Despite some progress, Asian American attorneys find barriers to the top

A PORTRAIT OF ASIAN AMERICANS IN THE LAW 2.0

Asian American attorneys are finding greater satisfaction with helping their ethnic communities but they are encountering  difficulties in reaching the top tiers of the legal profession. 

According to a new study about Asian Americans in the legal profession, there are signs of progress in federal courts, in-house legal departments and law school enrollment for the altruistic attorneys.

“In terms of representation, I think we’ve seen some interesting progress,” said California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu during the Monday announcement of A Portrait of Asian Americans in the Law 2.0, a collaborative study by the American Bar Foundation, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association and several law schools

“But across the broader range of the profession, we still see a lot of disparities and gaps — law clerks, law firm partners, state judges and top prosecutors,” Liu continued.

The study finds a curious discrepancy: While climbing the corporate ladder has been difficult for a number of reasons, the percentage of active federal judges who are Asian American has risen from 3.4% in 2016 to 6% today.

In the private sector, the number of Asian American general counsel at Fortune 1000 companies went to 45 in 2020 from 19 in 2009.

After hitting a 20-year low in 2017, the number of Asian American and Pacific Islander enrolling in law schools has been ticking up.

But progress has been slow or non-existent in other areas. Asian Americans comprise 13% of associates at major law firms, but just 4% of equity partners — the lowest ratio among minority groups, the report notes.

Outside of the increases on the judicial bench, representation in the public sector has been just as bad. Only one of the current 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys is Asian American, and their representation among law clerks has been stagnant for the past 25 years.

One hopeful trend for the AANHPI community is that Asian American attorneys are increasingly involved in improving the social and political status of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.

"We find it notable that although relatively few Asian Americans are motivated to pursue law in order to enter government or politics or to become influential, 46% of 2022 Survey respondents said a key reason they went to law school was to change or improve society.," cites the study.

The study's findings "suggest that recent events have invigorated Asian American attorneys’ commitment to racial justice, their sense of racial or ethnic identity, and their determination to protect our communities," according tot he report. 

The study attributes that current trend to the rise in anti-Asian hate during the pandemic, the Trump-inspired immigration fiasco, and the growing alliance with other communities of color and the impact of social and political inequities that became more apparent  after the 2020 killing of George Floyd. 

Five years ago, a similar study titled "A Portrait of Asian Americans in the Law" found that “Asian Americans have penetrated virtually every sector of the legal profession, but they were significantly underrepresented in the leadership ranks of law firms, government, and academia.”  

Since then, the Asian American community has been significantly affected by major events, including a disturbing rise in anti-Asian hate and violence. One in six Asian Americans reported experiencing a hate incident in 2021, up from one in eight in 2020.2 The past five years have also seen a growing movement to address anti-Black racism as well as myriad challenges posed by a global pandemic.

In this new context, "A Portrait of Asian Americans in the Law 2.0: Identity and Action in Challenging Times," updated the environment of the legal profession.  This study again canvasses Asian American attorneys for insights into law school enrollment, career advancement, and political participation.

Asian American attorneys indicated greater engagement with social and political issues, along with a desire to change and improve society.

• In contrast to five years ago, 2022 Survey respondents seeking to change practice settings ranked a desire to advance issues or values important to them among their most significant reasons for doing so. This was ranked among the least significant reasons five years ago.

• The second most common motivation for attending law school among 2022 Survey respondents was the desire to change or improve society, with 46% identifying it as one of their top three motivations. This motivation was identified more frequently than in the first Portrait Project survey (2016 Survey), where it was the fourth most common. Societal events since the previous survey may have influenced both recent law school graduates and more senior lawyers to foreground this motivation for attending law school.

• Among 2022 Survey respondents, 44% reported having become more involved in Asian American bar associations or other attorney organizations in response to events of the last five years, and 47% reported having become more involved in Asian American community organizations. First-generation immigrants in particular have reported increasing their participation in public protests or other forms of advocacy by or for Asian Americans: 43% of first-generation immigrants have increased their participation, compared to 26% of all other generations of immigrants.

• Almost as many survey respondents increased their participation in public protests or other forms of advocacy for issues important to Black Americans (26%) as for issues important to Asian Americans (27%) in the past five years.

Underrepresentation of Asian Americans in the top ranks of the legal profession persists. But there has been notable progress in the appointment of federal judges and in the ranks of general counsel, and law school enrollment has rebounded somewhat from a 20-year low.

