ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Tim - 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 9 hours, 23 minutes ago

   This is ridiculous.  You’re talking about a niche (Biglaw) that pulls ilke 90% of the top law schools, and they can’t figure out what to change?  The first sentence of this piece lists 3 things that cause associates to leave.  I would suggest starting with the grueling hours, boring work and poisonous law firm culture. 
   
   The real problem is that no one in these firms wants to spend the time or money to come up with a better way of doing business, and no one wants their firm to be the guinea pig if it fails.

2. Posted by Chicago 2L - 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 8 hours, 31 minutes ago

   I’ll tell you why these firms are having the problems they are having:

   They hire only the privileged top graduates of elite law schools.  Many of these people have never worked a day in their lives, and although a starting salary of 160,000 dollars sounds mighty fine to them, the reality of the hard work soon puts them off.  They pay off their loans and move on to a lighter workload.  Associates who don’t fit this mold are usually of the “affirmative action/diversity initiative” mold.  I hate to ruffle feathers, but many of these associates just do not perform at the level of many others within the peer group to which they have been elevated.  Frustration with constantly being evaluated poorly will lead to leaving a law firm mighty quick.

   How to remedy this (in my opinion): Instead of hiring solely the top academic performers from Top 14 Law Schools, look a little lower down the tiers and look longer at previous work experience or other outside influencing factors.  A student who may have been only top 25% academically but graduated from a four-year part time program while holding down a full-time job and possibly maintaining a family will not only fully understand the value of a hard day’s work (and that 160k starting salary) but might also have useful information and abilities gained from previous experiences in the work force.

   I am sure these opinions will be attacked from all angles, which really just further solidifies the fact that firms don’t really want to change their business acumen.  Harvard, Yale, et. al will continue to churn out graduates, and huge law firms will continue to grind them up until they become academics or go into business for themselves.

3. Posted by jack black - 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 6 hours, 54 minutes ago

   Like the ABA, law school deans, and biglaw leaders really see this as a problem?  Of course, they want to churn as many people through the system as possible.  That’s how they make their money.  Imagine how much money TTT schools would lose if people were actually content in the law and decided to stay in their positions.  It would cause a backup.  The law is all about churn and burn today.

4. Posted by 3L - 5 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 6 hours, 47 minutes ago

   Chicago 2L - I’m appalled at how you’ve neatly categorized the associates at big law firms as: (1) Rich people who have never worked for their money, and (2) People of color who couldn’t get where they are without their skin color because they’re lazy and incompetent. Attitudes like yours are what need to be removed before firms realize the true worth of their new associates and how better to fashion programs to retain them.

5. Posted by response to Chicago 2L - 5 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 46 minutes ago

   Um, don’t you realize the vast majority of your “affirmative action/diversity” law students attend the very below-T14 schools you’d prefer BigLaw to recruit from (see this cover story from National Jurist: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress/nationaljurist0307/ .) So what gives? Minorities from neither Harvard nor Howard (89% minority) can hack BigLaw, but whites from any TTT can?

6. Posted by Christine - 5 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 14 hours, 45 minutes ago

   I am/was a new associate with only 8 months in with the firm.  I resigned my position because my boss had absolutely no time or patience for me.  I was the only female of three attorneys.  The male boss and my male co-worker were thick as thieves and literally left me out of everything.  I have only been an attorney since last Oct. yet the boss expected me to demonstrate the work of an experienced litigator while refusing to take any time to mentor me.  Rather than mentor me, he left me isolated in my office, refused to talk to me and was sarcastic.  That’s why I left...a bad boss.

7. Posted by been there done that - 5 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 27 minutes ago

   I question the premise that big firms want their 5th year and up associates to stay. That is about the time when they become highly competent and clients start asking for them by name, which makes the originating partners nervous that the clients will transfer their loyalty to the person who is actually doing the work.  Also an experienced associate will probably complete the work faster and therefore less expensively than an inexperienced one and may produce fewer billable hours for the firm.  I hate to sound so cynical but bear in mind that much of those training costs are borne by clients and the equity partners get a percentage of them.

8. Posted by Been there done that 20 years ago - 5 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 12 hours, 52 minutes ago

   Been there was paying attention.  This is not cynical.  When partners started to want to make as much money as big businessmen, they stopped making friends of associates.  They knew they were not going to want to share the partnership draws with many of these people.  Only too eager to view us as “timekeepers” or units of production.

   In a way this was good for young women, who could be reliably expected to leave without rancor to have kids.  Dumping out the men was a tougher problem but the billable hours thing works great for that.

   You’re quite right Been There.  This isn’t a BUG, it’s a FEATURE.

