Morrison & Foerster, a prominent U.S. law firm, has recently altered the criteria for its fellowship program aimed at promoting diversity within the legal profession. The change comes in the wake of a legal challenge by conservative activist Edward Blum, known for his involvement in the successful U.S. Supreme Court case against considering race in college admissions.
The fellowship, named the Keith Wetmore 1L Fellowship for Excellence, Diversity, and Inclusion, was initially limited to Black, Hispanic, Native American, or LGBT applicants. However, the firm has now removed this specification, as seen on a flyer for the program on its website.
Edward Blum’s organization, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, filed lawsuits against Morrison & Foerster and another large law firm, alleging that their diversity fellowships unlawfully excluded individuals based on their race. These paid fellowships were designed to support the recruitment of individuals from historically underrepresented groups within the legal industry.
The fellowship includes a paid summer-associate position, often leading to high-paying jobs in law firms after graduation, along with a $50,000 stipend. Morrison & Foerster, a global law firm with over 1,000 lawyers, had previously stated that the fellowship was intended for law students who were members of historically underrepresented groups in the legal industry. However, this language has now been replaced with a requirement for applicants to bring a diverse perspective based on adaptability, cultural fluency, resilience, and life experiences.
This legal challenge is part of a broader trend of increased scrutiny of corporate diversity programs following a Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action. Edward Blum’s previous lawsuits targeted Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Another law firm, Perkins Coie, is also facing legal action by Blum for its similar fellowship program, with the firm stating its commitment to defending its dedication to diversity.
Morrison & Foerster has not yet responded to requests for comment, and Blum’s organization awaits a formal reply as it seeks a preliminary injunction in district court.