"Compared to their numbers within the overall law firm population, Asian Americans are less represented than other groups at the management level. Although Asian Americans comprised 7.8% of all attorneys in the Vault/MCCA survey data for 2019, they held 4.1% of seats on executive management committees," cites the report. 

"African American/ Black and Hispanic/Latinx attorneys were better represented in these leadership roles relative to their respective numbers in the overall firm population. African American/Black attorneys made up 3.7% of all attorneys and 3.7% of management-level committee members, while Hispanic/Latinx attorneys made up 4.4% of all attorneys and 3.0% of management-level committee members."

• After Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) enrollment in law school declined during the Great Recession to a 20-year low in 2017, it increased by 14.5% from 2017 to 2021.

• The number of Asian American federal judges has increased over the past five years, comprising 6.0% of active federal judges compared to 3.4% in 2016.

• The proportion of law clerks who are Asian American has changed little over the past quarter century. In 1995, 6.4% of federal clerks and 4.5% of state clerks were Asian American. In 2021, those numbers were 5.8% for federal clerks and 6.3% for state clerks.

• In 2020, Asian Americans entered law firms upon graduating from law school at a higher rate than any other racial group, with 65.0% doing so. They entered government (7.5%), public interest (6.4%), and clerkships (7.2%) at the lowest rate of any racial group.

• Asian Americans continue to be the largest minority group at major law firms, but they continue to experience the highest attrition. They made up 7.8% of attorneys overall in 2019 but 10.4% of attorneys who left their firms that year. And they have the lowest ratio of partners to associates, as they did five years ago. Only 4.3% of equity partners at major firms in 2020 were Asian American; almost 90% were White.

• Only eight out of 2,396 elected prosecutors in the United States identified as Asian American in 2019, and only one Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney identifies as Asian American.

• In 2020, there were 45 AAPI general counsel of Fortune 1000 companies, up from 19 in 2009.

Greater institutional support would likely reduce barriers to advancement and improve the professional lives of Asian American attorneys.

• As this study found five years ago, Asian Americans who had two or more mentors in law school were more likely to obtain a judicial clerkship. But one-third of 2022 Survey respondents indicated that they had no mentors in law school. Those who are the first in their families to attend law school were especially likely to report being unaware of the importance of mentorship to their careers.

• The obstacles to career advancement that 2022 Survey respondents identified most frequently remain the same as five years ago: a lack of formal leadership training programs, inadequate access to mentors and contacts, and a lack of recognition for their work.

• More 2022 Survey respondents, compared to 2016 Survey respondents, reported perceiving overt (41% versus 32%) and implicit (64% versus 58%) discrimination in the workplace because of their race.

• Almost 80% of 2022 Survey respondents reported experiencing anxiety since entering the legal profession, and 55% reported experiencing depression. Nearly half of the respondents who sought professional help for mental health problems reported skepticism about mental health providers’ competency to address cultural needs.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.

FilAm lawyers join veterans against Rescission Act

The call to abolish the infamous Rescission Act of 1946 is gaining momentum. Filipino WWII veterans have been asking to overturn the Congressional act that broke a promise from President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The National Filipino American Lawyers Association (NFALA) renewed its call for the immediate repeal of the Rescission Act  and the proper recognition of the service of all Filipino World War II veterans.

Earlier, NFALA and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA)  issued their support for repealing the act, which is still in the books. Filipino WWII veterans' groups have been calling to overturn the act as a matter of "honor" and "respect."

The Act effectively stripped thousands of Filipinos of their status as veterans and denied them the benefits they were promised by the United States government for their service. While under colonial rule of the United States, over 260,000 Filipinos answered the United States’ call to arms in World War II.

By the conclusion of World War II, there were four groups of Filipino World War II veterans: the Old Philippine Scouts, the Philippine Army, the recognized Philippine Guerilla forces, and the New Scouts.

The Philippine Army and guerilla forces suffered immensely during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines.

As noted by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 

During the Japanese invasion, Philippine soldiers fought bravely alongside other members of the USAFFE. Both Americans and Filipinos suffered the terrible Bataan death march, indeed, Philippine soldiers endured particularly cruel treatment from the Japanese. Philippine guerrilla forces continued to fight during the Japanese occupation; their efforts undoubtedly made American reentry into the Philippines much less costly. As a foreshadow of what was to come, the Philippine Army and its guerrilla forces did not receive wages equal to those paid to the soldiers in the U.S. military and the Old Philippine Scouts. Sensing that the projected costs to pay Filipino veterans and their widows and children was nearing upwards of $3 billion, Congress passed the Rescission Act on February 18, 1946. At its core, the Rescission Act of 1946 retroactively annulled the service records of the Philippine Army, Guerrilla forces, and the New Scouts - making them ineligible to receive the benefits promised to them for their service. 

