have to answer that!

LD: So I’ve got a favorite son and a favorite daughter. I was an only child and an only grandchild, so I was the favorite! I spread that “favorite” kind of love to them both.

EK: Great answer. What do you like to do in your free time? And what is one thing that might surprise people to learn about you?

LD: Currently, my “spare time,” is spent watching a lot of sports. My son is a basketball player, and my daughter now plays softball, so sports is really important in our household. We’re Bears fans and White Sox fans, so there’s a lot of sports in our house. I also love to travel, to explore new places. The pandemic was difficult because I’m somewhat adventurous and really do like to travel.

As for what might surprise people to learn about me, people might be surprised to learn that I am a leadership coach. They might also be surprised to hear that I worked at Court TV during the OJ Simpson trial. I got to meet all of those great lawyers: Johnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Shapiro, etc.

EK: I have a final question. What is your favorite legal movie and why?

LD: Oh, my favorite legal movie! I don’t want to be cliché but the reason why I’m going to say this one because I laugh hysterically every time I see it–my favorite is My Cousin Vinny.

EK: That’s mine too. I think it has the most realistic courtroom scenes compared to other movies.

LD: Every time I see it I laugh like I never saw it before. It gives me the same amount of laughter every single time. I can’t say the same for any of the other legal movies that I’ve seen.

EK: Leslie, thank you for your time. I look forward to seeing you soon—live and in-person—at the next NAMWOLF Meeting.

About the Author

Edward T. Kang is the managing member of Kang Haggerty, a business litigation firm based in Philadelphia, PA and Marlton, NJ. Contact him at 215.525.5852 or EKang@KangHaggerty.com.

“These past few weeks have raised the sense of urgency in addressing social injustice,” said Kang Haggerty managing member Edward T. Kang. “As a law firm built on diversity and inclusion, we join with our community in taking time off to reflect on the continuing issue of racism in this country.”

Juneteenth is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States. Dating back to 1865, it was on June 19th that the Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the war had ended and that the enslaved were now free.

The roundtable originally appeared in the October 15, 2019 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, and is available to read online at Law.com.

Besides his own first-hand experiences as a diverse lawyer, and leader of a minority-owned law firm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Kang and his firm are active members of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF). Kang Haggerty is also certified as a Minority-Owned Business Enterprise by the Eastern Minority Supplier Development Council.

Tianna Kalogerakis, Associate at Kang Haggerty

It takes time for a new attorney to gain the experience necessary to be competent on specific areas of law.  Once new attorneys gain that experience, often they are the least senior voice on a given topic and public speaking opportunities are afforded to more tenured attorneys with expertise.

A lack of expertise on a subject matter does not however, preclude newer attorneys from participating in public speaking events.  Namely, newer or junior attorneys need not be experts to competently moderate a panel discussion or publicly interview an expert on a given subject area, and these opportunities can raise the profile of a newer attorney.  These opportunities are of particular significance for minorities who are often underrepresented in the legal profession.  Seasoned attorneys who are mentors or sponsors to junior attorneys should seek to “place” their mentees in these moderator or interviewer roles to increase a group’s recognition of the new attorney as these roles often are accompanied by promotional materials or articles summarizing the event and can be featured on the junior associate’s profile.

I have twice had the opportunity to moderate panel discussions; once as a member of the Temple Law Alumni Women’s Leadership Initiative, and a second time at the 2019 Philly SHRM Symposium.  Both times, these opportunities were presented to me through my longtime sponsor and friend Sheryl Axelrod, Esquire who is a diversity expert.

The concept to “place” the individual in the opportunity is the first prong in Sheryl Axelrod’s copyrighted “PEP” tools to champion diversity.  PEP stands for Place, Echo (echoing the great ideas of minorities in group settings) and Promote (speaking highly of a woman or minority’s capabilities to others).  These tools are simple to use and can have an especially big impact in increasing visibility for minorities and women.

