ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Cynic - 10 months, 1 week, 5 days, 19 hours, 43 minutes ago

   any associate opting for the smaller billable hour quota has signed his death warrant in terms of a future with that law firm.  Why?  He will be deemed to (1) lack commitment; (2) lack dedication; (3) is not willing to play the game those before him played.  Kiss any hope of partnership good-bye.  However, a different rule will apply to women associates and minority associates.  they will reap the benefits of a smaller quota with little effect on their long-term prospects.  Why?  Diversity.  The diversity mantra will insulate them - and they will soon learn to manipulate it.  So, in the long term, a very distinct caste system will arise.

2. Posted by Math Major - 10 months, 1 week, 5 days, 19 hours, 33 minutes ago

   This is the firm where a partner billed 6,000 hours some years ago, and survived scrutiny of that hour allocation when challenged by a client for over-billing. So in this context, the relevant inquiry is which caste leads to the 6,000 hour mark, and which caste does the laundry for the others?

3. Posted by ejb - 10 months, 1 week, 5 days, 2 hours, 16 minutes ago

   This makes so much sense to me.  However, I am old and not looking to move up.  But everyone needs a life.  Sometimes one has to make a choice; money or life.

4. Posted by Josh - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 4 hours, 37 minutes ago

   This two-tiered approach is nothing new.  Hogan & Hartson used it when I joined them as a first year in 2001.

5. Posted by Nancy Young - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 3 hours, 44 minutes ago

   Shouldn’t the real question be whether we should keep bumping up first-year salaries?  The continued drive in this direction creates an untenable situation for associates, law firms and those of us who hire outside counsel.  Stop the madness!

6. Posted by Annoyed - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 3 hours, 30 minutes ago

   The comment by “cynic” is uncalled for and unwarranted.  Why don’t you count how many partners are women now?

7. Posted by Nicki - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 3 hours, 19 minutes ago

   I agree with “Annoyed”.  “Cynic” seems to assume that the only associates willing to work the extra hours, thus working harder in his opinion, are white men.  As the only minority associate (as well as the youngest associate at 25 and the only female associate) at my firm, I usually work longer hours than my co-workers.  I solely handle a caseload of 55 cases and I accept a great deal of responsibility.  I work just as hard as the men at my firm, if not harder. 

   I’m tired of people assuming that because I am black and a woman that I don’t work as hard as other lawyers. Because of the stereotypes about race and gender in this profession, I have to work harder than most for people to even take me seriously!

   If Cynic truly is a member of the legal profession that is unfortunate as there is already enough racism and sexism in this profession.

8. Posted by skg - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 3 hours, 4 minutes ago

   Given a choice of a 40 hour week for 80K or a 70 hour week for 160K, I would easily take the first option (I don’t have any info about the actual options offered).  But I would expect that my partnership chances would be slim to none in competition with those taking (and surviving) the second option.

   I hope that this becomes a trend and that more lawyers will have sane, balanced lives as a result.

9. Posted by devil's advocate - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 52 minutes ago

   Cynic is only stating a possibility that is based on past experience, not making a swipe at those women and minorities themselves. Most firms seem to have a diversity initiative that currently relaxes hiring standards. I’ve seen this when someone who is not even in the top 1/3 of my law school (not top ranked school) getting call-back interviews with the top firms in any given city. I don’t remark on whether this is good or bad, its just a fact. It is not a stretch to assume that firms will be reluctant to penalize those same individuals that chose to work the less hour scheme. Again, I’m not commenting on anyone electing to work less hours because I would choose that also. As to the how many women are partners question/comment, just as in the investment banking world and public accounting world, part of the reason (i don’t think it is the only reason) that more women aren’t partners is a result of societal gender pressures and not the discrimination of law firms. The reason: women have babies and most women feel guilty working 60+ hours a week while leaving their infants and toddlers to daycare or nannies to raise them.

10. Posted by A female minority associate - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 51 minutes ago

    Billable hour requirements are highly overrated, lead to churning of files by big firms, inefficiency, and perhaps billing fraud.  Also, I do not agree that the diversity mantra works, just look at the statistics on big firms having female partners.  Female attorneys work equally hard, are more organized and detail oriented, and meet the billable hour requirements.  The issue for partnership is client origination, the biggest reason why the law profession lacks female partners at big firms because female attorneys are seldom given the opporunity for client contact at big firms.  Finally, female attorneys also have the responsibility of raising healthy and sound minded children which cynic appears not to be.  Cynic is simply wrong.

11. Posted by 25 year female litigator - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

    Men do not have to choose between having children and being a successful partner in a law firm. In my experience, most women do have to make that choice. The most successful female lawyers I know do not have children or , a few of them, have stay at home husbands.It is actually discrimination to treat child bearing women the same as men of the same age. The reality of biology should be accepted and women should have fewer hour requirements in their child bearing years without being penalized. This may be a radical concept but it is not a level playing field if , to be successful,women have to make major sacrifices that men do not have to make.

