Q&A . . . With Jeff Simon

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 2025

Q: The administration’s efforts to dismantle diversity initiatives haven’t been limited to federal bureaucracy—higher ed comes to mind as a sector facing significant pressure. What, in your view, is the impact of those directives?
A: It’s been a real whipsaw. Things were heading steadily in one direction for a long time, then all of a sudden, wham!, everything’s completely different. In terms of how that affects business leadership, it seems to me that each industry is feeling the impact in its own unique way. We’ve seen it with high-profile law firms, some of the largest in the country, respond in different ways. For us, it’s simply to stay true to your core values.

Q: And outside of the legal sector?
A: Well, for example, think of the construction industry, where its long history of DBE and WBE requirements are in play.  Or in education with initiatives designed to create pathways for those with all the ability and desire and work ethic, but who might not have had the opportunity. These industries are doing their best to figure out which way to go.  It’s hard, when change brings such substantial consequences, to know what’s next.

Q: How, then, are leaders to react?
A: Anyone in a leadership position needs to honestly assess their organization’s values, culture and mission to determine the best way forward. What are you doing? What do you believe in? What is important to you? Every business does that in some capacity every day, but this is a high-profile issue with more potential fallout. Leadership is easy in easy times. When it gets tough, you have to figure out what you’re made of.

Q: Corporate culture aside, are legal considerations bound up in the responses?
A: Absolutely. We have seen some very high-profile organizations in many industries struggling to achieve their goals with the new legal landscape.

Q: Same with higher ed?
A: Yes. No hall passes for higher education!

Q: When you look at Kansas City’s historic challenges—quality of schools, minority unemployment, crime—how do these policy shifts challenge local efforts and organizations?
A: Well, we’re moving into some headwinds. I hope we never get to a point where talented individuals who have dreams and goals and aspirations don’t have a fair shot to work toward fulfilling them because of the political environment.

Q: You’ve shown a commitment to do that on an individual level, working with the police commission, KC Common Good and other organizations. Is this a call to individual action?
A: It’s important to me personally in terms of trying to open doors and make connections for people who have not really had a fair shot. I plan to continue those efforts, my values, and what I see as my purpose: How can I, in some small way, make the world a better place? Each of us should strive to live our values and pursue our purpose as we feel called and try our best not to succumb to the temptation to say to ourselves: “I can’t do anything about that.”

Q: The broad goals of DEI seem tough to argue with for anyone of good conscience; what went wrong to create such a broad backlash?
A: I don’t know that this was a failure of leadership as much as it was an opportunity that some saw to seize on the issue for political gain. It really is that simple. This sudden shift is led by government, not by industry. It was the subject of some campaigns, and now they are executing on their promises, but to an extent that, candidly, I did not anticipate.

Q: The opportunities for the business community to ensure that broader goals of social justice are tied in with concerns raised by some elder statesmen here that more engagement is needed at the corporate level. Do you sense that, as well?
A: Not entirely. The business community, for instance, has really turned its attention to some of these types of issues, such as inclusive prosperity, job skills development, housing, healthcare, etc.  Yes, there’s always more that can be done. But now it’s willing to step in on public-safety issues. And by public safety, I mean not just police and jails and prosecution, but the underlying causes of criminal behavior and social disorder. I do see the business community trying to address some of these issues we are all dealing with, in collaboration with the City, social service agencies, not-for-profits, and others that are already doing good work in this space. Crime is a business issue: People do not want to work or shop in areas where they feel a sense of unlawfulness or disorder.

Q: Speaking of business engagement, we’ve seen some heavy drop-off in our Ingram’s 250 classes over the years as the pace of Boomer retirements picked up. Outside of public-safety matters, what’s your sense of how their next-generation successors are responding with respect to civic issues, aligning with non-profit boards, etc.?
A: It varies from individual to individual. Some are interested and committed, and beginning the process of getting involved and demonstrating ability and authenticity. Others are busy with other aspects of life, and for them, it’s not as important. But that’s always been the case, right? I don’t know that I would cast a broad generational net here. In my world at the firm and beyond, I see a lot of associates of younger ages who want to participate and build a better community in Kansas City. I think a lot of that is the leadership of whatever organization they’re part of. If their leadership walks the walk on being active with civic engagement and encourages that company culture, it’s more likely that an individual will want to be part of that.