Placement as a moderator or an interviewer can also be a source of growth for a junior attorney and an accessible means of building their confidence and comfortability in performing in public spaces.  Throughout my term as president of the Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia, Inc. I have invited speakers to address the group and asked each to identify a person to interview them in a conversational manner in front of our membership.  Most of our featured speakers ask a lawyer of comparable experience to join them, but a Partner in Charge of Diversity at an Am Law 200 firm asked a junior associate to interview him.  This opportunity resulted in the junior associate being featured in the promotional materials for the meeting and allowed the attendees of the meeting become more familiar with her.

To place a junior attorney in a moderator role in a CLE does not come at a cost to a senior attorney, but can result in a big payoff in increasing the junior attorney’s visibility.

Tianna K. Kalogerakis is an associate at Kang Haggerty LLC. She concentrates her practice on commercial litigation and business disputes such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. In addition, she is currently President of The Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia, Inc. Tianna also serves on the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division as an appointed member.

After nearly 175 years, there is still much progress to be made in law firm diversity. The Philadelphia legal community should not underestimate the impact changing institutions has on creating opportunity for individuals.

A mere four years after The Legal Intelligencer’s founding in 1843, the story of blacks seeking admission to the legal profession in Pennsylvania began. Despite nearly 175 years of black Pennsylvania lawyers overcoming obstacles to entry of the legal profession, institutional barriers persist, leaving blacks and other minorities in the state still in search of meaningful access in the legal profession. In 2018, law firms that are not intentional about cultivating diversity may be unintentionally discriminating against diverse candidates.

To tell the story of diversity in the legal profession—specifically when discussing the black lawyer—one must first acknowledge the role of slavery in America. People of color were held in bondage for decades against their will and the ownership of humans by other humans was sanctioned by the laws of this country. Enslavement and discrimination of individuals based on their skin color was codified into our federal and state systems of government and dictated the daily interactions of individuals. These codifications and the resulting caste system became the foundations of the institutional barriers minorities continue to face today.

Initially, it was explicit bias that blocked blacks from entering the legal profession in Pennsylvania. In 1847, George Boyer Vashon sought admission to the Allegheny County Bar. Vashon was denied admission not because of any lack in his legal capabilities (he became the first black person admitted to the New York Bar in 1848), but because he was not a white man. Vashon was denied admission to the Allegheny County Bar a second time 20 years later in 1867. Vashon was posthumously admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 2010 through the efforts of his great-grandson, Nolan N. Atkinson Jr., a trailblazer in his own right who, among other notable accomplishments, helped found the Philadelphia Diversity Law Group.

In 1865, Jonathan Jasper Wright became the first black person admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania. Another factor that further limited access of black attorneys at this time was the fact that the 54 counties in existence had independent jurisdiction over admissions to their local bar. Testing and fitness standards for a candidate to pass differed from county to county, and an attorney was limited to practicing in the county in which they were admitted unless they met the requirements of admission in another county. It was not until 1902, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed the Pennsylvania State Board of Law Examiners that uniform, statewide standards for admission to the Pennsylvania Bar were established.

Following the standardization of the Pennsylvania admission process, the number of black attorneys grew slowly and inconsistently. By 1900, there were 10 black lawyers practicing in Philadelphia. From 1908 to 1920, not one black person was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar. By 1925, the number of black lawyers in Philadelphia increased to 18. In 1927, Dr. Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander was the first black woman admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar and remained the only black woman lawyer in Philadelphia until 1949. From 1933 to 1943, not one black person was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar.

While the number of black lawyers in Philadelphia slowly crept upward, black Philadelphia lawyers achieved historic firsts and engineered sweeping societal change on national, local and statewide levels by challenging institutional norms. In 1948, William T. Coleman Jr. became the first black person to serve as a law clerk at the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1952, he would become the first black associate in a majority firm, Dilworth Paxson, and there became the first black partner at a majority firm in 1957. Coleman served as co-counsel with Thurgood Marshall in Brown v. Board of Education wherein the Supreme Court held that separate but equal facilities in public accommodations unconstitutional in 1954.  That same year, Coleman and Raymond Pace Alexander filed a petition to desegregate Girard College which was created in 1833 by the will of Stephen Girard to benefit “poor, white orphan boys.” The quest to desegregate Girard College would take 14 lawsuits, an eight-month protest of the school led by Cecil B. Moore, and last 15 years before the Girard College Board of Trustees would vote to admit black students.

