Law Practice
Survey: Associate Loyalty at All-Time Low
Posted Nov 5, 2007 2:37 PM CST
By Martha Neil
Despite a year of hefty salary increases for BigLaw associate attorneys, their loyalty has never been lower.
Fewer than one in five junior associates with less than two years' experience at major law firms in the U.S. and the U.K. expects to stay another five years, reports the London Times, based on a recent survey of 2,225 associates by Legal Business (sub. req.).
"The average solicitor with six years post-qualification experience is now working at their second or third firm," the Times writes. "The primary reasons for this churn are not money, but the promise of better career progression opportunities and work/life balance."
Says James Baxter, editor of Legal Business: “Some firms losing up to 30 percent of their lawyers each year. Take into account the cost and effort of recruiting to simply replace and it is easy to see why this is now the most important issue facing law firms.”
Stratospheric salaries are not the answer, Baxter notes in a separate editorial: "throwing money at assistants has failed to buy their loyalty. Alternatives to partnership are strongly desired by assistants, but not if they are simply a job title given to those not considered good enough."
As discussed in earlier ABAJournal.com posts, top starting pay for BigLaw first-years in the U.S. is now about $160,000—and there is speculation that further raises may be in the offing for New York City associates early in 2008. At the same time, a small but growing number of law firms are moving to a two-tiered system of associates, at least in part in an effort to address associate lifestyle concerns by offering less strenuous schedules at lower pay. However, another recent survey points out that firms need to understand the concerns of different associate groups in order to offer them the right incentives to stay.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
fred
Nov 9, 2007 6:29 AM CST
I love my law firm
Flag this comment
CJ
Nov 9, 2007 6:50 AM CST
It’s because they can’t make everyone partner, even though they lure people in with that in mind. The whole scheme needs to be rethought, and peoples expectations will adjust.
Flag this comment
WG
Nov 9, 2007 7:29 AM CST
How many more of these studies have to be done before law firms WAKE UP?
Flag this comment
Ted
Nov 9, 2007 7:56 AM CST
The problem is law school prices. I need a high salary to pay back the $150,000 in loans. (Some of my frineds also have unergrad loans as well.) But if a firm wanted repay the loans, and give me less money coupled with less billables, and a 20 year partnership track (in stead of ten) I’d consider it. And i’d probably stay.
Flag this comment
TJ
Nov 9, 2007 8:12 AM CST
The problem is two-fold: (1) partners who do not manage their time well, which then punishes the associates with unnecessary panic deadlines and (2) associates who want top pay but only bill 1500 hours. Neither of these foster loyalty. I’m sorry to say that the newer associates (especially those from the “top” law schools) do not impress me at all, and often embarrass our profession with their whining. Being an attorney is a tough job, but people with otherwise useless undergrads see law as the only way to make money.
Flag this comment
The Pontificator
Nov 9, 2007 8:54 AM CST
I agree with TJ. New associates are awful. They come from their ivy league schools that daddy bought their way into and then they are horrified that they actually have to work. Being the understanding type and an ardent believer in “Baptism by Fire”, I am sure to load the work up on them prior to all holiday weekends. The higher pay is killing it for everyone… law firms still need to make money and, therefore, more hours need to be worked in order to justify the higher pay. So keep clamoring for higher pay… and I will keep piling on the work (with billing caps… of course). And Ted needs to learning to proofread (a pet peeve of mine)!
Flag this comment
The Corrector
Nov 9, 2007 8:59 AM CST
The Pontificator needs to learning to proofread as well!
Flag this comment
Jealous?
Nov 9, 2007 9:00 AM CST
Jealousy is a bad thing Pontificator. TTT ?
Flag this comment
Ms. Featherbottom
Nov 9, 2007 9:03 AM CST
Pontificator, you must be a partner. That sort of straw man argument doesn’t fly when you take a glance at profits per partner charts over the last few years. Poor baby - you might have to reduce your salary by 5% from 1 million to 950k.