9. Posted by Associate - 5 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 15 minutes ago

   When I was looking to interview I was a top ten “non-traditional” student who had already had one career as an at-home mother raising my family.  I was told by a mentor that the “big box” firms wouldn’t know what to do with me because I didn’t take the route of career first, children maybe.  She was very right.  Even though I had grades and rank on my side, I was poorly treated by every interview with a big firm that I went on - from being told that I was too old to “party” with the associates and would not fit in to the man who made partner at 30 and used the interview to try to belittle me because I was more than ten years older than him.  Then there was the attorney who, when he saw me rolled his eyes, leaned back in his chair and refused to question me at all while his co-interviewer provided a cursory interview and then ushered me from the premises.  I wound up clerking for judges and then finding a growing but mid-sized firm that recognized that I know how to multi-task and organize my time - my boss/partner was willing to mentor and give me litigation opportunities almost immediately - I solo-chaired my first jury trial two months after my hire date. They also understood that I have life experience and have always treated me with respect and offered me opportunities because of my past, not in spite of it.  I have been practising four years now and am regularly given cases with clients that need special handling because I am very good with special needs people.  I also racked up an excellent trial record.  Would I have gotten any of this in a big box firm?  Hardly!  Am I glad I couldn’t get the time of day from them?  Absolutely.  While the money would have been nice, keeping my soul has been nicer.

10. Posted by Chicago - 5 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours ago

    I guess I am just a sociopath for hoping that all these huge firms and this bullshit corporate “culture” go the way of the dinosaur, but I know that will never happen.  I can see the ABA will never get sick of reporting on the “news” that most people don’t want to be treated like robots, regardless of the salary that comes along with it… Somebody call Rick Romero.  Of the people I was buddies with in law school who ended up at Top 50 firms, nearly all of them were gone by the 5th year out.  Those that remained really didn’t have much a soul to begin with.  You can realize pretty quick that money isn’t everything and though I make about 60% of what a starting first year associate makes in BIGLaw, my freedom of choice in what I wear, who I deal with, and most importantly how I spend my comparably generous amounts of free time more than make up for that salary difference.  Period.

11. Posted by working man - 5 months, 2 weeks, 3 hours, 37 minutes ago

    I really hate it when law students, yeah, you Chicago 2L, make sweeping and ridiculous generalizations about things they know jack about. 

    I don’t think you, law student, should worry about your “opinions [and your advice, for that matter] be[ing] attacked from all angles” because your opinions and advise are ignorant and factually false, not to mention worthless and irrelevant. Here’s some good advice: don’t believe everything you hear about what they tell you big law firms are like and how they are run.

    And generally, to all law students considering posting comments on this website - trading on outdated and f-ing stupid stereotypes of what they imagine the practice of law to be like - please back off. You are really, really annoying.

12. Posted by Rita - 5 months, 2 weeks, 3 hours, 12 minutes ago

    I agree that a large part of attrition can generally be attributed to “culture” which includes everything from bad mentoring, lack of social skills by attorneys of all ranks, backstabbing and power politics, and, most generally, no respect for fellow man. I left because of culture, not because of hours.

    You learn in sociology class in college that people who are abused are likely to abuse others - so senior attorneys at large firms who went through a lot of abuse to get to positions of seniority - shell out the same on the new generations. And the cycle continues.

    I think, however, that new waves of attorneys these days are less likely to tolerate that abuse, even despite generally larger debt burdens, on average, compared to past generations.  There is at least talk of better life for attorneys these days, and the influx of women, however slow that may be, could be expected to shift focus just a tiny bit more in favor of life and away from the absolute reign of the billable hour.  Yea, yea, I know, law firms must remain competitive to survive, so there is no real strong incentive for things to get better - the billable hour will not simply die anytime soon. BUT the rising attrition rate, and the cost of attrition ($350,000 per associate) may well favor the very slow shift towards better.

    And yet again, lower billable hours and lots of talky talk about better working conditions will not solve the problem of rotten law firm cultures. Unless and until new, socially capable, kinder generation that says ‘no’ to backstabbing power plays as a way of navigating to positions of authority in large firms - the odds of starting out associates turning into partners at their original firms will remain very very slim.  But, since a kinder and socially capable generation of ethical and fair-minded LAW GRADUATES is a ridiculous idea, things will never get better for large firms.

    haha. I love my midsize firm employer. Ditto comment number 10.

13. Posted by To Chicago 2L - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 17 hours, 26 minutes ago

    You’re 200% correct.

14. Posted by David C. LaPlante - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Big laws are an easy target.  I (a 3rd year associate) happen to work at one of the biggest and, in my opinion, best firms in the midwest, and I genuinely like my job.  I like the majority of the people I work with and I like the majority of the work that comes across my desk. I am not rich.  In fact, I am the first lawyer (and maybe the last!) in my family.  I was a non-traditional older student in lawschool at St. Louis University.  I had 2 children in school and since then have had 2 more little ones.  I am home for dinner almost every night and my family is first.  I work hard and come in early.  This summer I am memtoring a young summer associate, even though I am not that young myself and have 4 great kids.  I get tired of the ranting against Big firm life on this site as the opinions expressed herein have not been my experience.  Please all you attorneys out there, NOT ALL BIG LAW FIRMS ARE BAD PLACES TO WORK! I I hope you all meet some more attormeys from my firm who may be able to change your perspective.
    Regards

15. Posted by BC - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 34 minutes ago

    I don’t blame young associates for leaving the firm.  One year removed from law school, two of my friends who went to some of the “biglaw” firms have already left the profession.  And no wonder!  They were actually sleeping more at the office than they were at their respective apartments.  Who wants that type of life?  When you have to sacrifice your personal and family life for the good of the firm, and the large law firms actually encourage you to make that decision, there is a serious problem.

