Such a Deal

Associates

Does Perkins Coie have the best time-money solution?

October 2007 Issue
By Stephanie Francis Ward

Illustration by Alicia Buelow

When associate salaries jumped significantly in the late 1990s, partners at Seattle-based Perkins Coie wanted to keep up, but they also knew there was some value to a billable-hour requirement below 2,000 hours a year—the norm among Pacific Northwest firms.

After speaking with associates, they came up with a plan. Perkins Coie would match the rising salaries—influenced by California firms opening Seattle outposts—but the raise would be tied to an increase in billable hours. Alternatively, if associates didn’t want to work more, they didn’t have to. They’d just forgo the salary increase.

“There’s never something for nothing,” says Robert Giles, the firm’s managing partner. “I think we sold it by talking to associates about what they wanted to do.” Perkins Coie has a similar plan today, a few months after many large law firms raised starting associate salaries to $160,000 a year.

A midlevel Perkins Coie associate, who asked not to be named, says he appreciates having choices about how much he’ll work—and how much he’ll earn.

“The key to it is that you know what you will get in advance because it’s laid out in writing at the beginning of the year,” he says. “I typically will work more than the requirement and earn more at the end of the year. But with kids at home, I appreciate the option.”

IN STEP WITH THE TIMES

Indeed, Perkins Coie's plan coincides with what the ABA Journal found when surveying associates late last year. “The Ultimate Time-Money Trade-off,” February 2007, reports that 84.2 percent of survey respondents said they’d be willing to earn less money in exchange for lower billable-hour requirements.

Perkins Coie is among only a handful of firms offering plans under which associates who don’t want to bill more than 2,000 hours a year can forgo the recent raises. But more firms may follow suit, particularly if large firms raise associate salaries again by the end of 2007, as some legal blogs have predicted.

Plans like the one offered by Perkins Coie are a good thing, says legal recruiter Julie Q. Brush of Redwood Shores, Calif. And she speculates that top associate candidates may even start seeking out law firms that offer this flexibility. “But initially they’re going to be skeptical in regard to whether it really works,” she adds.

Susan C. Robinson, the associate dean for career services at Stanford Law School, says she’s seen this happen. A number of associates have told her that they’d like an option like the one Perkins Coie offers. But they’re also concerned that taking such a deal might lead to being seen as someone who is not committed to the firm—and who would not qualify for partnership.

“It’s a big concern because of what it could signal—that you’re not as committed, and you’re not a star,” Robinson says. “What a lot of people want is more sane hours but to still be seen as committed to the practice.”

Giles dismisses these concerns. Perkins Coie, he says, doesn’t publish a list of which associates opt to work less, so he doubts that many know a person’s choice, unless he or she reveals it.

He acknowledges that other firms have tried similar plans and failed, largely because people felt the plans created a caste system. “We always avoid trying to label it; we just say it’s a flexible track,” Giles says.

Regardless of your specific track, a starting salary of $140,000 or more is pretty impressive—particularly if you can work fewer than 2,000 hours a year to get it.

“The big firms are offering hours that midsize firms offer, but at more money,” recruiter Brush says. Such plans, she adds, may decrease turnover among more senior associates.

“When big firms’ associates want to leave, they’re willing to take a pretty sizable salary cut,” Brush says. “If you have big firms offering different tracks—and paying more money than midsize or small firms—it’s a pretty good way to retain associates.”

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by lawstudent in Madison - Oct 19, 2007 03:45 pm CDT

I’m twenty-six years old and a 2L. I grew up in an environment where one’s work ethic means everything. I feel that most people of my generation don’t value a good work ethic. We want more money for less hours.

I hear my colleagues say this all the time: “I will take less money for less hours.” I think it’s a lie. If that statement is true, why not work at a mediocre firm with less expectations. We all want the big bucks-paying, big name firms, but also the not-so-long hours.

I truly feel that my contemporaries have lost sight of why we can make so much money as lawyers. Clients want an attorney who is comitted to their case. The idea that you can be “just as commited” but cap your yearly hours is counterintuitive. Try telling a client that you can’t work on his case because you don’t want to work more than 1800 hrs a year. I’ll guarantee you he’ll find someone who does. Obiously, no attorney at a big firms bill only for one client, but isn’t that the message?

My point in this rambling comment is that if you want the $160,000/yr salary, don’t complain about long hours. There’s a reason why you are getting paid so much. If you don’t want to work long hours, then go to a firm that pays considerably less or has a different compensation structure. OH, and stop complaining!
Posted by BarneyMolldrem - Oct 19, 2007 04:04 pm CDT

I am not sure how Perkins Coie, sets their production goals for associates, if not by billable hours. Since it is a patent firm, they might try a system like the USPTO has, with certain number of “counts” for writing and filing a patent application, another “count” for preparing and filing an amendment, a “count” for filing a trademark application, and so forth. Then the efficient rather than the dilatory would be rewarded. My experience with working with other attorneys is that some are pretty quick on the uptake, and some are pretty slow.
Posted by CowboyLaw - Oct 19, 2007 04:58 pm CDT

I appreciate lawstudent’s comment, but as a 7th year associate, I have to say, he’s dead wrong. The notion that the level of a lawyer’s “committment” to a client or a case is directly correlated to the number of hours they bill is exactly the sort of false reasoning that has got the legal profession where it is. I have known (and beaten) many lawyers who churned their clients’ files and billed many more hours than I did.

One of my clients is a Fortun 50 company, and a global industry leader in my practice area, and the client forbids any lawyer from billing more than 8 hours a day. Why? It’s spelled out in their billing guidelines: “We feel that work in excess of 8 hours per day is inefficient, and rapidly becomes increasingly inefficient the more hours in excess of 8 hours that are worked.” I’ve pulled many 18 hour days in my time (always when I was in trial), and I can tell you with certainty that the productivity curve starts to get steep at about 12 hours. And any attorney who tells you otherwise is kidding themselves. Does your client really appreciate the “extra” hours you’re billing, doing work that could be done in many fewer hours (and for many fewer dollars) if you’d done them at 10:00 a.m. rather than at 10:00 p.m.?

There is no free lunch, and I’m certainly not arguing that we should all get big money for no hours. If you go to work at a megafirm, you ought to be smart enough to understand the tradeoff you’re making. But never treat hours billed as a measure of committment, or dedication, or even as a gauge of how likely the client is to win.