Show Notes
Richard Sander, UCLA law professor and economist, has spent decades advancing one of the most controversial arguments in legal education: that large racial preferences in law school admissions may frequently harm the students they are intended to help. In this episode of New Law Order, Joel Cohen and Yale Law Professor John Morley speak with Sander about affirmative action, the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, and what new data may reveal about the future of law school admissions.
Sander explains his “mismatch” hypothesis: the claim that students admitted with very large academic preferences may be more likely to struggle academically, land at the bottom of the class, and face lower odds of passing the bar than if they had attended a school where their entering credentials were closer to the median. The discussion is direct, data-heavy, and often uncomfortable, touching on race, merit, institutional secrecy, bar passage, and the incentives that shape elite legal education.
Sander also examines what changed after SFFA. He argues that the first post-SFFA admissions cycle produced one of the most dramatic shifts in elite law school admissions in decades, with some schools appearing to reduce racial preferences substantially while others found ways to preserve diversity through different admissions strategies. Joel and John press Sander on the strength of the evidence, the limits of the mismatch theory, and whether the legal academy has been willing to test its own assumptions.
The episode then turns from law schools to law firms. If elite employers continue to hire for diversity while drawing heavily from credential-driven pipelines, what obligations do they have to train, support, and retain the lawyers they recruit? Sander argues that real affirmative action cannot stop at admission or hiring; it must include institutional investment after the offer is made.
Guest: Richard Sander is a professor at UCLA School of Law and a PhD economist whose work focuses on law, inequality, housing, and affirmative action. He is one of the leading academic critics of racial preferences in higher education and was cited by the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
For more conversations with the figures reshaping the legal business, subscribe to New Law Order. For a CLE-eligible version of this interview and more legal analysis, visit www.talksonlaw.com. For questions or comments, email [email protected].
More from New Law Order
Big Law has spent decades and a fortune on diversity, and the numbers barely moved at the partnership level. The usual explanation is that somewhere in the building (or somewhere in your head) there's racism and misogyny. David Wilkins, Harvard Law professor and possibly the most important scholar on the legal profession, has a less satisfying answer: you don't need bigots to get this result. You just need busy partners.
In this episode of New Law Order, Joel Cohen and Yale Law Professor John Morley speak with CJ Mahoney, Chief Legal Officer of Meta, about one of the hardest legal questions facing modern technology companies: when a product becomes deeply woven into daily life, how should the law think about harm, responsibility, and regulation? Drawing on a career that has taken him from Williams & Connolly to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Microsoft, and now Meta, Mahoney offers an unusually candid look at what it means to serve as the top lawyer inside a company operating at the center of law, politics, and technological change.
Michael A. Gerstenzang, the longtime managing partner and now senior partner of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, explains how he positioned one of the world's most established law firms to lead in AI adoption — not by outsourcing innovation, but by building it from the inside. The conversation traces a series of structural bets that began before generative AI entered the mainstream, starting with ClearyX, a wholly owned technology subsidiary launched in 2021 to reinvent M&A due diligence. Gerstenzang describes the venture's founding provocation — imagine the business that puts Cleary Gottlieb out of business, and build it — and how A/B testing against traditional associate-led diligence demonstrated equal or superior quality at roughly half the cost.
This week, we’re sharing a timely episode from a related TalksOnLaw podcast, AI Lawyer. In this episode, host Joel Cohen is joined by Judge Paul Grimm for a conversation about one of the most unsettling problems facing the legal system: what happens when audio, video, and other forms of evidence can be generated, manipulated, or challenged by artificial intelligence?
Artificial intelligence is beginning to change not just how lawyers work, but what parts of the job remain distinctly human. In this episode of New Law Order, we speak with Jason Boehmig, founder and CEO of Ironclad, about how AI and legal technology are reshaping the structure of the legal profession.