Rick Palmore: Demanding Diversity
Profile
Every day in private practice, Roderick A. Palmore thought about how he could distinguish himself as a lawyer. As the first black partner at Chicago’s Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, some say he had little choice.
Now executive vice president, general counsel, and chief compliance and risk management officer at Minneapolis-based General Mills, Palmore is judging how law firms outpace their competition.
For Palmore, 57, diversity based on race and gender figures prominently in his decisions, and he’s one of the first general counsel to evaluate outside firms’ diversity efforts.
Those that repeatedly get low marks lose his company’s legal business. While he was at Sara Lee, Palmore says, two firms lost the international conglomerate’s business, and firms scoring in the bottom tier (he did not disclose how many) lost at least 50 percent of their work.
A reserved man with a shy smile—and someone who can tell employees about their weaknesses in a kind way—Palmore is credited with refocusing corporate diversity discussions onto how it can bolster company profits.
“His whole point was to put diversity into something that’s actionable and not just based on principle,” says Andrea Zopp, general counsel at Exelon, the Chicago-based power company. She worked for Palmore at Sara Lee, where until 2008 he was GC and an executive vice president.
In 2004 Palmore spearheaded the Association of Corporate Counsel program Call to Action, in which other GCs agree to evaluate outside law firms’ diversity efforts. As in the plans Palmore devised, those who do not get good marks will lose business. So far more than 100 general counsel, many from Fortune 500 companies, have signed on to the call he authored.
Evaluation criteria haven’t been decided, but if the plan works like those Palmore previously led, general counsel will first evaluate their own departments’ diversity, then look at the numbers of women and people of color at outside law firms in both partner and associate ranks. The retention rate of those two groups is compared to the firm’s overall retention rate, and information is submitted annually for three years to give a sense of whether the outside firms are improving.
The plan was introduced at an April summit for general counsel and managing partners at large law firms. No members of the media were allowed, “so no one would be playing to any other audience,” says Palmore. Concerns about appearances were tossed aside, and participants discussed their real concerns.
“In the past, people were interested in being politically correct. If they weren’t, they’d get beat down,” he says. “You won’t make any sort of progress if that’s the case.”
Brett J. Hart was a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal when Sara Lee started its diversity evaluations. He later joined Sara Lee as assistant general counsel, and when Palmore went to General Mills, Hart was tapped as his replacement.
Hear Rick Palmore talk about his Call to Action.
Some managing partners, Hart says, didn’t appreciate Palmore telling them they weren’t doing enough about diversity. It was a new conversation, but Palmore anticipated their reactions. “At that time, a lot of people from law firms would admit to us that before Sara Lee asked for the information, they didn’t know the answers to some of the questions,” Hart says.
WINNING WAYS
Five of the lawyers Palmore has mentored, including Zopp and Hart, have gone on to lead Fortune 500 legal departments. They say Palmore can be somewhat parental; while at Sara Lee, he once corrected Hart for chewing gum during a meeting.
“He’s one of those few people who can really call you on the carpet, but when he’s done you understand it’s in your best interest,” Hart says. “He’s mindful about things that will take attention away from how good you are, so you are not tripping yourself up when you don’t even know it.”
Hart and Palmore met at Wildman Harrold when Hart was a summer associate. Both graduated from the University of Chicago Law School. Hart, who is also black, didn’t realize the firm had a black partner until he met Palmore. “He easily could have been standoffish and I probably wouldn’t have pushed to spend time with him,” Hart says. “He pulled me in immediately.”
The third of five children, Palmore grew up in the Pittsburgh suburb of Monroeville. He didn’t know lawyers growing up but still wanted to be one since he was a child. When asked whether he was the smart one of his siblings, Palmore demurs, noting his oldest brother was the first black Phi Beta Kappa to graduate from the University of Pittsburgh, earning a degree in biochemistry. Their parents, who didn’t finish high school, came to Pennsylvania during the Great Migration, when blacks left the South in the early 20th century.
Palmore’s undergraduate education at Yale was funded with scholarships, loans and jobs. Besides the University of Chicago, Stanford Law School also accepted Palmore. Chicago, he says, seemed like a safer choice, being closer to home.
“I’d never been to the West Coast,” he says. “We didn’t take vacations; my father worked in the [Westinghouse Air Brake] mills his entire life.”
After a brief stint with a Pittsburgh firm, Palmore came back to Chicago to work in the U.S. attorney’s office, and he considers the city his adopted home—so much so that when he took the General Mills job in Minneapolis, he and his wife, Lynne, kept their historic home in suburban Oak Park. Palmore spends at least one weekend a month there.
