For Some Associates, Work is Slow, Delayed or Nonexistent

Associates

For Some Associates, Work is Slow, Delayed or Nonexistent

Posted Apr 14, 2008, 05:46 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Associates at big law firms were flying high last year when starting salaries skyrocketed to $160,000. Now some are in for a bumpy ride.

This year, some law firms are cutting expenses by laying off associates, delaying their start dates or shortening their summer associate programs, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports. Associates seeking to change jobs are also hard-hit by the economic downturn.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has cut its summer associate program in some offices from 12 weeks to 10 and staggered the start dates for its new associates over several months beginning in September, the newspaper says. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal went so far as to rescind job offers for two summer associates and two first-years in Charlotte, N.C., an office that did a lot of mortgage securitization work.

Another firm, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, also cut its summer associate program and delayed the start date for new associates. The action comes after the firm cut 26 associates.

Some lawyers who are still working have less to do. Law firm consultant James Jones of Hildebrandt International said some partners may seek to maintain their own productivity by hoarding work usually done by associates. He advises law firms to discourage the practice by encouraging more business development work.

An associate at Weil, Gotshal & Manges told the newspaper that things are slow. "I come to work and expect 12-hour days, and it's just not happening," the associate said. "I'm going to the gym a lot, but frankly, I'm a little bored."

Stephen Dannhauser, Weil Gotshal’s chairman, said a few associates who work in areas that have seen a downturn may have fewer billable hours. But most have plenty to do.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by TaxMan - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes ago

Sounds like a great opportunity for these firms to redeploy some of their underutilized assets to pro bono activities. Have the new associates help out at legal outreach centers. The centers get help they desperately need, the associates get training which helps both them and their firm, and the firm isn’t out any money it wouldn’t be spending anyway. Win, win, win.
Posted by Steve Perkins - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 45 minutes ago

Uhh… or the firms could just downsize or freeze hiring, and then wouldn’t be spending the money. When I was working in software development during the dot-com bubble burst, there weren’t many firms willing to pay my dead-weight salary while I did volunteer charity computer programming work…
Posted by Detroit - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours, 18 minutes ago

Maybe if they didn’t charge $750 an hour, more clients would use them. More and more work is going to smaller law firms where partners only charge 3-400 maximum.
Posted by TaxMan - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 49 minutes ago

In reply to post #2 . . . I guess these two approaches (comments 1 and 2) juxtapose the basic “law as a business vs. law as a means of improving / helping society” conundrum.
Posted by Steve Perkins - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 37 minutes ago

Show me somebody who talks about making sacrifices for the purpose of “improving / helping society"… and I’ll invariably show you somebody who expects someone ELSE to do the real sacrificing. Do all the volunteer charity work you want… but if you expect somebody to pay you for it, don’t call it charity.
Posted by JW - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes ago

Has anyone heard what the job market for lawyers will look next summer? I will be looking for a new job at that time, and am curious how difficult it will be. Thanks.
Posted by BC - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours, 9 minutes ago

#1 has the best plan I have seen in a while. The problem is that large law firms are not willing to sacrifice the billable hours and the bottom line for the good of society. Inevitably the job market will only get worse for not just the big law firms, but also the midsize law firms too. There are too many lawyers, charging too high a cost, and billing too many hours.
Posted by Diego - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 1 hour, 36 minutes ago

Also in reply to #2… the business model is different for large law firms. There is intense competition for the top graduates. Those greaduates will take into account a firm’s history of firing associates in slow times when considering which firm to join. This is also the reason most large firms give offers to almost every law student who summers with them.
Posted by TaxMan - 5 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 51 minutes ago

In reply to post #5 . . . I would refer you to Comment 11 of ABA Model Rule 6.1. That said:

This article discusses, among other things, the reduction in work available for distribution to some associates. Given the cyclicality of the economy, it is foreseeable that the workloads of these associates will increase at some point (hopefully in the not too distant future). If these associates are truly the best and brightest, It is only good business to retain them through the current downturn, even if they are not as profitable as they once were.

If that position is accepted, and if I were a partner in their firm, I would find it preferable to have these underutilized associates doing legal work for a local legal outreach clinic rather than having them work on their abs at the gym.

Likewise, and again I have in mind those individuals that have exhibited the potential to make significant contributions to the firm specifically and to the legal profession and society in general, bringing on new associates and assigning them a combination of firm assignments and pro bono cases will only make them more effective lawyers for my firm when the economy turns around.

I would agree with one point in your comment, that being I would not (and did not) call this charity. This would be a business decision pure and simple. It would be an investment in my future as well as that of the associate(s), my partners and the firm (and hopefully society and the legal profession as well).
Posted by Steve Perkins - 5 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes ago

I do hope you are not trying to imply that the Model Rules “mandate” your position. If so, I would refer you to Comment 12 from the same Rule.

Don’t misunderstand the point I made above as suggesting that firms are “wrong” or “stupid” for retaining associates during lean times. Far from it. However, it’s simple reality that firms’ strategies are driven by retention rather than touch-and-feely idealizing. Large firms often must compete for batches of new grads, due to poor retention of the previous batch. Many from that previous batch soaked up a couple years free training, and then leveraged the firm’s prestigue into an easier in-house or boutique-firm position elsewhere.

If your associates’ opportunities for lateral movement remain strong during a downturn, then you must work harder to retain those associates… as others have noted above. However, if the in-house, government, and boutique markets are slowing down too… then your associates have fewer options, as to new grads. In such a case it makes little sense for firms to ignore the leverage that they have.
Posted by Fourth Year - 5 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 23 minutes ago

I haven’t seen any work stoppage, slow down or ease-up. I’m billing 10-12 hours a day. My billables for March were over 200 hours and I’m on track for April to bill about the same. I don’t want to tempt fate, but a bit of an ease up would be welcome.
Posted by In-house - 5 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 29 minutes ago

Didn’t we all know that $160,000 for newbies was a bubble that would not be sustainable, just like the mega salaries for hedge fund managers that did not bear a true relationship to their value?

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Associates