16. Posted by Former Large Firm Pittsburgh Associate - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 14 minutes ago

    I worked at one of the top largest firms in Pittsburgh for one year.  We had over 1500 attorneys firm wide, and yet, for some reason, I was expected to work 20 hour days 6 days a week and a 12 hour day on Sunday.  I knew going into big law would be a lot of hours, but at what point did my work product start to suffer because I was not getting any sleep? The answer...WEDNESDAY!  Usually by Wednesday, I was worn out and it was a struggle to get through the rest of the week.  I had to leave because I did not want to die of a heart attack and the unhealthy lifestyle I was living by the tender age of 30.  Large law firms are the most rediculous beast.  Who cares if I am making $160,000 a year when all I do is save the money because I can’t spend it at home (I’m never at home) and my wife and kids leave me?  I had to make a decision, money and big law with the proverbial carrot in front of me encouraging partnership, or my loving wife, kids, and my sanity.  I made the right choice, and I don’t regret it for a moment.

17. Posted by Hugh Hill - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes ago

    You;ve got the wrong end of the stick here.  If the firms wanted to keep the associates, they could change compensation or conditions.  The firms WANT these kids to be wage slaves for a few years and then go away.  The economics for the partners dictate this.  Where is that finely honed legal analysis here?  Follow the money.  Who’s in control and what’s in their interests?

18. Posted by Take a PIll - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 39 minutes ago

    There is no way you are expected to work 20hr days and a 12 on Sunday.  It is impossible.  Plain and simple.  And I would submit the following equation to anyone who details hours:

    X/2 = hrs per week

19. Posted by New Mom - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 23 minutes ago

    I’m 29. I have been out of law school 3 years, and I have a 1-year old daughter. I recently left my old firm because their exepctation of constant travel and an 80-hour work week doesn’t work with a day care schedule, or my desire to actually spend time with my famiy. What was frustrating, is that my old firm was mid-sized, payed terrible and held themselves out to God and everybody that they were a “family-friendly” firm. When I interviewed at my current position, I made clear that I had a child and a schedule. I now make more money, travel far less, and I am spending more time with my daughter than ever. And I still manage to bill approximaetly 36 hours per week. From where I sit, law firms need to recognize that associates today want a good work/life balance, and a firm that allows flexibility to accomodate families - particularly for women. Decent maternity leave policies and part-time options for women with small children are a great option. This is a temporary option for new moms to take the time necessary for their family, and then return full-time to their jobs at a later time. My understanding is that big firms are more progressive in this area than mid-sized firms. I think it is time for them mid-size firms to follow the leader and make jobs more family friendly.

20. Posted by Former Large Firm Attorney - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 20 minutes ago

    I left a well-known large firm for several reasons.  Yes, the hours sucked, I only handled one kind of case (which was a major factor in my decision to leave), but most of all, it is extremely difficult to advance in a firm where you have 50 to 100 names ahead of yours on the letterhead, and today, being a “partner/shareholder” in a large firm doesn’t mean a thing.  It’s just like being a vice president at Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch—everyone except for the receptionist is a vice president.

    I joined a two-attorney practice at the beginning of the year, and I have never been happier (and the money is just as good).

21. Posted by mlaw - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 12 minutes ago

    I second Take a Pill and am calling b*ll$#! on Pittsburgh Associate.  By my calculations if you were billing for just 80% of time you claim to have spent at work, you would have been billing around 5,500 hours per year.  Give me a break. 

    I am at a very large firm, not BigLaw, but over 500 lawyers.  I’ve been here for almost 6 years and generally work 8:00 - 6:30 M-F.  Rarely on the weekends.  I do agree that there are a lot of associates in my generation who lack a work ethic and have never had a meaningful job before attending law school.  Time to pony up and earn the money the firms are paying you.  Take a reality check and realize that many of you are making about three-four times what a family of four typically earns in this country.

22. Posted by BigLaw MidLevel - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 8 minutes ago

    After an unusual career path, I landed at BigLaw for the first time many years after law school.  With no book of business but good experience, my firm and I agreed to a mid-level position.

    I can only share my experience.  No generalizations.  The environment is cold and intimidating.  Nevertheless, I respect my colleagues, and generally enjoy the work I do.  If I do not think I can complete a task in the time frame presented, I say no to the assignment.  That is how I manage my life and time.

    Perhaps when partnerhsip discussions commence, I will regret saying no and having lower billable hours, but I doubt that I will make partner in any event.

    There are roughly 200 associates in my class.  In 3 years, theoretically, we will all be eligible for partnership.  Historically, the firm elevates 25-30 associates to partner. each year.  Statisically, about 175 us must leave in the next 3-4 years anyway.