Flag this comment
New Associate
Nov 9, 2007 9:09 AM CST
I am disgusted by some of the comments here. Pontificator would agree “New associates” includes any and all new associates. I am glad you have grouped the “new associates” that have over $100,000 in debt, like me, in with probably 1% of “new associates” running off of daddy’s money. Furthermore, I guess you are saying everyone whose father is helping them pay for law school whines? I am willing to bet you are an old timer, probably jaded by the fact of your old age. Because of your age and “wisdom” you think throwing money at people who want to work less will solve the problem. Your age gives you the right to determine what values are correct for our society. Did you not get a clue from the article? You are not going to have any interest from “new associates” for long if you keep “piling on the work.” This country has a wretched work-value system because of employers like you and your constant need to be at work. Life is not living at the office. The choice to be a lawyer is not for money, it is for running our country and society so that others can live in it. You must have forgotten…
Flag this comment
The Proofreader
Nov 9, 2007 9:16 AM CST
“The Pontificator” states that “And Ted needs to learning to proofread…” I’m speechless.
Flag this comment
The Student
Nov 9, 2007 9:19 AM CST
Is there any evidence that this is not what firms want or expect when they take classes of 50+ or 100+ summer associated. Perhaps this is just the case of firms casting a wide net, and over the years allowing those less desirables to trickle out.
Maybe, just maybe, this decrease in law firm loyalty is a product of what law firms are looking for when they hire classes 10 times larger than the number of students they expect to be partner track. And maybe, just maybe, those that are placed on track are treated just a bit better than those that are expected to leave. Sounds like fraternity hazing to me.
Flag this comment
Me
Nov 9, 2007 9:25 AM CST
Pontificator, you the man/woman.
Apparently our colleagues do not get sarcasm. That is alright, they are on their way out anyway. Though I did not proofread this, it is not important enough.
Though I think that the point of the artcile is that people are not leaving because of money, they are leaving in spite of money. Though Pontificator is probably the source of that. Associates want more, but do not want to work more. A 3-6% increase is cost of living increase. A 10-15% increase means you are getting alot better at what you are doing or you are going to do alot more of it. I can guarantee that second or third year associate is not the former, they then must be the latter.
Flag this comment
JIMATHART
Nov 9, 2007 9:27 AM CST
I thinkthat the problem stems from several sources.The cost of lawschool which necessitates huge debt after graduation; the outlandish starting salaries at the huge “wall Street” firms which in turn require equally outlandish hourly billing rates; the tedium of the usual work done by lawyers which associates know is mostly “churning” ; the conflict built into the billable hours concept ; the lack of reciprocal loyalty by partners; and the greed and selfishness exhibited my most firms and partners; the thought that what is being done is important ; in some cases the fact that nobody in a law firm really cares much about what is right or just but rather what is profitable an expedient; the lack of civility and ethical lapses tha occur on a daily basis.
Flag this comment
new associate #2
Nov 9, 2007 9:28 AM CST
i agree with new associate. our generation is different than yours. it just is. we’re not baby boomers. most of us grew up in the 80s and 90s, the most prosperous times this country has ever seen. we expect to be paid well and treated well. valued. perhaps we are naive. i’m not suggesting we deserve what we want. i’m saying many of us would sacrifice the money before we’d sacrifice feeling valued, understood and appreciated. perhaps i sound like dr. phil to some of your old timers. fair enough. but if associate loyalty is your problem, understand that these values foster it far more then extra bonuses. give your associates feedback. tell them when they do a good job. is that so complicated? treat them as though you want them to stick around and they will.
Flag this comment
A Parker
Nov 9, 2007 9:32 AM CST
Interesting comments and some are still missing the point. I am in law school (3L) and during on campus interviews I was sickened with how many of the “big firms” wined and dined with nothing more to add to their offers than top pay. When I asked how they were responding to the new associate attrition rates, a look a sheer panic crossed most interviewers’ faces. I got several offers, but won’t be taking top pay. Money can be made, loans will be paid off, but enjoying my job, having the respect of my colleagues, enriching my profession, and serving my community means more to me than $160K a year. I agree with New Associate, the old ideas of piling on the work, demanding long hours, and trying to crack the new associates just because you pay them well fosters a terrible work-value system. A came to law school for myself, my family, and my community. I am not interested in sacrificing any of those for “top” pay.