A son, Adam, recently graduated from Washington University in St. Louis, and his daughter, Jordan, just finished law school at the University of Pennsylvania.
Palmore notes that when he graduated from law school in 1977, firms said they’d like to hire more people of color and women, but they couldn’t find any.
“What’s curious is we’re hearing the same thing now,” he says. But change comes slowly.
“Inevitably, some folks are going to get this, and they are going to distinguish themselves on a performance basis,” Palmore says. “If you don’t get it, you will miss out on some opportunities that others will have.”
Photos by Tim Pearson
Share this post
Comments
Report Abuse
Posted by Dorrissa Griffin - 1 year, 1 week, 3 days, 4 hours, 47 minutes ago
I appreciate Mr. Palmore’s story and his effective leadership in the area of diversity. I believe that his efforts will set a benchmark for companies and firms to follow. His ideas will drive to heart and mind the vision that diversity equates to talent. If firms and companies want to innovate and rise above, they must be willing to invest in all of America not just what is traditional, comfortable, and familiar. Binding diversity efforts to a company’s bottom line and reputation will speed up the demise of the slothful and tragic phrase of firms that say, “We’d like to hire more people of color and women, but they couldn’t find any.”
Posted by Dorrissa Griffin - 1 year, 1 week, 3 days, 4 hours, 44 minutes ago
By the way, I happily and enthusiastically suggest my school Florida A&M University’s, College of Law in Orlando, FL as a starting point. Just a suggestion…
Posted by ktp70 - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours, 36 minutes ago
The article says:
“For Palmore, 57, diversity based on race and gender figures prominently in his decisions, and he’s one of the first general counsel to evaluate outside firms’ diversity efforts.”
Isn’t that a plainly racist observation about his practices? He makes decisions based on race and gender. It’s just wrong. I think everyone who thinks otherwise is kidding himself/herself or otherwise in denial. You simply shouldn’t do that.
Posted by John Smith - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours, 25 minutes ago
Like President Obama, my siblings and I are Americans of mixed race. With this in mind, consider my words: Every American of good will, and members of the bar in particular, should be appalled by the philosophy and business conduct of Attorney Palmore. His misguided drive for “diversity” differs little from the “white only” philosophy of the odious “White Citizen’s Councils” of the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties.
Both my parents experienced personal and professional prejudice during the course of their lives. My mother earned a graduate degree from one of the most prestiegous universities in the US in the early 1940’s, and she was one of the first women of color to do so. She did so without “affirmative action” and remedial undergraduate courses that are so common nowadays. My parents were too busy as achievers to rely on race-based business policies to insure their success.
Attitudes like those of Attorney Palmore are a good part of the reason why racial tension in the US persists, like a fire in a coal mine that cannot be extinguished. Can hard working whites and asians be faulted for resenting a philospohy that places race and gender based selection ahead of selection based on merit and professional competency? What about attorneys of color with distinguished academic and professional credentials? They will always be under a cloud if Attorney Palmore’s hiring strategy prevails.
Attorney Palmore understandably wants to do the right thing, but he offers the wrong rememdy for correcting past injustices.
Posted by Ronald R. (RON) Ward - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours, 8 minutes ago
This society and its law firms have historically institutionalized the practice of making discriminatory decisions that excluded persons of color and women as a fundamental part of how they do business. To say that the playing field is still far from level, is to vastly understate. A post-racial era in hiring and retention, this is not; not yet. Economics is the key to solutions, because all of the lip service and good intentions aside, it is the only effective and understandable language and methodology. It is just right. To deny THIS, is to be in denial.
RONALD R.(RON) WARD
2004-2005 President, Washington State Bar Association
Posted by ktp70 - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 17 hours, 45 minutes ago
I read your e-mail three times, and then reread it again. It officially doesn’t make any sense. To deny this is to be in denial.
Posted by D.R. Askew - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 17 hours, 43 minutes ago
When we attain positions of authority, we are obligated to use that power to effect the changes that redress the generations of discrimination that preceded us. I admire those who “do the right thing.” Such conduct is one’s truest (after family) legacy.
D.R. Askew
Florida A&M University - B.S.
University of Iowa, J.D.
Posted by Michelle - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 17 hours, 9 minutes ago
To: John Smith
“....My mother earned a graduate degree from one of the most prestiegous (sic) universities in the US in the early 1940’s, and she was one of the first women of color to do so. She did so without “affirmative action” and remedial undergraduate courses that are so common nowadays. My parents were too busy as achievers to rely on race-based business policies to insure their success.”
