Women are down a bit from their average proportions with that level of expertise, but only a few percentage points. Probably close to the margin of error.
Blacks are a bit underrepresented before the Court, but not that much underrepresented. Latinos are also within the margin of error, and it would be interesting to see the bios of the Latinos. The one black was the son of immigrants, which, oddly, is exactly what I expected when I read the OP. (Granted, Irish and Nigerian didn't come to mind, but "son" and "immigrant" did).
Then there's the idea that the individual clients are out to win their case and will pick who they think is best. If there's a doubt about a lawyer's skills, whether that's based on university, law firm, accent, height, color of hair, XY or XX chromosomes, or skin color is a personal decision (or a decision made by a few people representing an organization).
What's actually out of whack is the SCOTUS, but the NYT doesn't see that because for them change is immediate and compelled. SCOTUS would have the same sort of race/sex skew if they were chosen randomly from sets of equally qualified people. That the Supreme Court is skewed as it is shows that presidents have looked and decided that skin color and genitals were every bit important as qualifying factors as other legal prerequisites like political views.
New grads from law schools still show skews in various directions, but it'll take more than my lifetime for those particular skewings to become dominant in the profession. Some changes are done by fiat, and are essentially speech acts. We think of those as the real changes. However, even change by fiat takes time to implement, and when you're talking about a change that's the accumulation of a millions of individual decisions--choice of major, decision to go to grad school, decision where to apply, decisions by employers or hire or promote, decisions by customers to patronize or avoid a law firm--it's not a change you're going to be able to rush.
= new reply since forum marked as read