Flag this comment
kara
Nov 9, 2007 9:37 AM CST
I am 28. I have $150,000 in debt from a private (though not ivy league) law school. I started at a small firm that paid like crap but had great flexible hours, low required billables, etc. Three years later I left that firm because I was treated poorly, the firm was mismanaged, and despite the low required billables, I was slammed with work constantly, causing my marriage/personal life to suffer. I went to another firm that pays only slightly more but ensures me a much better quality of life and better treatment in the office. My point is, despite not being BigLaw and despite having massive debt, I have consistently sacrificed money for better treatment and quality of life, and will continue to do so. Until BigLaw wakes up to this, they are going to continue to have the turnover they are having. We ARE a different generation and expect respect from our employers. Pontificator, etc. can whine about that concept all they want, but the truth of the matter is that we will “surf” firms until we find one that fits us. Unlike Pontificator’s generation, we feel no “obligation” to stay somewhere that doesn’t appreciate us, regardless of pay or other factors. Get used to it, because we’re not going away!
Flag this comment
LawyerMom
Nov 9, 2007 9:37 AM CST
It really is no wonder that new associates are not loyal. Take for example, The Pontificator’s practice of piling on the work prior to all holliday weekends. What kind of pay can compensate for this kind of treatment?
When I decided to become a lawyer I did not expect to be required to give up any semblance of a normal life. This is a tradeoff that I, and many of my thirtysomething friends, don’t consider to be worth it. I don’t believe that being a good lawyer requires that we sacrifice everything else in our lives. Unfortunately, the older generation that currently runs the bigger law firms does seem to expect this kind of sacrifice. Many of us have decided to forego the big salary in favor of having a family and a fulfilling life. I only hope that once the older generation finally retires, the ones that take their places keep in mind the realities we all face. And refuse to buy into the myth that good lawyers live only for the law. Rather, truly good lawyers live well. And this includes having a fulfilling life, whatever that means to you.
Flag this comment
Sheesh!
Nov 9, 2007 9:39 AM CST
My family has to work 100 hours per week to enjoy the same standard of living that my father could provide with 50. We have 3 kids, undergrad loans, law school loans, car loans, mortgage, day care, hospital bills, etc. I am a 6th year at a big firm and my 3 young children don’t even have health insurance. It’s disgraceful.
I work my ass off, and I love it. But I have a family to support, which means not only do I bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan, but I read books, tuck in, and kiss goodnight.
If Pontificator piles the work on at 7pm with an 8am deadline imposed not because of a client’s needs, but simply because he’s an asshole - he’s outta luck. I’m home kissing my kids.
Flag this comment
Old Partner
Nov 9, 2007 9:42 AM CST
Well put “new associate #2.” As one of the old-timers in the profession, I have a very difficult time relating to your generation, and insightful posts like yours really help. However, my biggest disconnect continues to be that virtually every new associate I encounter craves positive feedback but is completely incapable of handling negative feedback and, at the first sign of adversity or hardship, simply bales on the firm and seeks out greener (i.e. less demanding) pastures. I relaize that my generation needs to change, but I remain convinced that today’s generation of new associates needs to change as well to survive in this difficult and demanding profession.
Flag this comment
tj
Nov 9, 2007 9:44 AM CST
Yes, big firms wine and dine to get associates, and pay top dollar because it is a business and you need employees to run a business. It’s unfortunate that that is the game they have to play now. Sorry to rain on your parade, but law is not a 9-5 job and it is not a hug fest that so many seem to want. I come from a very blue collar background. I worked through law school so I didn’t have the huge loans. I will stand by my original comment that many newer associates do not have that work ethic. They want the prestige and top pay, but they don’t want to spend the long hours to learn the job or do the grunt work that is necessary to run the law firm business. Yes, document review sucks. Get over it. Not everyone gets to write the next cited federal appeal brief or argue in front of the highest courts, especially in your first 1 to 7 years. If you want that, go to a small firm and make $60k a year and do everything. (and for those that are going to accuse me of being a greedy parnter, I am an associate at a large firm)
Flag this comment
former big firm associate, now happy solo
Nov 9, 2007 9:50 AM CST
Easy to understand the problem - firms want too big a slice of the pie. Associate grosses 2000 hrs * $300/hr. = $600K for firm, firm pays associate $160K salary + $40K benefits, firm nets $400K on the associate anyway you slice it. Give the associate a life so they bill 1500 hours (what slackers!), then they gross $450K for the firm and the firm only nets $250K on the associate. Firm needs to increase ratio of partners to associates and also lower their expectation of the percentage of the pie they can reasonably harvest off each associate.
