Speaking to Lawyers Weekly in January, leaders of half a dozen BigLaw firms in Australia stressed that DEI is “not going away” in their businesses, despite calls from the tech “broligarchy” for more “masculine energy” in workplaces. However, the Trump White House has seen fit, in recent months, to target numerous BigLaw firms in the US over their DEI policies, with the American Equal Employment Opportunity Commission having sent letters to 20 BigLaw firms – including a handful with Australian presences – probing their DEI practices.

Since this time, several of those BigLaw firms – including White & Case and A&O Shearman, both of which have offices in Australia – have either ditched or amended their DEI practices.

In late March, Lawyers Weekly approached various global law firms to ask whether those businesses remained committed to DEI – some replied, but others declined to do so, or did not respond by the time this story was published.

How employers respond to the shifting sands of geopolitics is, of course, just one side of the coin. How prospective and existing employees react is potentially just as significant.

To this end, we approached a handful of recruiters to see if jobseekers in law, for roles in private practice and/or in-house, are indicating that they will not want to work for law firms or law departments that roll back DEI.

VIEW ALL

Young lawyers’ concerns

The developments in the US, mused Rachael Musgrave – a partner at empire group – “have not gone unnoticed” in Australia, prompting concern and reflection among legal professionals, particularly in the younger generation of lawyers.

“Raised with an emphasis on inclusivity, this generation views DEI as vital to fairness and opportunity. Many fear that dismantling formal structures could erode gains made for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and culturally diverse lawyers,” she said.

“Younger professionals definitely prioritise values-driven workplaces, and the rollback of DEI sends a troubling message, undermining years of hard-won progress in representation and equity within the legal profession.”

“Potentially, a firm that embeds DEI principles into the core values of its culture may be more acceptable.”

“Time will tell, but younger lawyers are reshaping the profession – rejecting outdated norms and demanding real change.”

A looming threat?

G2 Legal Australian director Daniel Stirling, Dovetail Legal Solutions managing director Andrew Murdoch (both in-house), and Burgess Paluch Legal Recruitment director Paul Burgess (private practice) all noted they have not yet noticed DEI being a determining factor in candidate motivations, nor are businesses looking to unwind such initiatives.

However, Stirling noted, “I do believe that this could be an important factor going forward, though, should these changes occur.”

“Many firms and organisations have come a long way in respect to DEI and the gender pay gap, and I think most people would agree that this is fair and equitable as well as benefiting these organisations by having differing views and ideas at all levels,” he said.

“I feel that DEI policies are quite entrenched within the Australian legal community and feel that it is unlikely to be dispensed with in the same way as the US. I also believe that legal employers would be aware that this kind of move could be counterproductive and seen as a negative by current and potential future employees, so this may make them less likely to remove or reduce these policies.”

If in-house clients were to roll back DEI, Murdoch said, “I expect it would depend on the individual lawyer, their social/political views, the company, and the proposed changes”.

“Lawyers may become more curious about DEI policies when considering roles, particularly at American companies,” he said.

Burgess agreed: “If large firms and corporates do unwind initiatives that are already accepted and entrenched as good corporate practice here, then it will likely have some impact on their ability to attract and retain talent, particularly lawyers those from diverse backgrounds or with strong social awareness and beliefs in the importance of DEI.”

Good leadership

For Phillip Hunter, director (legal and governance, in-house) at Carlyle Kingswood Global, lawyers may not be actively interrogating a prospective employer’s formal DEI statements or policies, but they are watching – and “what matters most” – is leadership.

That is: who is hiring, promoting, educating, and creating space at the table, and whether that’s being done instinctively, with fairness and integrity, Hunter stressed.

“You can have the most rigorous DEI policy on paper, but if the person making decisions doesn’t genuinely hold those values, they will inevitably find ways to work around it,” he said.

“Equally, I’ve seen organisations with no formal DEI narrative thrive because their leaders simply understand, believe in, and live inclusion as part of who they are. The best leaders embed DEI not because policy tells them to, but because it is right – and because it reflects their own values and moral compass.

“I do believe there’s an ‘Australian fairness’ ethos at play here – a cultural leaning toward equity, fairness, and the so-called ‘fair go’. We are not the un-United States of America.

“That said, we have all noticed some organisations quietly diluting/walking back or removing their public DEI commitments – unsurprisingly, this tends to be those with US headquarters or strong ties to the American public sector.

“Even so, I’m not yet seeing candidates explicitly exclude firms or companies on this basis. And while some organisations may publicly appease Trump, I genuinely do not believe they will materially shift their day-to-day DEI values or behaviours – at least not in those with good leaders.”

A ‘quiet warning’ and perspective

This said, Hunter went on, there will always be bad actors.

“We’ve already heard from some clients that if firms, service providers, or companies in their supply chains roll back their DEI commitments, they will act. It serves as a quiet warning: for those determined to reverse progress – or, perhaps more fittingly, to borrow from Trump’s Project 2025 playbook – the risk is not just internal. Australians, I suspect, will vote with their feet, and take their business elsewhere,” he said.

Hunter also acknowledged what he sees as his own position and privilege in this conversation, “as a white, Australian, cisgender gay male”.

“I know that my experience is not universal. Women, people of colour, LGBTIQ+, especially trans and gender-diverse individuals, neurodiverse people, and those from migrant or international backgrounds may be having very different conversations and experiences,” he said.

“There’s a real risk, particularly in leadership circles, of reinforcing our own experience as the default – the echo chamber or ‘bubble principle’ at play – which can easily blind us to the realities faced by others. There is likely nuance in how this issue is felt and responded to across different communities.”

Ultimately, he concluded, culture is shaped by actions, not policies.

“Inclusion lives or dies in the decisions each of us makes every day,” he said.