Q: How does that dynamic hold up through significant leadership change?
A: Leadership changes have a huge influence, as we discussed.

Q: If we could return to the topic of crime as a business consideration, we’re on pace again for another 150-plus homicide year. It’s been a couple of years now since the Omaha 360 folks came in to share their success story—will/can that approach work here?
A: Yes, I think it will, but it takes a while.  Omaha is 20 years further down the road than we are, and they have matured to the point where the reduction in crime and disorder has laid the foundation for an explosion of investment and vitality—and resulting opportunity—in areas that had historically been bypassed. Where it all begins is trust. Trust between the community and law enforcement. And there has been some progress in Kansas City in that regard. When talking about the homicide rate itself, you’re talking about a relatively small subset of people who are part of the universe that is at risk of being a perpetrator or victim of homicide. If we can reach those folks and get them to believe there is another way of living that is available to them with the right choices and discipline, then you will see those numbers really begin to drop.

Q: How can focusing on that subset produce results?
A: Look at the models in Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Oakland and other cities you think of as having high homicide rates. Homicide rates in those cities are dropping because the community is working together to focus resources and attention on those most likely to fall within this group, where either committing a homicide or being a victim is a higher risk. You look at groups like Uncornered and the SAVE KC initiative, the next generation of the old KC Nova, which are focused on those most at risk. They are not coddling anyone but simply giving them a choice between decisions that lead to the criminal-justice system and decisions that lead to something better. Those strategies are proven to work.

Q: Any particular signs of early success here?
A: Yes. Thanks to the work of Uncornered and SAVE KC and many others, data shows progress in crimes involving KCPD-identified violent group members as victims or suspects. From 2024 to 2025, group-related homicides decreased 40 percent, while nonfatal shootings dropped 62 percent. The number of victims of nonfatal shootings has decreased 32 percent. As far as KC Common Good is concerned, it is focusing on Santa Fe with its Village initiative, and the numbers are better; the neighbors say the quality of life is better, but that’s one small area. It is now expanding into new neighborhoods, and we’re hoping to see more of the effects of that. It’s a challenge that continues to need a lot of attention.  

Q: Shifting gears here, we’ve heard that later-stage Millennials (and leading-edge GenZs) bring a different view of the hours needed to achieve career success. Do you agree, and if so, how are law firms properly responding?
A: Well, there certainly is greater emphasis here on work/life balance. People are more interested in that, and that’s what we’re trying to accommodate. It’s not a question of being unwilling to work; it’s a desire to work in a different way and still pay attention to those things outside of work. There’s nothing wrong with that. Personally, I don’t have any concerns around where and when people work. When that bell rings, people know they should put their shoulder to the wheel, and they do that. They respond the way they’re supposed to. When I was starting out, if you weren’t at your desk at 8 a.m., you’d hear about it. I couldn’t work from home; that was literally impossible when you had to be in a giant law library reading books. Now, you can pour your coffee and do the same thing from your kitchen counter. It’s certainly been a change in the work rhythms and the day-to-day office experience, but I’m not willing to say there’s a challenge with the work ethic itself.

Q: More broadly, is that way of re-thinking the conduct of business changing things like benefit programs, litigation risk, intergenerational workplace conflict, etc.?
A: Yeah, some things are shifting. Reading the legal trade press, firms on the coasts and bigger cities are leasing more space again, in some cases, higher than pre-pandemic. A lot of companies are saying they want their folks back in the office five days a week. That’s a function of how the labor market has shifted. The labor market, at least in my industry, has shifted to a buyer’s market over the past couple of years. What that means is that employers now have a bit more leverage, and some are using it. Whereas three or four years ago, some firms were reluctant to say, “Get back to the office” because that person would have plenty of opportunities at other places that allowed more work from home, now some firms are saying, “We have more leverage and we want to see you here five days per week.” We have not done that.