Here is the lead story in the LA Times this morning:
As it turns out, this is not the product of intensive investigative reporting. It's based on a report written three years ago by the bar itself. And sure enough, as a matter of plain fact the Times' headline is correct:
The biggest disparity here is actually between men and women, but among men the rate of probations handed out by the Bar comes to 3.2% for Black lawyers vs. 0.9% for white lawyers.
But wait! The author of the report is very clear about why this disparity exists: It's because Black lawyers get more client complaints in the first place and tend to have more disciplinary actions on their record:
When you account for this, the racial disparity in probation actions vanishes—but the Times doesn't even mention this until the 33rd paragraph of its story:
Black men [...] are more likely than other lawyers to be accused of wrongdoing in the first place. The bar study found that 46% of Black male attorneys were the subject of at least one complaint. In other demographic groups, the rates range from 44% for Latino men to 17% for Asian females. The rate for white men is 32%. In what the study’s author called “a particularly striking statistic,” 12% of Black male lawyers have received 10 or more complaints.
The study does not explain why Black men receive more complaints. There are various hypotheses in the legal community, including racism on the part of banks that make reports to the bar and a preference for practice areas, such as family law and criminal defense, where there is more direct contact with clients and emotions run high.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I don't know where the real answer lies. But surely it was worth mentioning a little higher up in the story, especially since the State Bar has been working on reforms related to racial disparities ever since this report was released? Have any of those reforms been implemented? The most recent bar report to the legislature is here, and it sure looks kind of lame to me (see p. 101).
And how about the probation rate? Has that changed over the past few years? That would be especially interesting since the original report covered the years 1990-2009.
Maybe someday we'll find out. In the meantime, though, what a mushball story.
I, too, am no expert, but I do fear the consequences of the liberal narrative that society is completely and irredeemably stacked against non-white-males.
https://www.mattball.org/2022/11/woke-fragility-and-what-is-necessary-to.html
I think you are correct to be concerned. And it is not liberal thought - well, it is not classical liberal thought. Classical liberalism, the basis for the United States Constitution and modern western civilization in general, is in danger. It is Marxism pure and straightforward. Everyone on this blog should be listening to James Lindsey at New Discourses.
That's hilarious! You obviously don't know what Marxism is, and think it's just an epithet.
Therefore you probably won't rush to listen to the person Civiltwilight says everyone should listen to. Neither will I.
+10
I know what Marxism is. Maybe you don’t. Yes, it is an epithet. When I say something is Marxist, I am using it as a way to disparage something. Marxist thought is wrong - mmmm kay?
Marxist thought was used to stage revolutions in many places. The most egregious examples are Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China. Both regimes killed far more in the name of an atheist ideology than all the religious wars combined.
“The liberal narrative that society is completely and irredeemably stacked against non-white-males” Is Marxist thought. This is just a blog and not perhaps the place to attempt a dialogue (as evidenced by the knee-jerk reactions of Joel and Jerry O’Brien). Also, I do have a life. But I will try a summary. Marxism argued that a revolution would destroy capitalism, an economic structure that systematically marginalizes certain people. This revolution would ultimately lead to a heaven on earth. I realize that my audience is secular and most likely believes that humanity can achieve this heaven on earth if the right people are allowed to implement the right policies. I think this type of thinking is wrongheaded and leads to tyranny.
Suppose you believe that our society is systemically anything terrible (racist, sexist, homophobic, and now, of course, transphobic (and it is effortless to be called transphobic. Just object to your elementary school-age children being exposed to a man dressed as an outlandish woman reading books to your children)). In that case, the only solution is to destroy that society and start at year zero. The French Revolution and the killing fields of Cambodia are examples of how well that worked out.
I am telling you that liberal democracy is in danger. But you have simple minds and will reply that you know liberal democracy is in trouble. You will say that Trump, Ron DeSantis, and the GOP are fascists and that our Republic is gone if they are in power.
However, you are correct that I believe this threat comes from the left. Leftists are significantly influenced by the ideas such as CRT that are Marxist in their nature. CRT says that white people are inherently flawed and must spend their lives trying to make up for their evil. Robin D’Angelo (a white woman) is making much money preaching to whites about how flawed they are.
Do some research on Paulo Freire.