23. Posted by In-house - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 8 minutes ago

    Working Man got it right.  Those in the big firms have no reason to complain, and certainly not those who have never worked a billable hour.  You trade your life for that $160,000, so buck up and get on with it. We’re supposed to feel sorry for you?

24. Posted by DGB - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, 4 minutes ago

    When are young professionals going to start taking responsibility for their employment contracts?  The job may not be ‘nice,’ but I’m going to assume for the sake of argument that everyone who agrees to take a job such as those discussed here is smart enough to figure out that a $160K salary is not handed to them because they are nice to look at or fun to be around.  Its basic offer and acceptance (for those who have forgotten basic contract law), and a large part of what the associate is being paid for is the grind.  Do you make the same arguments for someone who signs up to be a Marine and gets shot at overseas?  Of course not - we assume that the person signing up KNOWS what the job entails.  And we are all adults and (for the most part, I hope) smart enough and educated enough to realize that a new associate is NOT WORTH that kind of money unless they get worked to the bone.  And, they (you/I) ALL walked into the jobs with enough information to KNOW that was the deal.  You walk in figuring you can handle it for a couple of years, pay off your debt, and move on to what you ‘really’ want to do.  When, in fact, what you ‘really’ wanted to right out of school was get paid a huge salary, regardless of treatment and hours, pay off your school debt and/or buy some really nice stuff, and rely upon the sweat of those who built the firm and client base from scratch to make that happen for you. As well as take advantage of older attorneys’ knowledge/experience.  That’s the deal - we all know this and it is peevish and disingenuous to whine about the ‘working conditions’ at that kind of salary.  Kudos to those who accepted the deal, spent a few years grinding away while getting paid ridiculous salaries, and moving on. 
    And for those of you who think that money falls out of the sky as soon as an associate walks through the door, spend some time as the responsible attorney on a matter (and having to cut useless time because an associate, no matter how smart, faces a learning curve) as well as covering the overhead for an associate, staff, office, research services, insurance, etc....

25. Posted by CB - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 30 minutes ago

    Many of you raise very good points but something keeps bothering me:  $160,000 a year is not exactly a king’s ransom.  True, it would be more money than I’ve ever made in my life by about 3x but to say that the BigLaw associates should happily give up their lives for what amounts to a pittance to their employers is ridiculous.  On the other hand, when I read stories about how these (generally) privileged kids need to be told not to wear yoga pants to work, I lose all sympathy.  The majority of students who go to the top schools from which this group of associates are recruited are in face privileged.  To hear them protest that they are not is a bit insulting.  I realize there are exceptions to every rule - no one go berzerk on me.

26. Posted by BC - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 19 minutes ago

    Look, everyone complains about the hours they work, and everyone complains about how much they get paid.  This is true, not just for legal jobs, but for most jobs everywhere.  I can’t imagine that working for a big firm is as horrendous as everyone, even the ABA Journal, makes it seem.  There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers who work for BigLaw firms world wide.  If it was as misserable as everyone makes it seem, no one would want to work there, plain and simple.  As a federal law clerk, I look forward to working for a major law firm at the conclusion of my clerkship.  While I’m intimidated a little, by no means am I going into it not knowing what to expect...namely longer hours, and hard work. In fact I am excited to start.  Everyone needs to stop complaining and realize: THIS IS ALL PART OF THE CAREER!

27. Posted by NM - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 18 minutes ago

    The reason Biglaw associates don’t stick around to make partner is that even if you are in a firm with good work and good people, it is really hard to be a successful law firm partner:  mentally, physically and financially.  Unless you truly love the work, the hours and money are not necessarily worth it, especially if you live in a major market like NYC where $1M per year barely gets you a 3 BR house in the suburbs.  In other markets where the pay to lifestyle ratio is better (I’m thinking Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas), I think law firm partner looks like a much more satisfying career choice, and I’m not sure what all the whining would be about.

28. Posted by DGB - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 16 minutes ago

    CB-
    “King’s Ransom?” Are you kidding me?  The AVERAGE yearly income in this country last year was around $40K.  And you have a LOT to learn if you think that what YOU are worth is governed by what a partner makes.  You have a degree right out of law school.  That’s it.  The partner has experience, clients, time, and more importantly has taken on ALL of the risks associated with not just representing clients but also the costs associated with the business of practicing law.  Stop thinking that your value should be judged based upon what a partner makes.  Go out and build your own firm from scratch and drop me a line the first time you take home that much money.

29. Posted by Princess Di - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 6 minutes ago

    I graduated Harvard Law, worked at an old-line Boston firm for 15 years, made partner, then spent 6 years in the public/nonprofit sector.  I am back in private practice now, as of counsel to a Biglaw firm in LA, and I feel like Rip van Winkle waking up--things have changed that much.  The pressure to hit insane billable hours--being told that absolutely no pro bono work would be permitted this year (quite contrary to the firm’s public face)--general disregard for the training needs of young associates--Wow.  It’s turned into firms use the associates, associates use the firms.  Whatever the practice of law is these days, it is no longer a calling or a profession.  And when I started out in 1984 (not exactly the paleolithic era), it was.

