“How does one address tokenism that may be perceived as inclusion due to someone of a diverse group having assumed expert knowledge of said diverse group. For example, is it tokenizing to ask a trans attorney to be part of a client pitch on a matter which involves trans people just because the attorney is trans-identified? What is the appropriate way for partners to approach these conversations with an attorney who is part of a marginalized group as it relates to their skills vs. their identity?”

It is smart to consider properly including people with relevant identities on a work matter. In the words of Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, “Those closest to the pain should be closest to the power.” But, I suggest taking the following factors into consideration to avoid tokenism or overly burdening lawyers who are a part of a marginalized group.

1. Check in to see if this matter is something of interest to the lawyer, regardless of whether or not they have the relevant knowledge or skills. Even if they do not have any special knowledge, their identity itself will be an asset to the team. If they are interested in this work, it’s a win-win to give them the chance to be involved. They will learn new skills, and the team will benefit from their presence. Just be sure that the lawyer truly has the option to say no.

2. If the lawyer is interested in the matter, consider their appropriate leadership role on the team. What are the power dynamics? Will this opportunity enhance the lawyer’s career? If their identity and/or experience is relevant, be sure that the lawyer will be listened to and properly respected by all members of the team.