Importantly, of the 66 countries allied with the United States during WWII, the Philippines remains the only country specifically excluded from its soldiers receiving the promised military benefits from the United States. The excluded Filipino Veterans were effectively branded “second class veterans” resulting in these soldiers being disqualified from service benefits established by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs. These benefits include “old age pensions” and access to free medical care at veterans’ hospitals and facilities. It also prevented these wartime veterans from obtaining U.S. citizenship as a member of the United States Armed Forces.

On the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the passage of the Rescission Act of 1946, NFALA once again urges the immediate repeal of the Act and the proper recognition of the service of all Filipino World War II veterans. 

Specifically, NFALA calls upon Congress to: 

1. repeal the Rescission Act of 1946; 

2. reinstate the service records of all Filipino veterans affected by the Rescission Act of 1946; 

3. issue a statement recognizing the service of Filipino World War II veterans affected by the Rescission Act of 1946; and 

4. support efforts to extend benefits to and recognize the service of Filipino World War II veterans, including but not limited to supporting the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, Filipino Veterans Fairness Act, and the continuation of the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program. 

“For seventy-five years, America has turned its back on Filipino veterans affected by the Rescission Act of 1946,” said NFALA President Kristy Gonowon. “It is unconscionable that Filipino veterans never received their rightful benefits and the recognition they deserve for their bravery and service to this country. Repealing the Rescission Act is long overdue, and America must fulfill its contract with these veterans who fought for the United States.” 

Supreme Court rules 1964 Civil Rights Law applies to LGBTQ+ people

Activists stand in front of the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-discrimination laws protect gay and transgender workers from job discrimination in a trio of cases consolidated in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. 

“For the past few weeks, the LGBTQ+ community has been fearfully awaiting this decision. Today, we celebrate this historic ruling and the progress we have made toward equality under the law. The Supreme Court has officially affirmed that LGBTQ+ Americans are protected from discrimination in the workplace," said Rep. Mark Takano, who in 2012 became the first openly gay person of color elected to Congress.

In the surprise decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"Today," Gorsuch said, "we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear." He found such discrimination is barred by the language in the 1964 law that bans discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) applauded the Supreme Court for affirming the rights of LGBTQ individuals, and that they cannot be discriminated against with respect to their employment based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

“NAPABA has and will continue to be supportive of LGBTQ equality,” said Bonnie Lee Wolf, President of NAPABA. “We recognize that there are legal, cultural and social issues specific to the LGBTQ community. We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognizes that discriminatory employment practices due to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity have no place in the workplace."

“The laws have a significant impact on the Asian Americans community because so many of us are LGBTQ.” said Glenn D. Magpantay, Executive Director of the National Queer APIA. 

In a statement, the NQAPIA said: "This is a watershed moment for the LGBTQ community. The decision will directly impact 1 in 3 (or 5.2 Million) Asian Americans who live in one of 30 states and are at risk of being fired, refused housing or denied services simply because they are LGBT."

AAPIs are the nation’s fastest growing racial group in the United States today. A survey by Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund shows that a majority of Asian Americans support laws protecting gaiy and transgender people from iscrimination in employment, housing and pubilc accommodations.

The High Court's decision is a setback for the Trump administration, which sided with the employers in these cases, and has used its rule-making power to issue new directives that take away previous protections for transgender individuals.

“Attacks by President Trump and his administration on LGBTQ+ rights are persistent," added Takano. "They have threatened the safety, health, and financial well-being of our community by rolling back non-discrimination protections in healthcare, employment, housing, adoption, education, and the list goes on. Under the guise of religious liberty, the Trump Administration has sanctioned discrimination against a community that already suffers disproportionately from high levels of poverty, lack of access to healthcare, homelessness, and violence."

Speaking to reporters, Trump said of the ruling: "They've ruled and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court." He called the opinion "very powerful,"

Supreme Court blocks citizenship question in US Census

Before the Supreme Court released it's decision Thursday morningn, opponents of the Census citizenship question protested in front of the court in Washington DC.