30. Posted by DGL - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 4 minutes ago

    Chicago 2L, it’s difficult to take you seriously when you use this topic to foist an irrelevant and bigoted remark like “affirmative action/diversity initiative” associates being elevated beyond their capabilities.  Although it sound benign and understanding, it’s really code for racism and we’re not fooled by it.

31. Posted by Looking at the cause, not the symtoms - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes ago

    Why is the work boring, the hours long, and the atmosphere poisonous?  Because large firms are parasitic in that profits for partners depend on younger lawyers churning hours.  Why clients hire large firms, when there are so many alternatives available, is the ultimate question.  The answer:  large firms wine-and-dine clients as essentially a kickback to get business, even though it’s against most ethical rules.  Also, corporations like having the protection a big-firm gives when they do something naughty.  Think Enron and Vinson & Elkins.

32. Posted by Drone - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 14 hours, 1 minute ago

    Let’s see - if only about 1 out of every 20 starting associates ever makes partner, what should we expect of the other 19? Have them hang around beyond the prime-recruiting 4th/5th years and stay for, say, 8 or 10 so that they lose marketability? People leave law firms because the chances of making partner are so slim, and the prize at the end of the day is even more work and more pressure. Some people think it’s worth it, but many think it’s not.  It just so happens that the mid-level-associate years are the prime time for moving, because law school loans have been paid down (if not off), you have some experience that makes you worth hiring, and you have some idea of what you want in life.

33. Posted by 3rd Year Associate at Large NYC Law Firm - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 53 minutes ago

    I work at a large law firm in NYC.  I’ll admit that we are overpaid for what we do.  Yes, we work long hours.  But, we make money that people in this world only dream of.  Our life is privileged.  Plain and simple.  Indeed, I went to an “elite” law school and getting a job was not difficult.  And, yes, this is my first “real job.” But, that doesn’t mean that I do not appreciate this or haven’t worked hard for this.  I am grateful for having this life and, to the Chicago 2L (who is probably bitter about not being hired at a top firm), I have worked very hard to get where I am.  I wasn’t a “privileged” child - I was born in one of the poorest countries in the World.  And yet, I’ve made it here.  As far as the life of firms go, even the best firm will not give you 100% happiness if what you care about in life is more than money.  Bottom line, people leave after a few years because they want more than just tons of money and no life.  I want to have children one day and actually see them grow up.  That doesn’t make me a bad person for leaving my firm; in fact, that makes me a more wholesome and enriched person.  Firms are businesses - bottom line.  And, I’m going to treat my time here exactly like that.  I’m going to work the hours, play the game, make my money, get awesome training (I work for the firm that has the best litigation training in the country, hands down), and get out of here to have a balanced and real life.  Chicago 2L (who is working for a rinky-dinky firm)—talk to those of us out in the field after a few years… You have no CLUE what you are talking about right now.

34. Posted by Ron Tonkin - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 45 minutes ago

    Lol at the toilet lawyers being jealous and butt hurt that they are making less than large firm associates.  Here is a tip, you should have tried harder in law school and on the LSAT, then you wouldn’t have to envy our $.  So it sucks for a few years so what.  While you claim you are making a choice for lifestyle, I’m sucking it up and I’ll be debt free and in your position in a few years, not to mention that my large firm experience will give me much more name cachet and a better resume to go where I want to go.  Toilet Fools!

35. Posted by MidLevel Firm Associate - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 45 minutes ago

    I think there are many reasons that associates at NALP firms are leaving.  Many have already been covered above (such as firms in which partners view associates as timekeepers, the lack of a family friendly atmosphere, and the lack of mentorship).  But there are some serious systemic problems that lead to this:
    (1) We have too many lawyers.  Many people go to law school because they get their B.A. in business or marketing and don’t know what to do next.  They’re relatively intelligent and think you can make big bucks in law, so off they go.  They don’t really have an interest in “law” per se, so even if they’re offered opportunities to grow, it doesn’t seem interesting.  People who go to law school to litigate get buried in piles and piles of paper and months of discovery.  A “victory” is winning a motion to compel, not a jury trial.  That’s the nature of litigation today, and there are very few people who are really cut out for that sort of long-term, detail oriented work.  Even most of the successful partners in law today aren’t cut out for that, but they grew up in a much earlier time of less discovery, faster cases, and more trials, so they have relied upon younger associates and paralegals to keep business going.  If people who actually wanted to be lawyers were the only ones who went to law school, there’d be much less turnover.
    (2) Law school tuition (and debt) has gotten way out of control.  20-30 years ago, over half of law school grads went into government service of one kind or another to begin their practice.  Today that number is cut at least in half.  Why? Partly because that people who graduate from private law schools simply cannot afford anything besides a firm job.  Partly because the thought of STARTING at $90,000, 120,000, or 160,000 (depending upon where you are in the country) is just too tempting.  But not every trained attorney should be doing those firm jobs.  Nonetheless, we go for it, either because we have to, or because the “golden handcuffs” are way too tempting.
    (3) It’s too hard to get to the top.  Medium- and large-sized firms really aren’t “partnerships,” or they’re not viewed as such by associates.  MOST medium- and large-sized firms intentionally weed out associates to keep the draw share large for the partners, to keep competition down, and to keep a steady flow of “worker bees.” Associates view their jobs as jobs, not as training to be a member of, and relied upon, a partnership of lawyers. We’re not _expected_ to be loyal We’re expected to work hard for some (or lots) of money. And golf outings, lavish summer associate parties, or “mentorship consultants” can’t mask that.  So it’s not surprising that associates will take their training and move elsewhere, especially if you feel like you cannot become partner.  Why stay around when better jobs (either in-house, or as your own boss, or even out of the legal profession) exist?  No one faults employees who work for business from moving on to get management positions at other companies; why should we fault lawyers?
    (4) The current generation views work differently from the previous generation.  Work is work, and that’s about it.  We want to get our identity from MORE than just the briefs that we write, and we’re not willing to let our spouses languish at home, alone, for 70 hours a week.

