“The future of the profession will be shaped not by moments of momentum, but by what institutions choose to stand for when no one is demanding it.”
In a move that has sparked concern and conversation across Toronto’s legal community, McCarthy Tétrault LLP has paused its 1L Black and Indigenous Summer Program. The program, launched in 2020, was widely seen as a meaningful effort to address systemic barriers to entry in the legal profession. It offered first-year summer positions to Black and Indigenous law students, groups that have been historically underrepresented on Bay Street.
The decision has drawn criticism from members of the legal profession and raised broader concerns about the durability of law firm commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
That summer, in 2020, the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis ignited a wave of protests and public reckoning around anti-Black racism and institutional inequality. In Canada, it sparked renewed attention on the treatment of Black and Indigenous communities. Law firms, like many other institutions, came under scrutiny for their historic lack of representation and the barriers that continued to prevent equitable access to legal careers. While statements of solidarity were widespread, the legal profession also faced growing calls to move beyond symbolic gestures and pursue meaningful structural change.
In response, several Canadian firms, including McCarthy Tétrault, announced new diversity-focused recruitment and retention initiatives. McCarthy’s 1L Black and Indigenous Program was one of the most visible among these: a targeted effort to provide early professional opportunities to students from communities historically excluded from Bay Street.
Now, five years later, its suspension has prompted many to ask: What happened? What changed? And what does this say about the legal profession’s commitment to inclusion?
According to the firm, the pause is part of a broader review of its recruitment strategy. In a statement given to The Globe and Mail, McCarthy’s emphasized that diversity remains a core value and stated its intention to come back with “even stronger” recruitment programs after the review. CEO Sunil Kapur noted, “This work is never over, and we’re excited about making our industry-leading recruitment programs even stronger following our strategic review.”
Walied Soliman, Chair of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, took to LinkedIn to voice his concerns: “Giving well-earned opportunities to join the top of this great profession to women, minorities, economically disadvantaged and others and ensuring that our teams reflect the communities and clients with whom we live and have the privilege to work, is our responsibility.”
His sentiment echoes a broader frustration among diversity advocates: many firms made bold commitments in 2020 but are now quietly rolling them back amid shifting public discourse. As public attention shifts and the urgency of that 2020 movement fades, there’s growing concern that programs are being scaled back without clear communication or long-term strategy.
The suspension of the 1L program is particularly significant for students navigating an increasingly competitive job market. First-year summer positions are limited and often serve as gateways to second-year recruitment and eventual articling offers. For Black and Indigenous students, dedicated programs like McCarthy’s have represented more than just employment opportunities: they have offered mentorship, visibility, and a signal that the profession is striving toward greater inclusion.
McCarthy’s has not confirmed whether or when the program will return, but says it will share updates upon completing its internal review. In the meantime, the move has become a flashpoint in the ongoing conversation about what meaningful diversity in the legal profession requires, and whether the momentum of recent years will continue.
The question now is not just what firms promised in 2020, but what they are willing to sustain in 2025 and beyond. Because ultimately, the future of the profession will be shaped not by moments of momentum, but by what institutions choose to stand for when no one is demanding it.