Introduction: From Gold Standard to “Culture & Engagement”
For years, Reed Smith was celebrated as a diversity champion in BigLaw. The firm consistently earned accolades from the Women In Law Empowerment Forum (WILEF) and touted its DEI milestones in public-facing content. But in a dramatic shift, the global firm has announced that it is “retiring” its DEI program following a workplace discrimination probe by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Instead of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Reed Smith will now categorize its internal initiatives under a new umbrella: “Culture & Engagement.”
This move signals a strategic retreat from the firm’s once-prominent diversity stance—and positions Reed Smith among a growing list of BigLaw firms walking back DEI branding in response to political, legal, and internal pressures.
The EEOC Investigation: What Sparked the Change?
In an internal email obtained by Bloomberg Law, Reed Smith’s Global Managing Partner Casey Ryan informed firm members that the DEI program would be officially sunset. While the firm did not explicitly connect the decision to the EEOC’s ongoing workplace discrimination probe, legal observers say the timing is difficult to ignore.
The firm’s decision comes as the EEOC intensifies investigations into whether diversity programs are discriminatory toward majority groups—a trend emboldened by anti-DEI rhetoric in government and media circles.
The Rebrand: From DEI to “Culture & Engagement”
Reed Smith’s internal email framed the transition as a rebranding effort, not a cancellation of values:
“We will retire our DEI program and provide offerings going forward under the banner ‘Culture & Engagement,’” wrote Ryan.
While the rebrand may seem cosmetic, legal experts warn it reflects a broader trend in which firms are quietly dismantling DEI infrastructure while maintaining surface-level messaging about inclusivity.
Similar Trends at Other Firms:
- K&L Gates removed DEI references from its website amid public scrutiny.
- Perkins Coie and Davis Wright Tremaine are reportedly facing litigation over diversity-related programs.
- Multiple firms are shifting language toward “inclusivity,” “belonging,” or “values-based hiring” to avoid legal exposure.
Legal Analysis: What’s In a Name?
Professor Stacy Hawkins of Rutgers Law School, a scholar of DEI and constitutional law, cautions that changing the name of a program does not change its legal implications.
“If your program, by design or effect, benefits historically marginalized groups, the title doesn’t shield you from scrutiny,” Hawkins explained.
Even if rebranded, programs that functionally support women, people of color, or LGBTQ+ attorneys can still trigger complaints or lawsuits under current interpretations of Title VII.
The Risk of “Aura Farming”: When Messaging Outpaces Action
For critics, Reed Smith’s quiet removal of DEI references signals more than just brand strategy—it represents what some call “aura farming”: the act of promoting values like diversity for reputational benefit without meaningful commitment to outcomes.
Articles still available on Reed Smith’s site—like the one highlighting partner Katy Basile’s mentorship of Black junior attorneys—may soon vanish, adding to suspicions that the firm is actively scrubbing its diversity footprint to avoid legal risk.
The Bigger Picture: Law Firms Caught in the Crossfire
Reed Smith’s move reflects a larger cultural and legal backlash against diversity programs in corporate America. Conservative legal organizations and government officials have targeted DEI efforts, framing them as reverse discrimination or unlawful quotas.
This backlash is occurring at the same time that:
- Student and work visas for high-achieving international applicants are being revoked.
- Underrepresented lawyers still face systemic barriers to partnership and leadership.
- Meritocracy discourse is often used to mask the exclusion of minority talent under the guise of “neutral” standards.
These contradictions highlight a growing tension: How can institutions maintain credibility on diversity while abandoning structural support for marginalized groups?
What This Means for Legal Industry DEI
Key Takeaways:
- Firms like Reed Smith are retreating from DEI branding while facing EEOC probes.
- Rebranding does not shield a firm from litigation if its programs still focus on marginalized groups.
- Token DEI messaging without structural support may damage firm reputation and morale.
- Younger attorneys and law students—especially from diverse backgrounds—are increasingly skeptical of firms’ long-term commitments to inclusion.
Conclusion: A DEI Disappearance in Real Time
Reed Smith didn’t just pause a program—they erased a decade of diversity messaging, signaling that even “Gold Standard” firms are willing to step back from DEI when the political winds shift.
The legal profession must now reckon with a difficult question: If firms are truly committed to equity, are they prepared to defend those values under legal, political, and financial pressure?
Because renaming the program isn’t the end of the story. It’s just the beginning of a new chapter—one in which values and actions must finally align, or risk becoming little more than empty branding.
FAQs
Q: Why did Reed Smith retire its DEI program?
A: The firm stated it is transitioning to a “Culture & Engagement” model, following an EEOC workplace discrimination investigation.
Q: Are other law firms making similar changes?
A: Yes. Firms like K&L Gates, Perkins Coie, and Davis Wright Tremaine are adjusting DEI language or facing legal scrutiny.
Q: Can firms face lawsuits for diversity programs?
A: Yes. If a program favors specific groups, it may be challenged under Title VII even if rebranded or facially neutral.
Q: What does this mean for diverse attorneys?
A: There’s growing concern that such rebrands may reduce support systems, mentorship, and equitable promotion paths for underrepresented lawyers.
Q: Are there legal ways to support DEI goals?
A: Yes. Experts recommend embedding values in culture, mentorship, retention, and professional development rather than quotas or preferences.