    Some of these problems can be fixed firm to firm, some can only be fixed if there are serious changes in law school admissions and tuition policies.  But then again, maybe we should just learn that most associates leave, and let firms adjust their policies and economics.  In other words, is this “problem” really so much of a problem?

36. Posted by Ranx - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 39 minutes ago

    It sure seems easy to slam big law firms, as rich and mean and heartless as they seem to be. For those of you who have never been anywhere, or done anything else, it’s like that in every volume dependant business. You don’t hire people to live like rock stars, you hire them to work. $160K is a LOT of money to most people. Don’t pretend it’s not. If it doesn’t go as far as you would like where you live then you’ve fallen for the little trick they played on you. Being successful is hard, in any business.

37. Posted by Hadley V. Baxendale - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 35 minutes ago

    Amen #30--I am also a 1984 grad, and back then I tried to warn my classmates that the job at the big firm for double salary was really two shifts at the same factory--to use today’s number of $160K, who would sign on to work full time for 2 firms at $80k each?
    Large firms run a business on a business model--and it’s a fragile model, practically a contained pyramid scheme.  Treating associates as “fungible billing units” is a business strategy--but it is not compatible to a profession.  Workplace professionalism can still be found at the small to mid sized firms--reasonable work requirements, training, respect, using community service and quality work for marketing. But as those firms get rolled into the big firms, professionalism gives way to business. 
    Sure, each lawyer in a big firm thinks she is professional and ethical, but the firm itself chunked that out of the business model along with carbon paper and “Total Quality Management.”

38. Posted by Like Everyone Else - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 30 minutes ago

    This is not unique to associates and therefor not ‘news.’ Every field finds 80% turn over in the first five years.  My brother the doctor?  Switched after three years (post residency).  My friend the CPA?  Went from PWC to EY after 2 years.  Tech friends?  Bounce like beans.  Commercial and IB folks?  Last 1 to 4 years and then have the skills to negotiate and move to something else.  Our economy provides sufficient mobility to allow workers to move efficiently and few to no employers provide incentives for sticking around.  At least the corporate world has restricted stock and other forms of deferred compensation that give the appearance of investing in long term relationships.  Your IRA and 401(k) go with you now and pensions are close to extinct.  Why not move when opportunity knocks, whether you are an associate, junior partner, or other professional?

39. Posted by AApocalypse - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago

    Dear Chicago 2L:

    I am a minority female who attended at top of 1st tier law school graduated at the top of my class and was an editor on law review and I work in BigLaw.

    My work product is far above and beyond those next to me in my class. I have other associates asking me the most elementary questions, yet, the caucasian males are definitely favored above 1) women and 2) diversity associates.

    You cannot state that minority associates leave BigLaw because they cannot hack the work because they came from subpar schools.

    Time and time again, partners seek out the caucasian males for their deals for no other reason except for personal bias. While the management of BigLaw may be dedicated to diversity, partners may not be and they show this, either intentionally or unintentionally. Some partners have even asked me how I like the United States so far when I am a born and raised American.

    I also know that many diversity associates would have no problem billing 180-200 hours but work distribution is incredibly unequal. BigLaw, either consciously or unconsciously, pushes us out. We don’t get challenging work, we don’t get a lot of work, we don’t make our billables, etc. and partners think “well, see, minorities can’t handle the practice of law, we were right all along” when they put barriers in place to ensure that we won’t be able to when, if all things were equal, we would be able to. Just like in Thomas Moore’s Utopia: you first make criminals and then punish them. The law firm first discriminates against us by denying us good work and enough work and then punishes us for not being on enough quality deals and making our billables.

    So, I think, at least for diversity associates (or diversity female associates or female associates in general), there is a lot of discrimination that comes into play.

