It's fine – the people commenting are bitter. This is a red herring. The issue was autonomy at the top. The issue of gender was propped up as a cudgel against those seeking more freedom. Trilegal has a healthy number of women lawyers now, even in the competition team with two female partners. Ignore snide remarks.

This is not a snide remark. Look at the team structures closely. The two male partners in question, GC and that ex Luthra appendage, the next in command in both their teams are men. There may have been women Lawyers at junior levels (from erstwhile NKU era) but none of those have made it to the counsel levels under these two partners. Speak to ppl who have worked in these two teams, it IS a boys club. Let’s just call a spade a spade.

Oh I remember the good ol days of working with these men, it had reached a point where I would get a male colleague to communicate all my crucial inputs to these partner, that was THE ONLY WAY to get heard, of course very indirect. BUT I was just giving myself the comfort that at least this way the inputs found their way into the final draft. Just your usual old school boys club with a generous dose of patriarchy - ah cruel cruel thing.

This should be mandatory watching for men in the former TL team. To save themselves and place themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkTglJuqq8U

The Target: The FTC investigated law firms participating in the "Mansfield Certification" program operated by the DEI consultancy Diversity Lab.

- The Antitrust Concern: The FTC argued that coordination among law firms on standardized DEI hiring metrics, demographic hiring pools, and candidate-sharing agreements violated competition laws, specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
- The Outcome: Under immense regulatory pressure, Diversity Lab dissolved and permanently ceased operations to avoid continued FTC antitrust investigations
The Two Sides of the Argument

- The Anti-DEI Argument: Opponents argue that if a law firm sets a quota, uses a diversity scorecard, or gives a hiring preference based on race or gender, it is no longer hiring purely on talent. They view this as illegal discrimination against highly qualified candidates who do not fit those specific diversity criteria.
- The Pro-DEI Argument: Supporters argue that the traditional legal system was never a true meritocracy to begin with. They believe that systemic biases, exclusive networking, and elite university pipelines naturally lock out talented people. In their view, DEI programs level the playing field so that actual merit can be spotted and rewarded, regardless of a person's background.

Is there some rule the next in line should be a different gender?

I know several teams which famously call themselves all women. I know teams where the inner circle is just women. In those teams men take coffee orders and remain patsies or fall guys. Placing the glass ceiling elsewhere, isn't breaking it.

If you think that is normal - good luck professionally.

If people come from broken homes, their leadership tends to be very broken and over-compensatory. Look to be mentored by balanced people always or you risk becoming versions of them. Something you will realize as you grow up. That sense of stability in a functional family translates into better leaders. These people can manage a team and raise better families. Others get pets both at home and office and treat their team like an expensive petting zoo.