Flag this comment
Lady Law
Nov 9, 2007 9:52 AM CST
I have one retiring partner, one in house counsel, 3 paralegals, 4 staff, 3 companies, 2 adult kids in the business, and 1 thing to say. Treat everyone as if they were your family, with respect, and don’t keep anyone who poisons the well once you know they won’t change. Thank people, and understand they have lives. I still get deadlines accomplished because they will work ‘till midnight in pj’s in order to get the flexibility to have life… and enjoy it! So, that’s just me, but it does work. :-)
Flag this comment
LawyerMom
Nov 9, 2007 9:53 AM CST
Refusing to give up our lives for the sake of our firm’s bottom dollar is not the same thing as refusing to work hard. I worked hard during law school and I continue to work hard for my firm now. And no, law is not a 9-5 job. It is also not a 12-12 job. It is a job. Not a life.
Flag this comment
Sheesh!
Nov 9, 2007 9:54 AM CST
$160,000 per year buys the same standard of living that the old guys enjoyed when they were hired. If it is slightly more, it’s because the firms no longer provide job security. That’s the trade off.
Flag this comment
LawyerMom
Nov 9, 2007 9:56 AM CST
Well said Lady Law.
By the way, I often do work in PJ’s!
Flag this comment
Sheesh!
Nov 9, 2007 10:02 AM CST
I’m working in my pjs now!
Flag this comment
The Client Lawyer
Nov 9, 2007 10:02 AM CST
Try result billing with your clients and share the good results and bad results through out the firm.. Only when all you guys realise that you are in a “Results Business” and not an “hourly rate” bisness, will you will ever truely be satisfied with your chosen profession. That’s why I dumped the profession 25 years ago. Take a risk and I promise you that you will be a whole lot more satisfied and a hell of a lot more wealthier if you are successful at your profession.
Flag this comment
tj
Nov 9, 2007 10:02 AM CST
Well said, Old Partner. God forbid you tell a young associate they did something wrong. In the last few years, I’ve actually seen several different assocaites cry when something they had written was redlined by senior associates or partners. I know in school now they teach that everyone is great and nobody is better than the next person blah blah blah, but it’s all fantasy. Real life is that new associates have a LOT to learn, and only those greedy partners can teach us.
Flag this comment
BigW
Nov 9, 2007 10:03 AM CST
Ah, the whining of the overpaid. I love how people “do the math” and show how much the firm is screwing them out of money that they rightfully “earned” themselves.
The only reason any of these people can bill out at $350 hr. when they are less than 30 years old is because they working under the supervision of somebody that the client trusts and respects enough to handle their affairs. The only relevant metric of success in a private law firm is who brings in business and therefore generates the opportunities for others to work hard and bill out at high rates. That’s how it has always worked.
If you want to be a big firm associate, learn a few things right now:
(1) Nobody cares that you went to ____ and were on law review and got the Am. Jur. in Civil Procedure any more. You still have to EARN your way through life, and that means work at least as hard as you did to get into the firm once you arrive.
(2) If you want to make more than 90% of the population in your late 20’s early 30’s, there are some sacrificies that are required. You don’t get all your weekends off, you do have to cancel vacations, not always be there for your spouse and kids, etc.
(3) A lot of what goes into the practice of law is necessarily dull, unfilling, etc. If you expect your job to be non-stop entertainment as well as high paying, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
Flag this comment
Homer
Nov 9, 2007 10:04 AM CST
Pontificator, good points, but poor delivery. (hmm . . . clearly partner “material”). Most, but not all, new associates are total whiners. [dislocure: I am a midlevel associate at a big firm, but this is my 3nd profession. and I’m under 35. so no one call me “old” or “crusty”!]