She did not achieve this success at that time period without affirmative action. I am appalled that she would teach you that her achievements were hers alone. It is disrespectful to the people who fought for her ability to become so successful. She was one of the first women of color to earn such a degree because the university was forced, because of affirmative action, to open it’s doors to her. She then proved that she was capable, gifted and that she rightfully deserved her placement.
The point is not that she was not intelligent because, quite clearly, the opposite is true. The point is that she would have never received the opportunity, but for affirmative action. Attorneys of color “with distinguished academic and professional credentials” were able to become “distinguished” because they were given that same opportunity.
You also make statements about Asians and Caucasians and their resentment of such policies. My question is: How are you equating Asian with Caucasian? Why would “Asians be faulted for resenting a philospohy (sic) that places race and gender based selection ahead of selection based on merit and professional competency.” They are minorities too. Asian women, like black women, are double minorities. That statement makes little sense and belies your misunderstanding of the actual issues that make affirmative action necessary.
It is always distressing to hear a minority, whether bi-racial or not, make such statements. Your parents may not have been aware of the “race-based business policies” that insured their success, but they clearly benefited from them.
Because your statements are incredibly naïve and somewhat disappointing, I can only assume that you have not spent five minutes in corporate/legal America to understand why Attorney Palmore has offered such a “hiring strategy.” Perhaps if you do so, you will speak from a place of experience instead of ignorance next time.
Posted by John Frederick Troelstrup - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 16 hours, 39 minutes ago
As long as I have known, and admired, Rick and Lynne, I appreciate each new opportunity to get to know each of them better.
This profile, in addition to it efficiently informative personal history, contextualizes the intellectual and professional contours of this remarkably able and accomplished lawyer/human dynamo, Rick Palmore. Low key he is; laid back he is not. And, most importantly, his wit/wisdom/compassion are reliably to be found within the four corners of his actions.
- John Frederick Troelstrup
TROELSTRUP LAW OFFICE
Oak Park, Illinois
Posted by John Smith - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 15 hours, 22 minutes ago
Dear Michelle:
Please study your history! There was no affirmative action in the early nineteen forties! Quite the contrary! Only a hnadful of people of color got to be law students and medical students and graduate students. There were no personnel policies in private business in the nineteen forties that favored the hiring of people of color, or women! Even the armed forces were segregated, and this was in time of war! My mother attended a private institution, not a state school. Her alma mater was not “forced” to accept her, or anybody else! As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned restrictive real estate covenenants only in 1948!
Asian-americans are leaving both black and white Americans in the dust, given their high levels of achievement. Asians come from societies that have a tradition of competitive examinations based on merit, and a tradition of respect for learning and knowledge. Perhaps this is why so many young asians at all levels are good students and respect learning and knowledge, like the Jews used to.
This has led to jealousy of asians, especially among whites, because so many asians have been accepted to good schools, especially in the California state system. It has even led to talk of quotas for asian applicants, because so many asians are successful. Yes, asians may be racial minorities, but they do not have trouble competing with white americans in the workplace. You don’t see asians crabbing that tests are “too european” for them. If anything, I would say asians are sought after because of their worth ethic.
I ask you this: Were were you in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties? Did you live throught that time? Do you attend school at that time? You seem to think that there were no successful professional people of color prior to the civil rights legislation and “affirmative action” programs of the mid-sixties, but there were!
Posted by JHM - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 12 hours, 55 minutes ago
Judging firms and people by the color of their skin is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I can’t be the only attorney who is heartily sick of these diversity bean counters that make a living out of encouraging diviseness in the law.
Unfortunately people are too scared to speak up for fear of being branded racists. Many of us are sick to death of the ABA and state and local bars focussing on “diversity” while legal work is outsourced to India with the ABS’s approval.
Shame on you.
Posted by John S. Williams - 1 year, 1 week, 1 day, 11 hours, 57 minutes ago
I am a staunch supporter of judging people on thier merit. Unfortunately America is not a meritocracy. The most qualified person hardly ever gets the job and the playing field is rarely fair. In addition, America has an invidous history spanning centuries of favoring some classes of people and disfavoring others.
Whenever the son of a law firm partner ascends to the top of the firm based not on his billables or work product but because of his blood line, where is the fairness.
When a student recieves additional consideration based on fraternal affiliation, where is the fairness.
When employment decisions are made based on the notion, as Mr. Smith thinks, that some ethnic groups are smarter than others, where is the fairness.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any of these practices but it is somewhat disingenious to have a problem with diversity initiatives when you don’t have a problem with other unfair none merit based decision making processes so prevalent in our society.