40. Posted by BC - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago

    #35 - Wow.  Aren’t we cocky.  You’re probably the reason people leave big law firm jobs - because the associates that work there are pompous and think they are better than everyone else.  Just because you did well on LSATs and you did well in law school doesn’t necessarily mean your a better lawyer.  There was actually an article in the NYT a few months ago that said that large law firms are starting to look at people who weren’t at top ranked law schools because they have more of a drive and feel like they have to prove themselves.  Apparently you proved their point.  Not that you don’t work hard, and you don’t deserve everything you have.  Just that when I am looking at a firm to work for, if I come across your path, I am going to to run the other way.

41. Posted by realist - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 22 minutes ago

    People leave largely because they can’t hack it or just want a break.  There is a difference between a business-savvy rainmaker who can litigate and someone who can just litigate.  To be sure, both are valuable assets.  But those with just the latter quality are certainly a great deal more fungible than those with the former qualities.  I also see exhausted people leave.  The hours are grueling.  And that takes a human toll and a family toll.  Of the ones who can hack it, the vast majority of them incur family unbalance.  So I think people leave mostly because either you can’t hack it or you find that hacking it is not as valuable to you and your family as some alternative.  This isn’t a problem, except to firms with truly poisonous cultures.  And those firms do need shake-ups.  So I have no problem with any of these market forces.  And I hope the new grads out there who have no idea what this culture is all about have truly thick skin, because without it, they’ll be the fiorst casulaties.

42. Posted by MF - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 6 minutes ago

    I am addressing only large firms - that is the law environment in which I work. 
    If large firms believe that the prevailing work model has merit and results in the a stronger firm and talent pool and that this outweighs the cost of attrition then the model does not need to be changed.  If large firms believe that the current attrition levels impose a cost on the firm that exceeds the benefits (survival of those most able to adapt or flourish in the environment) then those large firms need to look for alternative work / staffing models. 
    Assuming that change is necessary, the business world is full of work models that firms could look to in order to identify a new staffing/management model. 
    The large law firm model now employs associates as temporary employees.  The potential for partnership may be held out as something that every associate has an equal chance of achieving, but that is nonsense.  Even if a starting class at a large law firm was made up of a group of equally qualified, motivated associates and all performed equally well throughout their initial years and all of them had the same life and work goals and demands on their lives outside of work, the existing work models at large firms would not promote them all to partner.  The current models function on the assumption that there will be significant attrition along the way.  Associates really have no reason to view their employment at a large law firm as anything other than a temporary work assignment that has a remote possibility of yielding a permanent job offer years down the road.  Partnership decisions must be made on the basis of more than an evaluation of legal ability because law firms are businesses.  They need to bring in new clients and that requires a lot of skills among the partners other than just legal ability.  Associates that are realistic about their own abilities and that believe their own chances at making partner (even if they are brilliant associates) have no reason to be loyal to the firm.  As well, brilliant lawyers that are willing and want to dedicate a good solid 9 to 10 hours a day, 5 days a week to the firm, but need to be truly “off” when they go home at night and on weekends really have no alternative in the up or out culture other than to treat the firm as a temporary job. 
    If law firms are losing “brilliant” associates to lower paying jobs that provide more predictable hours or other “lifestyle” benefits then perhaps the law firms might consider eliminating the up or out / make partner or leave work model.  One suggestion would be to have associates choose whether they remain on the partnership track or not.  The nonpartnership track could offer 8 hour days, with perhaps a maximum of 2 hours overtime per day (which would be compensated as overtime).  The nonpartnership track would pay significantly less - that is only fair if partnership track associates must dedicate significantly more of their life to the firm for only a chance at making partner.  This would require the nonpartnership associates to be realistic in their salary demands on the firm and would require the firm to revise its expectation that any of those associates will stay at the office beyond the agreed upon hours or be available for ongoing dialogues by blackberry until 3 a.m.  Legal work is simply not so unique in its requirements that it cannot be staffed with a combination of 8-hour work shift lawyers and partnership-track (I’m there until I drop) associates.  It just requires relearning how to staff.  It requires staffing nonpartnership lawyers on deals that are not rush transactions or staffing them on tasks within rush transactions that can be completed within the work hours for a given associate or that is amenable to being handed off by one associate to another that may come in and work later and leave later (i.e., shifts).  I am a securities and public M&A lawyer that has worked at a large law firm for a number of years.  I do not claim to be the star of my class but am well above average.  I will leave, however, and will not look for work in another law firm - I am not bored & I do enjoy law. But I have other personal goals and ambitions.  I need more predictable hours but not as much money as I now make.  I will probably stay within law but take a non-firm job that pays less and offers as alternative compensation predictable hours. 

    Just like our business clients we can set up work models that allow us to retain talent without insisting that every talented individual give his or her all to make CEO or leave.  A lot of talented people have no interest in making CEO and are satisfied with a lot less money than an executive path employee might be. 
    These are just my thoughts - I am not an expert on management models.  But I do know that I will leave this job for one that will pay less and may not provide more interesting work, but it will provide predictable hours.  If I could find that at my firm I would stay.

