Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone


By Allan Colman, CEO, the Closers Group:

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

DIVERSITY DOES NOT MEAN "PREFERENCES": In my last post, I described a very surprising reaction from a well respected AGC about diversity meaning preference. Again, I do not believe he is racially or gendered biased. But he appears not to be receptive to the message that diversity and business development consultants deliver about the need to foster a nurturing environment that will increase female and minority retention rates.

He believed that diversity initiatives involve preferences. And they probably mean to him, lowering standards. Is it unfair to make a special effort to integrate a particular lawyer, and to assure his/her on-the-job comfort and confidence?

But the bottom line for law firms is that where diversity matters to their clients and potential clients, they will be expanding client retention and improving the attorney sales results. But the real achievement is in recognizing that women and minority lawyers will enrich your services because they will bring multiple perspectives to bear on so many of the most pressing legal issues. Business development consultants and law firm marketing professionals recognize how this will work for them and their firm's clients.

Next column we'll take up where we left off with our AGC and see how he is doing.


Be the first to comment on this post using the section below.

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment


Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration



Office vs. Retail Leasing: Practical Considerations for the Retail Tenant

Experienced retail tenants are generally well versed in commonly negotiated retail provisions such as those pertaining to exclusive use rights, opening and operating co-tenancies, "go-dark" rights and percentage rent. This article discusses some of the material differences between common leasing concepts addressed in both retail and office leases.


A Blurry Distinction with a Huge Difference: Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Speech

Imagine the following two scenarios, and try to figure out what the real difference is. First, your competitor blatantly lies in its advertising about the effectiveness of its products; second, your competitor blatantly lies to a reporter about the effectiveness of its products, and the reporter publishes the lies in an article or in a magazine. It seems like the same situation, but it is not. With the first, you could sue for false advertising because the advertisement is “commercial” speech, whereas with the second, you cannot because the magazine article is “non-commercial” speech. A similar difference is presented if a newspaper uses a picture of a celebrity without the celebrity’s consent to highlight a news article, as opposed to a company using the same celebrity picture in a print advertisement, in the same newspaper, to promote the company. A breach of the celebrity’s right of publicity claim is not available against the newspaper because the news article is “non-commercial,” but is available against the company because the print advertisement is “commercial.” The rationale for both is that while the First Amendment fully protects “non-commercial” speech, it protects “commercial’ speech in a significantly limited way.