12. Posted by An attorney and a mother - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 26 minutes ago

    As a working attorney and a mother, I question the basic assumption that it must automatically be the mother who modifies her career for children.  My husband is also an attorney and he recently switched careers so that he could have a job that allows him to be at home 2-3 days each week with our son.  I have chosen to work in a field of law that is less demanding of my time (my work is pretty much 8:00 - 6:00), because it is important to me to be home at night to put my son to bed. 

    We all make choices in life.  I will never be a partner at a law firm and we will never be millionaires, but we both are going to be home every night to have dinner with our children. Someone (male or female) who chooses to work fewer hours for less pay may also be less interested in making partner because of the inherent sacrifices one must make to get there. Not everyone wants to be a partner!

13. Posted by Michael Johnson - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 24 minutes ago

    I’m not sure that an associate choosing the lower track signs his or her death warrant when it comes to partnership.  In the modern law firm, the focus is NOT on your billable hours (above a certain number, say 2,000 or so).  Rather, it is on your book of business.  So I’d rather take the lower track and spend my free time on the golf course, in a restaurant, etc… courting clients and landing business (that the higher track associates are more than welcome to bill).  If I have a book of business and a higher track associate doesn’t, who do you think is going to make partner?

    As for Cynic’s comment, he or she is correct in part.  Firms are reluctant to lay off or decline partnership to women and minorities without papering the file.  This is a fact, and frankly, a way to avoid being sued for discrimination.  There is no similar need to treat white males with kid gloves.

    As for “A female minority associate’s” comment, female attorneys are not denied opportunities for client contact.  That may be her situation, but it’s more likely due to the firm’s judgment that she doesn’t merit such contact, rather than discrimination.  Regardless, why sit in your office and wait for client contact?  Go out and get your own clients.  Sure, if you’re in a big firm you’ll probably run into conflicts, but you have to persevere in bringing in business if you want to make partner in today’s law firm.  It really is that simple.  Quit whining about discrimination and the burdens of motherhood.  If you want to make partner, then make the sacrifices necessary to do so.

14. Posted by mommy, esq. - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 22 minutes ago

    I think this is a great idea.  In my opinion, women have set a great example for men and begun to change this profession by pushing back.  I see no reason why attorneys are expected to work 70 hours a week.  But then again, I am an attorney because I love the work and not because I am chasing a top salary or partnership.  Personally, I work part time for an hourly rate.  I think I am respected for my choice to balance my life with my children.

15. Posted by A Dad - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 14 minutes ago

    Female litigator misses the basic point. 1) Men also have to make the choice between family and hours.  I put my toddler to bed most nights and eat dinner and do homework with my pre-teen. 2) You reap what you sow. The whole point of the two tier system is to allow people to make a choice in life.  The reality of any business is that those who contribute more to the business take more out of the business.  The reality of family life is that those who spend more time devoted to it see the results.  One makes ones choices in life, and the two tier system acknowledges that without arbitrary penalty.  I choose to value family life, relatively, over partnership potential.  To think one can avoid the trade off between work and family is to ignore the realities of both.

16. Posted by Options - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 11 minutes ago

    I think the real question for some lawyers (those with MBA’s, prior careers, etc.) is whether they are free to use the “non-firm” hours of their lives to pursue other entrepreneurial ventures, including practicing law in practices their firms do not support.  If so (and perhaps even if not), I suspect the “castes” that will develop are those who see their whole career as tied to a law firm (a challenged business model at best), and those who believe they can create more “happy capital” (and perhaps money) elsewhere, but who also want a hedge.

17. Posted by credulity - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 11 minutes ago

    cynic is that dying (and i truly hope so) breed of racist who advance what typically end up being truisms---if you keep on saying it enough---that blacks or women arent qualified...then some start to buy into it(ask any advertiser) That is the subtext of saying that they benefit from affirmative action.  Of course they do. 100 years ago “Cynic” was that guy under the tree cheering on the nooseman, now he takes out his insecurity by advancing unprovable theories. If white men had been systematically shut out of the profession for a century, it would stand to reason that they would need structural devices in place, because left to their own devices, white men have never shown a willingness to account for their past.  Blacks should not feel guilty for using these structural mechanisms to even the playing field, and in fact should relish the opportunity.  Blacks are better qualified in most instances but the use of so-called “tests” such as LSAT(biased!) are used to stymie their entree into the field.  In another 30years blacks and whites will be on an even playing field and unfortunately for some, daddy’s little girl will be dating “Tron.”