In 1950, Curtis C. Carson, Thomas Reed, Arthur Thomas, Robert W. Williams, and Charles Wright founded Barristers Club, now known as the Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia Inc., which continues to serve the professional needs of black Philadelphia lawyers today. In 1951, Philadelphia became the first city in America to ban racial and religious discrimination in city employment, services and contracts by adopting the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander is credited as the principal drafter of this provision.

In 1953, prominent black lawyer J. Austin Norris of Norris, Schmidt, Green, Harris, Higginbotham & Brown asserted that the Pennsylvania Bar examination discriminated against black applicants. A committee consisting of Abraham L. Freedman, G. Ruhland Rebmann Jr., and Theodore G. Spaulding, and Judge William H. Hastie of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit—known as the “Hastie Committee”—was appointed to investigate racial discrimination in Pennsylvania Bar examinations and procedures. In 1954, the Hastie Committee found “no discriminatory practices” of the Pennsylvania Bar examination, but Norris remained unconvinced.

In 1970, along with Ricardo C. Jackson, then-president of the Barristers’ Association, and others, Norris again argued that the Pennsylvania Bar examination process discriminated against black applicants. The Philadelphia Bar Association appointed a Special Committee on Pennsylvania Bar Admission Procedures dubbed the “Liacouras Committee” after the chair of the committee, Peter J. Liacouras, to investigate. Together, Jackson (who later became a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas), Liacouras, then-Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Clifford Scott Green, then-Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge Paul Dandridge and W. Bourne Ruthrauff concluded that the Pennsylvania Bar exam “as developed and administered is invalid and discriminatory, and circumstantial evidence leads to the strongest presumption that blacks are indeed discriminated against when they take the exam.” Before the Liacouras Committee’s report was issued, the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners regularly asked for pictures of each applicant and seated all of the black applicants together to take the exam. Further, 98 percent of white applicants passed the exam as compared to 70 percent of blacks.

Following the Liacouras Committee report, Nolan Atkinson Jr. and Professor Paul Bender of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law successfully negotiated with the Board to change the administration of the exam. Whereas 83 black lawyers were admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar from 1955 to 1970, as a result of the Liacouras Committee’s efforts, 82 black lawyers were admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar within a mere two years of the changes in administration of the exam. The number of blacks admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar has grown steadily ever since. By 1994, there were 865 black lawyers in the City of Philadelphia and the number of black lawyers in Philadelphia is currently unknown. This initiative executed by a few organized individuals created change at the top an institution which exponentially expanded opportunities for others.

Thanks to the efforts of the black attorneys and allies mentioned and unmentioned here, black people garnered increased entry into the Pennsylvania Bar and have evidenced possibility by simply working in their respective legal capacities. Increased entry of blacks in the legal profession has also encouraged the entry and growth of other minorities into the Pennsylvania legal community. However, removing explicit bias from the institution that certified that a minority candidate is competent to practice law did not result in easier entry into law firms, which as independent institutions with their own internal systems, have struggled to recruit diverse attorneys and retain them.

By not being intentional about diversity, firms uphold the barriers to entry black Pennsylvania lawyers faced throughout history.

For 10 of its 175 years in circulation, The Legal has provided Pennsylvania lawyers with an important metric to discuss the gains (or lack thereof) in diverse plaintiffs attorneys in the state through its annual plaintiffs bar diversity survey. Loyal Legal readers reviewing these surveys yearly have likely noticed that the gains in diversity of firms measured in the survey have doubled.

It is important to note two things about the findings in these surveys. First, even though the percent of minority attorneys in the plaintiffs bar has doubled since the first survey in 2007 from 3 percent to 8 percent, the total percentage of minority lawyers of the firms surveyed has yet to reach even 10 percent.  Stated another way, the total number of black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific, South Asian, and American Indian lawyers taken together do not amount to 10 percent of the plaintiffs firms surveyed. Thus, doubling the number of minorities total over a 10-year period is simply not enough. For example, blacks make up 43.9 percent of the population of Philadelphia, and the diversity of this city is not reflected in the plaintiffs bar.

