In commentary that focuses on the significance of the absence of a uniform definition of equity partnership, the National Law Journal says "understanding the way this term is used -- even manipulated -- and developing a consistent definition that means the same across all firms, is critical to the profession and all organizations that collect and report data for a variety of purposes." According to a newly released study by a Stanford Law School professor, for example, in 2007 more than half of the New York City offices and more than a third of the Washington, D.C., offices of major law firms reported six different partnership numbers to the six major entities that collect the information.
Because how a law firm is doing in terms of diversity can affect its competitiveness, the commentary says, firms have developed a variety of ways to improve their position, such as de-equitizing partners at the lower end of the compensation scale while raising the bar for entry into the equity partnership ranks. The absence of reliable consistent data thwarts law students and clients who want to know how women and minorities are faring in a particular law firm compared to another. See, too, our earlier post: Opening Doors: Law Firms Accused of "Holding Out" on Partnership Details