I will close with a link to a lecture by James Lindsey. Take a chance. Prove that liberals do not want to live in an echo chamber. Prove that liberals are as open to new ideas as they are. Take some time and listen to it. This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative thing. It is a danger that we must defeat together.
https://youtu.be/CNgfs5a4vNQ
Whoops. Prove that liberals are as open to new ideas as they say they are. I am beginning to think that you all are as close-minded as blue-haired church ladies.
Has anyone seen Matt ball and civiltwilight in the same room at the same time?
From Wikipedia:
"Lindsay is credited as one of the leading voices popularizing the term "groomer" as a pejorative directed at LGBTQ educators and activists by members of the political right,[32][33] and has referred to the Pride flag as "the flag of a hostile enemy."[34]"
FO troll
It looks like CT and Lindsay are John Birch Society's 21st century redux.
I hear Giuliani is facing disbarment. The color of his skin is of no relevance to me.
There was a photo where parts of his skin was black......
I'd like to see the evidentiary basis for the speculation that banks make a lot of bar complaints against their black attorneys.
Not sure I'm understanding the data provided, but from the two plots, it looks like blacks have a 3/46 chance of discipline, vs. whites with a 1/32. That looks like a racial disparity.
Not when you look at the number who have ten or more complaints.
It's a good guess that many lawyers get a small number of complaints, and that those lawyers, whatever their race, are handling their jobs pretty well and aren't likely to face discipline.
I know I raise this issue in a lot of threads, but this really does call for disaggregated data - by the race of complainants, by the field(s) of practice, by the overall profile of all clients (urban/rural, race, etc.), by the nature of the complaint. Under-representation of Black lawyers in fields in which few complaints arise (Corporate law? Patent law?) would also increase the disparity in complaint rate. That is, bias in hiring would lead to the same pattern of data as bias in perception of wrongdoing.
Also, good reporting might try to take an unbiased sample of the probation actions, study those cases, and then help us judge whether white lawyers who get probation seem to have done worse things than the minority lawyers who get probation. I assume though, that whenever a handful of anecdotes are presented, it's a sample selected in a way that makes the story juicier or easier to write.
It is NOT a racial disparity that is being measured. I have just finished (as a participant) a research study as to the workings of the State Bar Court....
Solo practitioners are at a vast disadvantage to anyone in a mid or large scale firm in regards to any discipline or even referrals for discipline. Black attorney's are simply very, very under represented in these larger pieces of the legal community.
The question is, Is this Systematic Racism or a matter of personal choice?
The black community is very under served and so if the lawyers coming out of the law schools set up solo or small practices...they are going to be disciplined more...the fields of practice (family law, criminal defense) matters greatly regarding discipline. A larger firm also has layers of supervision and care over every case.
But let us get honest, the above is... .also a matter of money....there is less money to be able to be paid from the black community and all solo lawyers are too frequently caught forever in a case where they no longer can be paid...and lastly there is the personal aspects...for all lawyers.
Recently the State Bar has decided to look back over all criminal incidents involving a lawyer, especially ones not involving clients. I had to defend a NoCal attorney for a fight he had with his then wife 35 years ago...and we had to take the hit...the consequences were minimal, so it was a good outcome...but, (I am afraid to say this since the future is always an unknown and I don't want to make enemies), but, the State Bar is wrong to prosecute these old matters that do not involve clients and further, as I keep insisting....Solo Practice is about the only access poor people have to the system and needs to be given some consideration...and even protection.
I am here to defend the solo practitioner...without which the system of justice, such as it is, would collapse in California.
I am passionate on this subject....lol
Traveller
+1
+10
This makes sense.
It does sound like what you describe is a form of structural racism, the good old boys pipeline funnels white guys from rich families to the big firms for a number of reasons and the the same structures drive Black lawyers to solo or boutique firms.
The elephant in the room is the correlation if any between bar discipline and LSAT scores and ranking within law school class.
Could also be correlated with the size of the firm the lawyers work for. Large firms have more resources for resolving complaints.
Also wouldn't the rank of the law school attended be a factor as well?
perhaps but are blacks overrepresented among lower (or higher) ranked law schools? if not, this would not be a cause of racial disparities.
This seems like a question that would yield to ANOVA analysis.
Comparing like to like would seem necessary: ethnic group and practice area as if an ethnicity is heavily in a highly compained about practice area, then the real disparity has to be judged relative to peers.