Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) is increasingly coming under pressure, partly due to Trump and his entourage. Even large law firms seem to be following this trend. Especially in times when DEI is under threat, this is the moment for firms that are consciously committed to diversity and inclusion to loudly and clearly express their values. By openly showing that they continue to invest in an inclusive work culture, they can attract top talent who deliberately choose a progressive environment.
Suddenly, I went viral
Earlier this month, I had a conversation with a Managing Partner of a law firm. He proudly mentioned that they "have more female partners than most". When I got home, I decided to check it: five of the eighteen partners were women. The cynic in me immediately thought that they were doing even better than the new federal government.
I decided to post a picture of the new federal government. The composition: eleven men, four women, all white, and one person who openly identifies as LGBTQ+. The message I wanted to convey was that, just like in the legal profession, there is still work to be done on diversity in the federal government. Within 24 hours, the post had more than 100,000 views, but what stood out the most? Almost no one discussed the issue I wanted to raise, but instead, the discussion focused on the different governments in Belgium and their composition. The conversation shifted to wokism, meritocracy, and, as with any viral post, I was, of course, subjected to some personal attacks. I had clearly underestimated how intensely this topic resonates beyond the legal profession.
"Better than others" as the standard?
I wasn’t trying to compare the different governments, but used the striking photo as a symbol of the lack of diversity in top positions. Yet, I heard the same argument quite often: "At the non-federal level, we’re doing well." This reminded me of the Managing Partner who said: "We’re already doing better than other firms." My thought here was: since when is "better than others" good enough?
The fact that a firm performs better than another is positive in itself, but it doesn’t mean the goal of diversity and inclusion has been reached. It’s not enough to compare your composition with that of another law firm. Diversity and inclusion should not be relative concepts, but clear ambitions. The goal should be to achieve a composition that is representative of society. Every marginal improvement is a step in the right direction, but we must not settle for it.
It’s like a law firm boasting that it only takes 32 days to file an appeal, while the average firm takes 35 days. Sounds impressive, but if the appeal period is just one month, it doesn’t matter. No matter how fast they are compared to others, they are still too late.
The comparison with other firms as a benchmark will become even less relevant with Trump’s arrival. Some firms will stop their DEI initiatives, reducing the overall commitment to diversity in the legal profession. If you continue to hold on to “better than others,” you won’t need to make any progress to come out as a winner. Those who truly want to make progress need to have a clear goal in mind, independent of policies and what other firms are doing. Now more than ever.
The impact of Trump on international firms in Brussels
A week before my LinkedIn post, I attended an event on diversity and inclusion within the legal profession. This coincided with a decision by Donald Trump to abolish all federal DEI initiatives in the United States. There was an unusual tension in the air at the event. Participants had questions: "What does this mean for us?" and "What if American firms freeze their DEI budgets to please Trump?"
At that moment, I still thought: "This is Belgium; we will be spared from this." My naivety was quickly shattered when I received a phone call from a candidate who told me that his (well-known American) law firm had decided to freeze its DEI budgets in Brussels as well. The impact? He is now looking for a new firm, a workplace where diversity and inclusion are not taboo.
The long-term consequences of cancelling DEI initiatives
What are the long-term consequences for firms that cancel DEI initiatives? Will firms be seen as less attractive to certain lawyers? Will the group photo become more homogeneous again?
What is driving firms to follow Trump’s vision? Private companies still have the freedom to determine their own DEI policies, don’t they? I found it hard to believe that law firms would follow Trump’s policy. But as an American lawyer explained to me at the event: "Some American firms are determined to keep doing business with Trump and his entourage. If that means sacrificing DEI projects, so be it."
I wonder how these firms will look back on this later. What happens when Trump is no longer in charge? How will they justify scaling back their inclusion policies out of opportunism? Can a firm justify putting economic interests above ideals? What impact will it have on the composition of the firm and the work culture? Which talent will or won’t choose these firms?
Furthermore, is this development purely down to Trump as an individual, or does it form part of a broader, global trend? And if so, does it make a difference that Trump is president, or is this simply the direction we are heading in over the coming decades? Is this the start of a slippery slope? Will we look back on 2025 as the turning point when acquired rights were called into question?
I don’t have all the answers to these questions, but it’s essential to reflect on them.
A call to firms: invest in DEI
I’ve written before about the importance clients place on having a diverse team. I once witnessed a firm asking a lateral partner candidate if they were gay because clients considered it an important criterion. Will these same clients keep their DEI initiatives or cancel them? Will the question next time be whether the candidate is heterosexual? Will clients consciously choose to only work with law firms that align with Trump’s policy?
The conversation with the lawyer who is changing firms was a turning point for me. It means not only that American decisions are filtering through to Belgium, but also that certain talent will not simply accept these choices. It shows that lawyers weigh the issue of diversity when choosing a firm. This presents a huge opportunity for firms that genuinely want to focus on inclusion: by simply staying true to their existing principles, they can distinguish themselves from other firms and attract diverse talent looking for a safe and supportive working environment.
I consciously use the word “simply” because firms once tried to stand out by loudly proclaiming that they were participating in DEI initiatives, sometimes even risking accusations of 'pink-washing'. If those same firms are still shouting this from the rooftops today, they are making a clear statement: "We’re not selling our soul to Trump." These are the firms that will emerge victorious in the war for talent.
Conclusion
The legal profession still reflects our diverse society too little. There are not only invisible walls but also outspoken visions and actions that prevent a truly diverse environment. Not having to think about diversity and inclusion is a privilege if the world is shaped by your perspective. However, that is not the case for many.
We are at a crossroads. Do we continue to get stuck in minimal improvements and defensive arguments like "we’re doing better than the rest"? Or do we seize this opportunity to take a stand on diversity and inclusion?
For firms that are committed to diversity and inclusion, this is the moment to loudly and clearly express their values. By openly showing that they continue to invest in an inclusive work culture, they can attract top talent who consciously choose a progressive environment.
Isabel Rosendor
Co-founder JustLawyers
🔗 Read the full article in Dutch on Jubel.be: Wanneer DEI onder druk komt