I just attended a Washington, D.C. Bar Association ethics seminar (mandatory) in which it was communicated that, yes, clients are free to choose their attorneys on the basis of sex (hypothetical client didn’t want a female attorney). Race wasn’t mentioned. But this obviously creates a massive contradiction: it’s illegal for Law Firm X to say, “we won’t hire you because you’re white,” but the client is putting them in just such a position. And the would-be white associate now has no legal remedy. I would be willing to bet the Mega Millions jackpot that if any other race were the target, someone would file a lawsuit alleging SOMETHING… say, that the client must be deemed “an employer” for the purposes of civil rights laws. And I’ll further bet that a court would set aside the obvious distinction between client and employer and “reach the result,” as they say in law school. Far nuttier things have happened when American jurisprudence attempts to reconcile the competing messages on race.

One solution would be to eliminate anti-discrimination laws altogether, at least as they apply to private parties. There is no legitimate Constitutional authority for federal anti-discrimination laws in any event: the commerce clause justification is a laughable pretext.

No point in actually doing any research, tell them what they want to hear. It’s not as if you’re perjuring yourself.

Then go and practise a non-discriminatory HR policy without interference from outside interests who are clueless.