Some Law Firm Clients Ban 1st-Years, Says Morgan Lewis Chair

Debra Veoli
Apr 14, 2009 5:54 AM CST

This is very silly.  How can a first year get any experience if the clent bans him/her from doing some work.  I am sure that the law firm will cut the billing down, if the client complains, but this is getting rediculus.

Flag this comment

Guest
Apr 14, 2009 7:09 AM CST

How do clients expect Biglaw attorneys to get experience?  Work for the government or public interest for a year?  Work for a year or two between college and law school?  Don’t clients realize that these 25 year old lawyers jumped straight from their ivy league college to a T10 law school, thus they are a steal at $350/hour?

Flag this comment

LegalLady
Apr 14, 2009 7:39 AM CST

I am an attorney and a client.  I have banned outside counsel from using first years on all matters.  They know enough to be dangerous.

How firms choose to give their employees training is up to them.  I have decided that my company will not be paying for it.

Flag this comment

Jon
Apr 14, 2009 9:12 AM CST

Seems like a stupid request to me.  I understand not wanting to “pay” for new lawyer training, but most 1st year associates have had some training. 

I think the problem many clients have is that they don’t want to pay for first year associates at $250+ an hour.  This demand suddenly seems far more reasonable.

Mayhap firms should…
-lower associate hourly rates
-lower associate salaries
-lower associate billable hour requirements
-hire more associates at a lower rate who will have a productive and rewarding life outside the office doing community service, pro bono work, serving on community organization boards, coaching little league, spending more time with the family… and be happier, marginally more productive, and possibly… gasp… better rainmakers in the future.

Flag this comment

Jon
Apr 14, 2009 9:53 AM CST

#8- we were all minor leaguers at one point and an outright ban on the services of first year attorneys is not feasable. 

In addition to the high cost of first year associate hours perhaps these specific clients have had problems in the past.  Were these problems addressed? 

A firm that puts out excellent work wouldn’t have their clients scapegoating young associates.

Flag this comment

Paul
Apr 14, 2009 1:16 PM CST

The fall out from this economy may actually result in decreased starting salaries across the board for attorneys. Its about time.

My firm doesn’t hire new grad attorneys because we don’t want to train, hand hold, and cuddle. We use contract attorneys for discovery, staff attorneys for research, motions, and pleadings, and laterals with a strong book of business and business acumen and skills for possible partnership and niche practices, and very seasoned paralegals and our rates competive but not extreme. We would never hire an attorney with less than 5-6 years of experience. .

Flag this comment

JAOG (Just an Ohio Guy)
Apr 14, 2009 2:42 PM CST

What if the new grad had worked for an attorney while attending the 4 year undergraduate school and the 3 year law school? I once met a sole practioner’s secretary with no advanced schooling, but she “learned” quite a bit of law over the 20 years she worked for the attorney.
To me, a resonable option would be a reasonably priced associate with close document review.

Flag this comment

Steve
Apr 14, 2009 4:31 PM CST

This isn’t so much about first-year associates being incompetent as it is about them being overpriced.
There is a difference between “I don’t want any newbies working on my case” and “I’m not going to pay top dollar for said newbie”

Flag this comment

Steve
Apr 17, 2009 2:22 AM CST

I think some clients are looking at this the wrong way.  All junior associate work is supervised and a lot of the time is written off.  You can pay $250 an hour for a junior associate to perform research and menial tasks or you can pay $350-400 for a more seasoned attorney to do so.  It should not matter how much the overpaid attorneys decide to pay their first years.  The first year salary is a loss leader anyway.  In the end, they will likely save more money on using first years than not.

Flag this comment

Heather
Apr 17, 2009 5:21 AM CST

I am a “newbie” who worked between undergrad and law school.  I didn’t attend one of the T10 schools, but I have a very good background.  However, I am one of the many young associates that faces the difficulties this type of thinking produces.  If a firm isn’t willing to hire a new associate because it doesn’t want to “train, hand-hold, and cuddle,” new associates will never learn.  i’ve been out of school for three years, and still cannot find a paying attorney job.  I decided to work for free to gain experience (because that was the one thing that all the firms that turned me down said I was missing).  New people, in any field, have to learn.  I’m consistently amazed that senior lawyers don’t want to “take the time” to teach.  I’d take a salary at a quater of this exhoborant one if someone was willing to show me the ropes.  Unfortunately, it’s not happening.  So to those of you who won’t hire newer attorneys, I say shame on you.  Someone taught you, you didn’t learn everything on your own.

Flag this comment

Kevin
Apr 17, 2009 5:28 AM CST

As in-house counsel - contrary to the wirting of some here who don’t understand how we expect 1st years to get ‘experience’ if we don’t allow them to work on our matters - please understand, when I punt work to outside counsel it is because the work needs immediate and thorough attention. I do not have time to see the work product of someone who has never been truly exposed to ‘real’ law work outside of a class room forum.  I am not here to train a firms associates. I go to the firm for the best work as quickly done as possible thus anyone who thinks clients should be open to having associates get on the job training via their assignments is still in the law school mentality. This is not a class room setting, this is real life with real legal issues on the table and I need to ensure those abreast of the issues are revieing my documents. 