ASAM NEWS & VIEWS FROM THE EDGE

The US Supreme Court Thursday (June 27) blocked the Trump administration from including a citizenship question in the 2020 census, reports the Mercury News.
Asian Americans and Hispanics had argued the question was included specifically to discourage immigrants from filling out the census. The Census is used to determine federal funding for various communities.

The victory, however, for the plaintiffs in the case may be only temporary. The June 30 printing deadline for the Census could be extended by the Census Bureau, thus giving the Trump administration more time to explain the question and get it back onto the census form.

However, NBC News reports its unlikely the Commerce Department will have enough time to make that happen. Nevertheless, Trump, tweeting from the G-20 Summit in Japan asked White House lawyers to ask for a delay in the Census.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in the ruling. However, he joined the conservative majority on the court in stating the citizenship question, by itself, is not unconstitutional.

In recent weeks, evidence surfaced that the Trump administration specifically designed the question to lead to an under count of minorities. Republicans have largely become a party of Whites. Under counting minorities could lead to a reduction of electoral college votes for Democratic-leaning districts.

“We are gratified that the Court saw through the pretext offered by the Commerce Department regarding the need for the citizenship question,” said John Yang, President and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice. “We are confident that the evidence will demonstrate that the Commerce Department wanted the inclusion of this question for improper, discriminatory reasons. We believe that the clock is running out and that the Commerce Department should abandon its efforts to include a citizenship question for Census 2020.”

Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund both sued to block the question based on the new evidence. Others joined in support.

“We applaud the Supreme Court for upholding the sanctity of the census,” said Sung Yeon Choimorrow , executive director of National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum. “In a political climate where citizenship questions have separated families and caused an uptick in racial profiling across the country, this question would have intimidated many immigrant communities from participating. Our communities deserve better from our government.”

New American Leaders, a non-partisan group dedicated to bringing immigrants into the political process joined in supporting the decision.

“By rejecting the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census, the Supreme Court recognized what we already knew—that Trump’s request was driven by nothing but bigotry, discrimination and a brazen attempt to gerrymander districts to maintain the status quo,” said founder and president Sayu Bhojwani, who was born in India. “Their decision means that people of color, immigrants and New Americans will have their voices heard and communities represented in 2020 and beyond.”

AALDEF executive director Margaret Fung said: “We are glad that the Supreme Court agreed with what AALDEF and NAPABA asserted in our joint amicus brief opposing the census citizenship question: that ‘the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived.’ The government never intended to better enforce the VRA, as reflected in the fact that this administration has not brought any VRA enforcement actions. Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group in this country and the largest segment of new immigrants. We will continue the fight to ensure that everyone in our country is properly counted in the 2020 Census and that our community receives its fair share of resources and representation.”

NAPABA President Daniel Sakaguchi said: “We are pleased that the Court ultimately rejected the Department of Commerce’s argument to include the citizenship question as pretextual and ‘contrived.’ Permitting the question to be added would have resulted in a significant undercount of immigrants and communities of color, leading to discriminatory cutbacks in resources and underrepresentation in Congress, in state houses, and in local government. The courts should continue to discredit the post-hoc reasoning of the Administration in its attempts to stop a fair and accurate count. It is incumbent on community leaders and attorneys to ensure that everyone is counted as part of 2020 Census.”

The Leadership Conference Education Fund, also cheered the ruling, but said the fight is not over.

” The specter of the question has heightened fear and mistrust in communities and discouraged some from participating in the census. All hands are on deck to ensure everyone is counted,” said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO and former head of the Civil Rights division in the Justice Department under the Obama administration.

In San Francisco, Chinese for Affirmative Action today also emphasized the community must mobilize to encourage full participation in the census.

“CAA will work closely with the City of San Francisco to ensure that all hard-to-count communities are receiving accurate and reliable information about the Census to dispel fear and motivate participation,” says Hong Mei Pang, Director of Advocacy at CAA. “We will ensure that our communities are receiving their fair share of resources and political representation, strengthen the safeguards available for immigrants, subvert panic and restore power to marginalized communities through a successful Census in 2020.”

“The inclusion of a citizenship questioned would have jeopardized our ability to have an accurate census count and ensure adequate funding for vital programs like Community Development Block Grants, housing vouchers, Medicaid, highway planning construction, and new schools. For every person that is not counted, a city could lose $2000 per person. An undercount would also result in states with large immigrant and minority populations such as California, New York, and Texas losing representation in Congress," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA.

“Those things are still at stake if the Census Bureau finds another way to justify the inclusion of the citizenship question before they print the 2020 Census, so we must continue to remain vigilant."

__________________________________________________________________