18. Posted by To Female Litigator - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 2 hours, 7 minutes ago

    Lowered requirements during child-bearing years for women?  What a stupid, ignorant comment.  She probably supports a ban on gay marriage too.  The 1950s called and they want you back!  2007 doesn’t need you.

19. Posted by Happily Billing Less - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 55 minutes ago

    To you young folks out there --- choose “having a life” over killing youself for the bigger paycheck.  There’s nothing wrong with taking the fast lane for a few years in order to repay student loans, etc.  But, be careful taking on new debt that leaves you no options for many years out.  What good are all the toys when they become spoils in a divorce battle?  Having practiced for a quarter of a century, and having reduced my budget and salary several times, I find myself so much happier than my “super-productive” peers.  I paid back my student loans, and my husband and I kept our same house when others went McMansion.  My kids are almost grown and are doing great.  Look around in your firm...see who is happiest (or who left and found happiness elsewhere).  Aim to be like that person.  The practice of law can be so much fun.  Find an “old” lawyer and go to lunch....discuss an interesting case....it will remind you that making the most money isn’t why you chose this profession.  I’ll bet most of your moms have said “Money doesn’t buy happiness.” They are right.  Happily Billing Less

20. Posted by Why Is This Newsworthy? - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 49 minutes ago

    This situation affects so few people that I hardly deem it newsworthy.  Very, very few associates make first year salries at the $160,000 level.  Most first years, nationwide, make closer to $40,000.  Just why is this newsworthy?

21. Posted by Phil - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 36 minutes ago

    I agree with Happily Billing Less.  I started practicing with a medium-sized firm about 25 years ago.  I was hired to do tax work (I was a CPA in a former life), but wound up doing business and litigation.  My firm was constantly concerned about billable hours, and even went so far as to distribute monthly computer printouts which showed billable hours and realization rates.  Attorneys were pitted against each other in some sort of perverted billing competition.  It was ridiculous, I didn’t go to law school to become a “serial biller”

    I went out on my own 15 years ago, and never looked back.  I’ve got my own small firm now, and I really love practicing law.  I own the building where I practice, and am involved in a number of entreprenurial enterprises (most of which are no doubt hairbrained, but nonetheless fun).  I’ve also got two little boys with whom I spend a lot of time. 

    If I were given the choice these big-firm associates will be given, I’d work fewer hours with a view towards building my own practice and leaving the firm in 5 to 10 years.

22. Posted by Opt for the $190 - 10 months, 1 week, 4 days, 35 minutes ago

    WHO EVER OPTS FOR THE lesser hours is a moron.  The partner/associate system is feudal concept wherein partners expoilt associates (e.g. steal hours, lie about yearly billable reqim’ts) all justified because it was supposely done to them.  So, why would you low ball yourself in a system which is getting harder and harder to become a partner?

23. Posted by John Riccione - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 23 hours, 46 minutes ago

    I have been a partner in a firm in which partners average about 1400 billable hours per year.  The firm is over 100 years old and this has been the culture for years.  To this day, we still have no minimum hourly billing requirement for anyone.  Those of you who are associates or partners in firms which exploit associates and partners, i.e., steal hours, lie about hourly requirements, etc., have simply made a poor career choice.  I can appreciate that firms like mine are few and far between, but they do exist and you need to search them out in order to achieve a truly perfect balance in life and in your career.  Send me your resume.

24. Posted by Options - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 22 hours, 56 minutes ago

    I’ve been a tax lawyer with a worldwide accounting firm, a real estate and corporate lawyer with a 20 person firm, and now an M&A lawyer with a mid-size (250 lawyers) firm.  I’ve always been successful and led a balanced life, because I’ve had kids the whole time, my wife works, and my family is my first priority.  We can make this REALLY simple: choose the option that maximizes both money and time to do what you love.  If you love life behind the desk, then Chapman and Cutler are making it easy for you.  If you love something else, then Chapman and Cutler are making it easy for you.  Half-pay at Chapman is still good money, so long as it leaves you free to do what you want with [at least] half of your time.  Just make sure you honor these two equations.

25. Posted by Caballo - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 22 hours, 35 minutes ago

    The choice doesn’t necessarily have to involve time for “family” life.  How about time for plain ‘ole life?  I traded private practice at a large D.C. lawfirm for association practice in order to have more time to ride and train my horses.  That was 10 very happy years ago.

    The more options a firm can provide, the better.

26. Posted by Sean - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 22 hours, 31 minutes ago

    I don’t buy into this system.  Starting salaries increase over time as inflation eats away value and the dollar loses value.  A U.S. attorney is one of the most valuable labor groups in the country.  These firms obviously can’t pay their associates what they are worth but still want them to work the long hours.  I would hate to see what their minimum hours hour, they are most likely way above Big Law.