Let me pose this question - if you were going for heart surgery, would you want a new doctor with NO true experience working on you or would you prefer a specialist who has a wide breath of exposure? the same holds true of our issues which are as vital to a company’s well being as my prior example is to a patent.

Flag this comment

NoSoup4U
Apr 17, 2009 6:03 AM CST

I think many of you miss the points that in-house lawyers face.  It seems many of you might not have practiced in an in-house environment.  When I am dealing with a 7 figure budget, I have to ensure that the budget is met -even if the occasional fire sprouts up.  Plus, when my bonus is tied to the fact that I need to meet my budget - you can bet I will be upset if I see a first year associate charge 60 hours to draft a patent application, and see a mid-level charge 5 hours for review and partner charge another 1 hr.  Many in-house worked at bigLaw firms and know how long a job should take ... I am not paying a first year to ‘learn’ the ropes.  That’s not my problem - that’s the law firm’s problem on how to get the first year involved. 

a) many first and second years - will have their work reviewed by a senior associate/partner.  A lot of times, much of that work is revised.  So, in essence, a company is billed twice - once at $300/hr and a second time at $600/hr.  You might get billed 10 hours.  So, let’s say 9 hours for 1st year and 1 hour for partner (cause god forbid partners only spend .1) for a total of $3600. 

From my perspective, why not pay a seasoned associate $400/hr - whom can do the work MUCH faster - maybe 5 hours ... and partner still does their 1 hour review. Potentially saving $1K .. at $2600 for same job.  Now, I am making a lot of assumptions; but, I do not think they are antirely off-based.

b) It is a catch-22 - I admit.  To go in-house, most of us worked at the bigLaw/law firm environments.  But, I guarantee you, my billing rate was NOT at $300+ as a first year associate.  Now, I am even seeing paralegals from the bigfirms billed out at $200+/hr. 

Fundamentally, bigLaw needs to change - and part of that change is from the top - down.  I understand partners want to make their $500K+ salaries each year - but, they need to come up with a system that works for everyone’s benefit (not just theirs).

Flag this comment

Donald
Apr 17, 2009 6:14 AM CST

This is a perfectly reasonable stance for clients to take.  Why should the client pay for the new associate to learn their job, while paying the new associate’s rate of $290+ per hour?  The big firms need to focus on training the associates and worry less about billing them out. I’ve dealt with this issue with Morgan Lewis.  Clients would much rather pay for a 4th or 5th year who will spend half the time but not bill at twice the rate of the first year.  Plus, clients have the comfort of knowing that a more seasoned associate actually knows what they are doing.  The only thing first years are worried about is their hours, and it shows in the monthly invoices.

Flag this comment

Marc
Apr 17, 2009 6:26 AM CST

Kevin,
I understand what you are saying, but the question remains:  By what mechanism should rookie lawyers get experience?  I agree that 160K and billed for 350/hr is ridiculous, but there remains a need to “refill the tank” with new lawyers at some point in time.  Otherwise, those lawyers will never become the experienced lawyer that you desire.  Contrary to KD’s contention, it is in the interest of clients to ensure the future of the legal profession, at least it is if clients still need to be consumers of legal services in the future.

Flag this comment

Re: Anon
Apr 17, 2009 6:40 AM CST

27:  This is the mentality that created this problem—entitlement to immediate gratification.  A lot of us started law school with the expectation of making 60K (or less) doing government or public interest work, with the expectation that our hark work will eventually lead to financial rewards.  Perhaps every new attorney should be subject to a “residency” requirement and spend a year or two working for peanuts, deferring loans and learning to be a better lawyer, thereby actually earning that biglaw salary.

Flag this comment

Flynne
Apr 17, 2009 6:41 AM CST

Kevin,
Your medical analogy is flawed.  Before a heart surgeon ever gets to lay hands on you unsupervised, he has extensive hours of residency and training; a good, old-fashioned apprenticeship, if you will.  And that is the fundamental difference between the American and British system of legal education.  As Americans law school grads, we are turned loose on the marketplace as soon as we pass the bar.  How about some tutilage, or even “farm system minor leagues” as Jon alludes to.

Flag this comment

Tronochick
Apr 17, 2009 6:47 AM CST

In Canada, just like in the UK, you have to spend two years ‘articling’ (Canadian term) or under a ‘pupilage’ (English term) before you can practice on your own. Mind you, in the English system, Barristers actually spend a whole year after their LLBs doing a Bar Vocational Course where they learn how to deal with court procedures in real court room experiences, how to meet with clients and handle interviewing and depositions, and most are given the chance to work in a clinical setting, required, not as an elective course.
Just coming out of a J.D. program, I would have been grateful for the knowledge and experience that the Commonwealth systems provide their new lawyers.
It may make for more work and extra hoops but it also guarantees that ‘baby lawyers’ come out of the starting gates able to handle the realities of law practice.

