Report comment

It is not wholly unusual for US Corporations, in particular West Coast ones, to have diversity obligations in their contracts with law firms (along with sometimes mind-numbing detail about exactly how lawyers record time, with many many different 'work category types' - the most I recall seeing and bothering to count was over 60 - some irrelevant to UK practice, such as depositions).

The use of the expression " 'diversity holdback' mandate" might suggest that there is already a diversity expectation in the contract, which hasn't been fully acted on thus far, possibly because the law firms concerned successfully argued compliance wasn't possible (the relevant qualifying lawyers weren't available perhaps).

All large corporations have some leeway in throwing their weight around when it comes to terms and conditions. The UK isn't quite as sophisticated - yet - as the US, although one does hear of the occasional odd requirement. The sort which can impact on day to day life could be about billing cycles and time to pay, such as payments only authorised once every two months, on the second Thursday, and only take account of invoices rendered at least 4 weeks in advance (workable once you get the hang of the schedule).

US corporates on the other hand have pages and pages of requirements, and navigating them can be tricky. A common bugbear for lawyers is the non compete provision, by which the corporation requires the law firm to contractually commit to never acting, without written consent from the General Counsel (absolute discretion), for any company in the same industry/geography/etc, which can cause terrible problems with e.g. acting in takeovers, and discovering late on that a small widget making subsidiary is covered by another big client's veto.

Since the story also says that HP say "the holdback provision ‘will likely never apply’", this reads more like what is now termed 'virtue signalling.'

Perhaps there is some US legal diversity award coming up soon?