This “my generation” BS is just an excuse for 1) poor performance, 2) laziness, 3) unrealistic expectations.
And another funny poster, harrumphing that new (a.k.a. “know nothing” lawyers) “expect respect”. Wait . . . doesn’t one need to EARN respect? What you expect is to be treated like a professional, and a courteous work environment. FYI - Think first, post second.
Newsflash campers: being a lawyer is A) a service job (you know, as in “servant”), B) its isn’t supposed to be fun, or easy, or to make you feel like Ally McBeal, and C) you could always avoid the high cost schools, get good grades at a state school, and still knock out the top salary (as many of my colleagues have done). Oh yes, that reminds me, another thing this “new generation” of lawyers should learn: take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
good weekend everyone!
cheers!
Flag this comment
Happy In-House
Nov 9, 2007 10:07 AM CST
Lawfirms are sweat shops, offering poor quality of life with oppresive hours and abusive partners. Partners get great work product from associates that they “pile work on” - then, ultimately force those people out or fire them, not for incompetence, but because they don’t fit in with the firm image. Firms do not offer meritocracy. Your reward for making it is more work and turning into very people you hate to work for. Can loyalty be owed and expected to such organizations?
Flag this comment
Wayne Isaacks
Nov 9, 2007 10:08 AM CST
It’s all in the above comments - the attitide divide is clear. My own take as a small firm is it is very hard to find an associate whose fundamental goal is ian easy place to pick up a big paycheck. My challenge to associates has been: “Don’t let me find myself working harder on your project than you do.” I keep finding that as associates drop reposnibility, accept “good enough” (not), shortcut most challenging situations, and seem immunre to developing robust judgment from thier expeirience. Lifestyle entitlement is the norm. I know this profile does not apply to “all” new assiciates. but, I’d dearly like hire one it doesn’r fit. Associates - you cannot hope to get more out of your career than you put into it. It is hard. If it weren’t, anybody could do it. Clearly there are many who can’t or won’t. So, for those who can and will - there is very little real competition.
Flag this comment
em dubya
Nov 9, 2007 10:09 AM CST
wow! plenty of martyrs and non-proofreaders here. i could tell my story of sacrifice and effort and everything else, but instead i will simply say that i conciously decided to take an in-house job in order to have balance in my life. so what if i don’t earn the theoretical maximum income in my market? i’m neither a slave to my profession nor to the idea that i ought to be. too much ego and not enogh critical thinking going on if you ask me.
Flag this comment
Sensible Lawyer
Nov 9, 2007 10:11 AM CST
Boo… hooo… hooo. Feel bad for me, I am 25 years old and only earn $160,000 per year. God bless The Pontificator… that person is dead on. I think that it is hillarious that someone that is immediately in the top 1% of wage earners is crying. If you want to work at a firm that allows you to bill 1,200 hours per year, open your own. If you want to work at a good firm, get up for work at 3:00 a.m. like me and my colleages do.
And concerning Sheesh who seems to refuse to work late… I predict that they will be in a third tier 5 person law firm quite soon. Law is a demanding profession with non-movable deadlines… that is why you get paid so well. If you can’t take the pressure, get a job at Denny’s.
“$160,000 per year buys the same standard of living that the old guys enjoyed when they were hired. If it is slightly more, it’s because the firms no longer provide job security. That’s the trade off.” Boo Hoo Hoo
Flag this comment
A Concerned Partner
Nov 9, 2007 10:15 AM CST
For what it is worth, I have never seen where true loyalty is based on money. At least in the work environment, I believe that loyaltry is based on things such as being treated like a valued colleague, being given meaningful work assignments, and having reasonable opportunities for advancement. Moreover, you’ll find loyalty within a business where you find principled leadership.