Flag this comment

Ware Cornell
Apr 17, 2009 6:51 AM CST

How can young lawyers get experience?

Here’s a bold idea. Go become a prosecutor or assistant public defender. Perhaps if trials are not your forte, you could go work for regulatory agency or a charity.

We do not owe first year lawyers a high standard of living. Ours is a service profession.

Flag this comment

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2009 6:59 AM CST

Hypocrisy is very unbecoming.  Every top lawyer of today, whether a partner, in house counsel, professor or judge, had opportunities to learn and make mistakes.  By and large, in their first few years out of law school, they were paid more than they were worth.  And by and large, they had less school loans than the average law grad today.

This double standard of, “I got mine,” now all the new lawyers need to polish my boots and thank me for giving them an unpaid internship, has to end.  I was lucky enough to work for brilliant, hard working and understanding attorneys right out of law school, who understood that to get a great lawyer, you have to teach them first.  They understood that they were the beneficiaries of great mentors, and were serious about repaying that favor to the next generation.

Please, stop being silly.  Don’t ask young lawyers to do things, like work for free, which you would have laughed at back in the day, were the question posed to you.  Yes, they have no recourse.  But the best and the brightest will cease to go to law school—and while there are too many lawyers today, there aren’t enough good ones.

Flag this comment

George Lenard
Apr 17, 2009 7:06 AM CST

“You can pay $250 an hour for a junior associate to perform research and menial tasks or you can pay $350-400 for a more seasoned attorney to do so.”

Wait just a minute! That’s the problem.  Neither is appropriate pricing. Look in the Midwest at smaller firms, and you can divide by almost two in both categories.  Not in the Midwest?  What’s the matter, don’t you have the Internet and a telephone? Much of this work really doesn’t require “face time.”

Flag this comment

N
Apr 17, 2009 7:09 AM CST

Huh…my firm was highly profitable, doing gangbusters business along a firm fixed pice model for services rather than time and materials (which created perverse billing incentives).

The market will correct for a) firms that do not meet their clients demands and b) new attorneys whose compensation exceeds their value.

Also, if associates salaries are reduced to $60k, the market will correct for that, too.  Law students are replaceable.

Flag this comment

Stacey
Apr 17, 2009 7:14 AM CST

This is a mistake.  As a first year litigation associate I came up with a creative contract interpretation that resulted in a huge verdict (plus attorneys’ fees) for my client.  The more experienced attorneys that had reviewed the contract didn’t come up with it precisely because they had so much experience - they were used to reading it a certain way.  If my client had insisted on a “no first years” policy they would have ended up settling for 1/20th of what they ended up with.

Flag this comment

In H
Apr 17, 2009 7:19 AM CST

First, biglaw is a huge waste of money unless you full-on require a lot of bodies thrown at a huge project/issue.  Medium and small firms are cheaper and provide a better product.

Second, I don’t give a rip about how biglaw goes about training its new associates - and it sure as hell isn’t my company’s resonsibility to pay for that training.

Flag this comment

Charles J. Cochran, Jr.
Apr 17, 2009 7:23 AM CST

I wrote an article regarding mentoring on my blog at 4LaborLaw.com in which I spoke of the need, which more seasoned attorneys should address, that new attorneys have for supervision.  I can understand a client refusing to use a new grad on their work.  As attorneys we hopefully have a lot of cases in our file drawers but the client only has one or two.  It is easy for us to speak about fairness and giving people a chance since we are on the outside looking in.  The client has to live with the results of this matter which may be significant to the point of destroying the client’s business itself.  I would suggest a steep discount for fees where the work is being done by a new attorney and a comparable reduction in starting salaries.  For the newly admitted attorney, or the older practitioner going into a new field, a new teaching service named Solo Practice University started about a month ago which provides the “nuts and bolts” type training which is not readily available from law schools and much more depth than a seminar.  I have 18 years of experience from a general practice but I have learned a great deal already.  I am a student of SPU and reap no financial reward by speaking of it.

Flag this comment

old lady lawyer
Apr 17, 2009 7:30 AM CST

Not letting first-years do certain work is common in certain practice areas.  When I was a young lady lawyer, in the late 1990’s, first year lawyers were not permitted to work on the defense teams, even in a research capacity, for certain insurance companies.  Let’s face it, a lawyer who barely knows anything is not always going to be a cost-effective member of a team defending a lawyer malpractice action.  In this day and age of cost-cutting, passing first year salaries and hourly rates off to clients is pretty presumptuous.  And, keep in mind that this isn’t all law firm clients, just some.  A lot of companies aren’t going to care where the cost-cutting comes from or who is doing the work, as long as the costs are reasonable. 

It used to be that lawfirms absorbed the costs of training the newbies, because the older attorneys were where the cash came in.  Now, greedy partners and expensive overhead have changed law firms into machines that seek to pass off every cost.  It’s not reasonable and I’m surprised it took this long for the market to rebel.

Flag this comment