27. Posted by Culture - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 22 hours, 21 minutes ago

    Whether a caste system is created and whether that cast system is exploitative depends upon the already existing corporate culture of an organization.  The lower salary and fewer hours are attractive to me only if it is within the context of an organization that values all its employees.  The bottom line is that I want interesting work and I want the partners to appreciate what I bring to the table.

28. Posted by Options - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 22 hours, 5 minutes ago

    Caballo has it exactly right.  I have never endured gross unhappiness to bill hours at a law firm ("So, you bill me out at $500 per hour and pay me the equivalent of $125 per hour, while you keep the other $375?  Right."), but I’ve done things “on the side” (what I wanted, when, how and with whom I wanted) that were plenty lucrative.  It’s all about options.

29. Posted by Mac - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 21 hours, 38 minutes ago

    The joke is on me.  I joined a small firm in a small town with a small salary so that I could have a life outside of work.  Unfortunately, two years in, my firm changed the rules and now I have a small salary and high billable hour demands and very little time away from work.  This experience has made me rather jaded.

30. Posted by Happily Billing Less - 10 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

    Hang in there, Mac.  Try to get a handle on your overall value to the firm.  Hours don’t mean much if the dollars don’t come, too.  Are they giving you the crap work, which helps them take the good cases?  Develop a few clients yourself.  Build good relationships.  Then, if you still feel your firm is taking advantage of you, you’ll have more guts about leaving.  Although some firms will allow a more flexible schedule, many will not....and you may need to go out on your own.  Or, consider a government job or some corporate position.  Good luck!

31. Posted by yournightmare - 10 months, 1 week, 2 days, 12 hours, 32 minutes ago

    To A Female Minority Associate (#10):

    “Female attorneys work equally hard, are more organized and detail oriented, “

    --You rant about sexism, then make sexist comments?  You fail.

32. Posted by Interesting - 10 months, 1 week, 1 day, 21 hours, 56 minutes ago

    Regarding the Cynic responses, I see no references in his initial comment that would imply minorites or women work less hard.  I read the comment as a mere observation of an unintended, but likely outcome.  I think latent insecurities or being overly-insecure about how you feel you are viewed has driven some of the responses.  Lighten up.

33. Posted by To each his Own - 10 months, 1 week, 1 day, 3 hours, 30 minutes ago

    Everyone has to figure out what’s right for him or her.  To refer to people as ‘Morons’ or take cheap shots and put others down and to imply that people aren’t working hard or doing what they can to generate business (if that’s what they truly want) is judgmental, presumptious and unfair.  Some of us may realize that there’s more to life than just work, maybe we want our gravestone to say more than ‘He/She worked Hard and made a lot of money’...others may want it to say just that.  Stop the bashing and just do what works for you and let the others do what works for them.  And kudos to all the professionals who put encouraging comments on here, keep it going!

34. Posted by Sara - 10 months, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 58 minutes ago

    How does this work in practice—What happens if you opt for the more $$, more hours option and then realize that you’re going to fall short?

35. Posted by sens of reality - 10 months, 1 week, 19 hours, 58 minutes ago

    "nicki,"I think you mischaracterize “cynic’s’ comment.  Also, the stereotype to which you refer is created by the affirmative action and diversity programs that give minorities and women special treatment based solely on their race or gender.  That is the very reason many people, inlcuding minorities and women, don’t like those programs (the programs imply that minorities and women can’t excel without them) .  Don’t blame ‘cynic’ for the stereotype.  Blame the people who are happy to reap the benefits of the affirmative action and diversity programs at the expense of your reputation.

36. Posted by B. K. SHAMA - 10 months, 1 week, 12 hours, 26 minutes ago

    It is must, now, to move to the concept, while making appropriate option for female lawyers.

37. Posted by SNK - 10 months, 6 days, 36 minutes ago

    Yeah, this is old news Hogan & Hartson has been using a two tier system for associates for years now. It works too, people make partner off the lower track as well.

38. Posted by UC Thompson - 10 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 42 minutes ago

    As a female lawyer I feel called to rebut the assumption that we want work-life balance merely in order to care for children. I don’t have children. I seek work-life balance to protect my health, maintain supportive relationships with all of my family, and to act my commitment to volunteer work in adult literacy. Perhaps male lawyers have been handed the notion that nothing short of motherhood justifies time off from the mill. The male lawyer’s life commitments are less honored than motherhood, and so the male lawyer may hesitate to assert his need for time to those commitments. And so the profession is characterized by ill, lonely, alienated men. Yet I agree with the prediction that balance = no career future.  The fact remains that for most associates, career = sell your soul to the office. The tiered options are new window dressing to that tired, brutal fact.

39. Posted by DGM - 10 months, 2 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes ago

    Ooooh!  Tough to ignore comment number 1!