In my opinion, it is the latter that is sorely missing in large firms. Perhaps ironically, we’ve given in to the Enron mindset, in which billing hours and collecting fees (i.e., making profits), is the only priority. Obviously, law firms are businesses and billing hours and collecting fees must be a priority, even the first priority. However, I’m concerned that character in profession, business leadership, and a sense of proportion have been all but lost in today’s large law firms. If you want loyalty from associates, and associates who are engaged and concerned about becoming good lawyers (not just profitable ones), I think you have to remember those attributes.
Flag this comment
Lady Luck
Nov 9, 2007 10:16 AM CST
I have not debt. I love the work. I survived the hazing (it is hazing). I learned to learn from CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Recognizing that most firms spend no time on teaching people how to manage people I have learned to ignore a lot of management shortcomings. I hate the hours. I could well afford a paycut in exchange for reduced hours, but that is non-negotiable. “Now happy solo” understands the problem best. Simple GREED, they need my hours to take that bigger cut. May the billable hour model die soon.
Flag this comment
AttyElizabeth
Nov 9, 2007 10:17 AM CST
I think low retention rates have a lot to do with how the Gen-Y individuals were raised, what we expect, what we live with, and what we won’t tolerate. My experience with firms of all sizes was that they are dishonest about billable requirements, partnership tracks (and even the likelihood of ever being a partner), work-life balances, mentorships, bonuses, and the biggie: FIRM CULTURE. No one wants to work in a back-stabbing, high stress “good old boy” firm, except of course the aging baby boomers and their tossed aside house wives (and the occasional house husband) who never held a job outside of the home. Of course that generation does not understand work-life balances, because they have someone at home to clean up after them and manage their life. No, I don’t want to hear about your country club and I won’t help you pick out flowers to send to your wife after you messed up again. The interviewees are middle aged about-to-make or just-made partners who will say anything to lure recruits to their firm. Why should we be loyal to a firm that lies and manipulates? We clearly have options, other firms will sweet talk us away and we’ll keep doing that until we find someplace we can tolerate or switch to a different field. Practicing law is not a great mystery, once we have a year or two of experience we can pretty much go anywhere, including out on our own as a solo. We don’t really have “legal unions” or anything like that, and I’m so happy to see that we are using our feet to just walk away from the problems at large firms. We don’t have to stick it out, we did not create the problems.
Flag this comment
Sheesh!
Nov 9, 2007 10:17 AM CST
Sensible Lawyer - Yesterday I arrived at work at 6am, went to a teacher conference at 4:30 ate dinner with my kids and put them to bed, worked from 8pm to 12am, and was back at work at 4:30 this morning. Typical day. I work hard for clients and for partners that treat me with respect. I don’t work hard for Pontificator, or for you.
Flag this comment
Prosecutor
Nov 9, 2007 10:18 AM CST
Well said, new associate #2 and Old Partner! Now THAT’s constructive feedback! In a sense, though, so was the Pontificator’s because it shows us where some of these guys are coming from. I did the fancy firm thing and traded it for work as an A.D.A. Know what? I love it! Yes, I’m broke, but I’m happy in my work and get respect and affirmation from colleagues on both sides of the fence (...and I’m sorry, but going to a deposition isn’t the same as trying a case). This was a far cry from the abusive B.S. I got at a fancy firm, and I will never, ever go back.
Flag this comment
Lady Law
Nov 9, 2007 10:20 AM CST
Sheesh! Actually, I am too.
You and LawyerMom understand what many women lawyers are trying to balance. Family truly is most important, but we do love our work and are willing to sacrifice for it - without whining.
It is just difficult to find a law firm that understands that people are first, then money. It takes money to stay in business, of course, but it is true that many are willing to accept less. There are so many ways to work it out - project based income, a decent salary prorated for part-time, etc.
It is fantastic to brainstorm and be creative side by side with the people who work with you. Everyone enjoys it more AND does a better job for the clients.
The clients know that they can reach you at home when you are in the shower at 6:30 a.m. or on your cell at midnight if it is urgent.
Why do they have that confidence? Because they know that you value them as people. As a result, they are more loyal. What does that do? It creates repeat business and happy lawyers and staff.
I don’t see how it is a problem and why more firms don’t see it instead of just dollars and cents.