The Legal surveys consistently discuss whether the path to increasing diversity at Pennsylvania plaintiffs firms should be organic or strategic. Black and minority lawyers in Pennsylvania have only begun to enter the practice of law in a ratio comparable to whites since 1970. That is 48 years of playing catch-up after starting centuries behind. Diversity is a moral imperative and enhances the range of perspective of any organization where diverse voices have a seat at the table. Firms cannot responsibly continue to rely on antiquated practices to get candidates by looking at a select few schools, finding people through word of mouth, or passively posting opportunities to fill vacancies. To increase the entry and access of minority attorneys at a more respectable pace, firms need to make institutional changes from the top of their respective organizations to recruit and retain minority attorneys, be mindful of the role implicit bias may play in filling vacancies, and actively seek diverse talent.

Diverse talent has always existed.

The pioneering black Pennsylvania lawyers mentioned or unmentioned here were exceedingly qualified to practice law. Yet, for each one of them who will be remembered for their achievements or accomplishing a “first,” how many of their qualified peers were prevented from pursuing the law altogether or not afforded a similar opportunity to prove themselves? Likely many minorities are still seeking the chance to prove themselves today. Firms looking for these qualified candidates will find them in abundance in minority bar associations.

Minority bar associations, like the Barristers Association of Philadelphia, continue to serve as resources to diverse attorneys and employers alike and are an excellent source of talent. As a benefit to our members, the Barristers Association sends employment opportunity announcements directly to our members’ email at least once a week. This practice is not exclusive to the Barristers. By taking the extra step of sending job announcements to minority bar associations, employers increase their reach and improve the probability that they will have diverse candidates to interview.

To increase retention of minorities, plaintiff’s firms need to support their diverse employees through business development, mentorship and creating a sense of value for the lawyer. In addition to advocating for their members and creating professional and business opportunities, minority bar associations also function as spaces where similarly situated individuals can seek advice about advancing their careers or addressing challenging dynamics with peers. Minority bar associations are also where diverse lawyers can find reassurance that they are not, in fact, alone in their experiences although they are often the only minority in their workplace. Employers can support their minority lawyers by paying their membership dues to a minority bar association and attending programming of the organization organization or offering resources to assist in executing the programming. In turn the firm benefits from the perspective of the diverse lawyer and the proven financial gains that flow from having a diverse workforce.

Entry to the profession is not the same as inclusion.

Retention of minorities is a serious growth area for firms. Black partners at large majority firms are almost nonexistent, and the numbers are mostly stagnant despite the increase of minority hires. This means black attorneys are not granted full access in the profession if they cannot reasonably expect to make it to the highest levels of their profession. To illustrate, here are the numbers of black partners over an approximate 35-year span for a few Philadelphia law firms.

*These metrics were presented by the Tucker Law Group at the firm’s CLE presentation titled, “Standing on the Shoulders: the Black Philadelphia Lawyer.”

After nearly 175 years, there is still much progress to be made. The Pennsylvania legal community should not underestimate the impact changing institutions has on creating opportunity for individuals. With institutions like the The Legal continuing to provide diversity metrics, chronicling the triumphs of black and minority Pennsylvania lawyers alike, and connecting the legal community, we can hope to keep firms accountable and accelerate progress. Talented, diverse attorneys are ready for the opportunity, firms—learn from history—switch it up and get ready for the benefits.

Tianna K. Kalogerakis, an associate at Kang Haggerty LLC, concentrates her practice on commercial litigation and business disputes such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. She also serves at the president of the Barrister’s Association of Philadelphia, which provides a forum for discussion and dissemination of information of matters of particular interest to Black attorneys and the Philadelphia Black community at large.

Reprinted with permission from the December 11 edition of “The Legal Intelligencer” © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com.

Kalogerakis was also featured in New Phila. Barristers’ President Stresses Legacy, Community Service, in ALM’s The Legal Intelligencer. In an extensive Q&A with reporter Max Mitchell, the newly-elected Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia president discusses the balancing act between heading the 1,000-member strong bar association and transitioning from judicial clerk to litigation boutique attorney at Kang Haggerty LLC.