It is definitely ‘Polly Anna-ish’ to think that we have come so far that a person truly will get an oppurtunity if he is the most qualified and capable.
If you live in our society and you think that everything you have recieved was given to you because you deserved it, you are not being honest with yourself.
In addition, diversity of experience and thought adds much to any legal discussion. There are somethings that only a women can relate too. There are somethings only a person of color or Asian American can speak of with any type of confidence because we are all different and bring different experience to the practice of law. Further, there are some conversations that cannot be as full as they should with the perspective of a white man.
All in all, the status quo is comforting to many. It is safe to many in our society. And still others will fight tooth and nail to maintian the status quo. The status quo in America is that for about 95% of America’s existence the white male was the starting point and ending point of every institution in society. To think that this history and these systems has or will just organically fix themselves is whimsical.
Posted by Lauarel Edgeworth - 1 year, 6 days, 4 hours, 29 minutes ago
Rick, Congratulations from your fellow Legal Rebel on a great article. Mentorship is such an integral part of change and change is happening. Our goal is a better, more efficient and life-rewarding legal system and the lawyers who serve it.
Posted by Wally - 1 year, 2 days, 11 hours, 6 minutes ago
Frankly, I was disappointed to read that someone would make a business decision based on the race and sex of the attorneys in a law firm. I would not want to do represent a company that discriminated in this manner. One would think that, especially after the election of a President, who is of a minority race, the days of using the color of a person’s skin, rather than the person’s character and abilities would be a thing of the past.
Posted by JM - 1 year, 1 day, 14 hours, 2 minutes ago
“I am a staunch supporter of judging people on thier merit. Unfortunately America is not a meritocracy. The most qualified person hardly ever gets the job and the playing field is rarely fair. In addition, America has an invidous history spanning centuries of favoring some classes of people and disfavoring others.”
True. But your answer is more of the same! Judging people by the color of their skin. We need to move on from doing that, not perpetuate it. I know that means that “diversity officers” like Rick will be out of a job….but that would be progress.
Posted by herny terry - 1 year, 6 hours, 25 minutes ago
Comment removed by moderator.
Posted by AKB - 11 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
It is crucial to attempt to understand both sides of this issue. Mr. Palmore, like Shell Oil Company, Walmart and many other large organizations, is requiring its legal vendors to supply data on its inclusion of non-white, non-male lawyers who work on their matters. In other words, assuming the law firms used their own stringent criteria in hiring from a diverse pool of candidates, and have some women and some minority lawyers in their midst, how many of those women and minority lawyers are given meaningful opportunities to work on General Mills’s (Shell, Walmart) matters? This is important because the ABA’s studies show that hiring of qualified women and minorites has improved but a large number of firms do a horrendous job of mentoring and providing meaningful work opportunities with client exposure for women and minority lawyers, particularly at large law firms. Consequently, the attrition rate of these lawyers is 4 and 5 times that of their white male counterparts.
Posted by T. Cain - 10 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 10 minutes ago
I think a good number of people on this post are overlooking an important fact. Hiring/promotion/retention decisions have always been based on race (white) and gender (male). Now that law firms and businesses are extending consideration to people who happen to be other than white and male, there’s an uproar. The power structure in this country is changing and people are afraid. And perhaps rightfully so. No one wants to be the face at the bottom of the well (see derrick bell’s book). Is mainstream America afraid that if enough women and minorities come to power, perhaps the tables will turn and some of this disparate treatment that’s been dished out over the centuries might come home to roost? Who knows. In our so called age-of-Obama-post-race-America, I think many of us still believe that people of certain races are undeserving no matter what their merits (as evidenced by an MIT study that showed when whites and blacks had the same credentials, whites were more likely to be hired than blacks).
I find it interesting that we lament over “underqualified minorities taking positions they didn’t earn,” while no one bellyaches over the fact that our former president—God bless him—could not conjugate verbs and used words like “missunderestimated” on national television. He had degrees from both Yale and Harvard. Hmmmm. How did that happen? Affirmative action, perhaps? Oh- I’m sorry! Legacy admissions, nepotism, croni-ism and other non-merit-based-white-male-favoratisms are not affirmative action because white males are some how magically “qualified” for whatever position they find themselves in. But, what exactly does “merit” measure? Does it measure one’s intellectual abilities and depth of character? Or does it measure inherited social privilege? We too quickly assume that white males in influential positions have always earned their way to the top.