Flag this comment
Sensible Lawyer
Nov 9, 2007 10:23 AM CST
Sheesh! Well that is good… I don’t hire people that work in their PJs!
Flag this comment
HamzLaw
Nov 9, 2007 10:25 AM CST
Law is one of few businesses where everyone in production is rewarded not necessarily for producing work, but for producing sales. In law these days, everyone is a salesman and not enough are practitioners. Moreover, it is indeed a sweatshop profession wedded to the almighty hour instead of being a real business where risk is rewarded amply. I’ve been a lawyer for over 30 years, and I hope all generations can see what the law business really is: mismanaged. And remember, there are good young lawyers everywhere. If a firm just wants to pad its resume with name schools, it will get what it asks for—more whiners than perhaps it needs. All firms need a balance, not just privileged new hires, some of whom will be superstars, some whiners—regardless of where they come from. I’d like to see the younger generation change the profession. It could use a shake up, instead of just shaking down everyone else from associates to clients.
Flag this comment
jdjd
Nov 9, 2007 10:31 AM CST
Research shows that a giant misunderstanding exists between the generations. Most associates value their time and family more than money and would gladly take less pay (to a point) for more free time. Partners (ie: the older generations) view this as being lazy when it is really just a difference in priorities. It is not helped by the fact that many of us younger generations had parents who are boomer workaholics and do not want things to be the same for our own children. Our difference in priorities threatens boomers who have convinced themselves that sacraficing everything for their jobs was worth it.
Flag this comment
Lisa
Nov 9, 2007 10:32 AM CST
the salary isn’t really the point. its about work/life balance, some control over scheduling, setting REALISTIC project deadlines, and the ability to choose clients/projects. Lack of general managerial skills is a big one too; i tried to take a SUNDAY off to move apts, and the response i got to “but i’m moving on sunday” was “oh, so that means you are unavailable to work?” wtf, my life is in a box!
$160,000 a year or $1M a year—if i never leave the office to be able to spend it, what’s the point?
Flag this comment
Lisa
Nov 9, 2007 10:35 AM CST
note: i now work for myself with 2 partners; i work as much if not moreso than at a well-known mid-sized structured finance boutique firm, but i’m 1000% happier
Flag this comment
for real
Nov 9, 2007 10:37 AM CST
For the love of god look at all these comments! Apparently you kids aren’t THAT busy…
Flag this comment
AttyElizabeth
Nov 9, 2007 10:42 AM CST
No, we are not that busy, because most of those posting have probably already moved jobs at least once. I now work in a state job and if one of my supervisors came in and saw me reading a professional development site, they would be happy. If I still worked at a law firm, I would probably be reprimanded.
Flag this comment
HamzLaw
Nov 9, 2007 10:43 AM CST
Well, “for the love of humanity,” my above colleague should HEAR what is being said, not just read the words. I’ve been in law for 31 years and I have time to CARE. What about you?
Flag this comment
Just a Thought
Nov 9, 2007 10:45 AM CST
So many people on both sides of the attitude split whining about what’s right, legitimate, or acceptible. All of that is basically irrelevant. This is a business problem people.
Now, I don’t know the real deal, but a number of articles indicate that law firms are losing more people than they want to be losing. If that’s true, then they have to change the way the operate to *keep* those people. For the past two years, they’ve tried pay raises. Seems like they aren’t working. So, they’ll need to try something else or try more pay raises. Whining about how ‘entitled’ the new associates are is not going to change the fact that those associates are leavnig the firms. If they are ‘entitled’, so be it - if you want to keep them, meet their needs. If you don’t want to keep them, then all this doesn’t matter, and the article is pointless. I don’t know which is really true, but it seems to me to be a fairly simple equation.
Associates who don’t like what law firms are offering have a simple choice - put up with it or leave. Firms have a similar choice - put up with associates leaving or change. This is the way capitalism works people.
If a firm insists on requiring 2400 billables, cancelling vacations all the time, and associates never seeing their children, and there are enough people that are willing to work that way - market works. If there are not enough people willing to work that way - tough cookies. Figure it out - deal with fewer people, or change your requirements.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.