John, as a woman of color I am so very proud of all your mother accomplished in the 1940s. She had to be incredibly intelligent and determined, but I doubt she was unique among women of color in her day. Yet, she achieved her goals while others did not. Were the others lazy or otherwise apathetic about their futures? It makes it easy to explain away their failure in light of your mother’s success; however, I think the more plausible explanation is that racism and sexism cut the others’ journey towards success short.
Affirmative action does not make any guarantees. It simply opens doors that may not have been open before. Once the door is open it’s up to you to prove yourself—which is what every Legal Rebel on this panel has done. Well done, colleagues :-).
Posted by Frusturated - 10 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes ago
Alright. I’ve had it. This last comment from AKB about how large firms do a “horrendous” job of mentoring and providing meaningful work to qualified minorities is an inappropriate stereotype. Some firms are good at it, some are not. To suggest that the firms are failing the minorities is, in a larger sense, another example of blaming one group’s problems on someone else—a theme of sorts it would seem.
At my firm, we hired two black women to work in my practice group. We mentored them unceasingly. Bottom line, they were horrible and we discreetly fired them both. What if I were to conclude that all black women were “horrendous” at the law. Wouldn’t that be a wrong conclusion to draw?
Stop blaming all law firms or all law schools or all white people for your problems. We’re not all bad. In fact, some of us who really try are very frustrated in our efforts, and I am starting to see this whole diversity initiative as a waste of time—maybe even as an evil thing. When we move away from merit, we introduce randomness and bad logic into the process. People need to be judged on performance—nothing more.
Posted by Paulette R Caswell, Ph.D. - 10 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 17 hours, 13 minutes ago
Hasn’t anyone thought about INCLUDING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES in this discussion of failure to diversify the legal profession appropriately? I am particularly thinking of the utter failure of even “advocates for diversity” to include people with communication disabilities of vision, hearing, and/or speech. Those people are not even thought about or considered in diversity discussions, even though the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the later additions clearly specify that persons with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority group.
Posted by Michelle - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 13 hours, 4 minutes ago
Dr. Caswell, how exactly can someone with a hearing disability and a SPEECH disability be an effective lawyer in trial?
Just like the myth fed to women that they can “have it all”...not everything is for everybody. Skin colour is not an impediment except where people decide to make it one. Inability to articulate your client’s case clearly to a judge and jury…to hear properly…I’m sorry, I would not hire a lawyer like that to represent me so the best bet for such a person is to fix those issues through therapy, surgery, great hearing aids…and in those cases, they no longer need to count themselves disabled so it becomes a moot point.
Also, to “Frusturated” who felt the 2 black women lawyers were horrible…2 women make you feel diversity initiatives are a waste of time and departing from merit was a mistake. Yes it was if that is what your company did. You were not suppose to include unqualified, incapable black females in your recruitment efforts. Unless, of course, your company’s goal all along was to purposely hire the worst they could find so they could point to the sure failures and say “see!? see what happens when we include them?”
I am sure you could have found better. Better yet I am sure everyone makes mistakes but time and again a black person’s hiccup is treated the equivalent of a white person’s sale of trade secrets. Get a grip if they were horrible then whoever hired them is not fit to be a recruiter. No one said diversity meant to go find blacks who have LESS than the typical qualifications to get in at the firm. Just to include the ones who do who have historically been left out despite being qualified.
Posted by thedom - 8 months, 1 week, 6 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Fascinating conversation.
However, this approach is tired and a zero sum game. I’m surprised the law of unintended consequences never rears its head.
Aside from the obvious qualifications risk - what about the free-riders? Aren’t certain immigrants able to benefit from this when they have no claim of historic discrimination? The way I see it, recent Kenyan and Guatemalan immigrants (random example) get the benefit without having ever paid for it.
The way I see it, this has a crowding-out effect on those far more deserving. What do you think?
Posted by CLTJD - 3 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 9 hours, 38 minutes ago
I am surprised and disappointed at some of these knee jerk responses (let alone the misspellings and grammar). How can being more aware of diverse and minority candidates when making hiring decisions be a bad thing? I am not for quotas, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that there are no qualified minorities and diverse candidates out there who are being left out of consideration in the traditional hiring process.
As to the comment about how people with speech or hearing impediments shouldn’t be expected to “have it all” and be trial attorneys, no one mentioned that they had to be trial attorneys. Many of our fellow attorneys do excellent jobs without having to attend or participate in trials: ever hear of real estate or IP attorneys? That argument just seemed mean-spirited or completely misguided.
I do think this conversation should expand beyond race and gender. Candidate of diverse ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disability are also worthy of consideration in these discussions.