43. Posted by Melissa - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 6 minutes ago

    Perfect timing on this article.  Today is my last day as a litigation associate at a large Southest regional firm, not a megafirm, but big law firm.  I’m leaving primarily because I don’t want to be a litigator anymore and have accepted a tenure track teaching position at a university.

    I think as big law firms go, the one I have worked for is about as good as they get, but big law firms are big law firms.  They pay handsomely, but do require a lot in terms of hours from their associates in return, and that is the deal you make when you accept a position at one of these firms.  I know plenty of attorneys with crushing student loans who would give up a kidney for a chance to make $100K plus and bill their life away, at least for a few years . . . as well as plenty of associates at big firms who don’t appreciate how great it is to have a well paying job, even if it means lots of hours.  That really isn’t the issue in the article.

    The issue is what can the big law firms do to lower their attrition rates.  I think there are lots of things firms can do to minimize attrition, but they will never get rid of it.  The simple fact is, BigLaw runs on the billable hour . . . and associates have to bill enough to cover their salary and overhead and then create profits for partners.  That has become an exhuasting requirement and not something that everyone is cut out for or wants to do for 20-40 years.  That is just reality.  I also think the expectation that attorneys are avilalbe for clients 24/7 is particularly draining.

    My experience is that lawyers are resistent to change, and law firms, even Big law firms that are doing big business, continue to be run by lawyers like law firms, and not like businesses.

    I’ve never actually been asked by our management committee what kinds of changes would make me stay at the firm.  For me, ultimately not much as my firm can’t do anything about a**-hold opposing counsel and incompetent judges.  But, plenty of things would make practicing law at a big law firm more tolerable for me:  Sabbaticals, conceriege services (dry cleaning, meals, shopping for business attire), on-site/near-by child care.  But, I know plenty of associates, male and female for whom these things wouldn’t make a stitch of difference.

44. Posted by I Think I Know Why - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 2 minutes ago

    THEORY:

    LSAT scores and serving on law review are not strong indicators of one’s 1) loyalty to the firm, 2) diligence as a practitioner, and 3) ability to handle the strains and stresses of “real-life.”

    I think too much is presumed about high grades, law review, and so forth.  They keep hiring people with great grades and law review, but these people keep leaving.

    Perhaps people earned high grades, and law review, to keep debt low, get a big law job, then quit in three years? (gasp!) Perhaps!

45. Posted by Stan - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes ago

    I have been doing this for 32 years and am now with a small firm of real human beings (well, mostly).  From reading a few of these comments, very little has changed over the years.  If anything it has gotten worse.  Yuck.

46. Posted by DGB - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Despite my position regarding the ‘terrible’ working conditions complained of at the large firms, I agree completely with Princess Di.  However, the issue of the lack of professionalism in the practice of law is, in my mind, separable from the issue of a new associate taking ridiculous paychecks home but whining about the working conditions.  Although I haven’t been practicing quite as long, I concur that the field is no longer a profession.  One thing that seems to get lost in the process is the matter of a person’s reputation.  Some (not all) of the larger firms seem to focus on the reputation of the firm rather than the individual attorney - and no one is telling the young associates that, at the end of the day, the only thing they can rely upon is their reputation.  I’m not so sure that the ‘large firm’ business model is good or bad - but I certainly agree that in some cases there is less professionalism as a result.

47. Posted by Chortle - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 56 minutes ago

    THe secret is that first five years are menat to be a weed-out, process of attrition. Too bad - that’s life. Much like boot camp or medical residency.

48. Posted by Chicago lawyer - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I second David LaPlante.  As a non-traditional, second-career law student from a top five law school, I started out at a 12-attorney firm in Michigan.  I was expected to bill 2500 hours per year for a paltry $33,000 in 1990s.  I have since worked up to one of the 100 largest firms where my billable hour requirement is 2000 hours.  I, too, work roughly 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and few weekends.  I, too, work with some of the nicest (and smartest) lawyers I’ve ever met.  If you haven’t been there, STOP OVERGENERALIZING ABOUT BIG LAW!  You simply do not know what you are talking about.

    Why do associates leave?  Lots of reasons.  I left a prior firm because of a bad boss.  He was condescending and cruel.  Some firms are cliques.  Some have boring work.  Some do not respect the people.  Some are hostile to women or minorities.  You cannot generalize that BigLaw has these hostilities and SmallLaw does not.  I’ve experienced it in SmallLaw. 

    Finally, the fact that a lawyer left a firm after 4 to 5 years is meaningless.  Maybe that lawyer went to bigger law.  The fact is the current generation does not stay put at one job for their entire career, whether in law or otherwise.

49. Posted by Eric - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 47 minutes ago

    Like many of the articles in the ABA journal, the associates this article talks about, only represent a very small fraction of all practicing attorneys-the top achievers who decide to sell their souls to the highest bidders. For the rest of us common folk, my self an in house counsel in the midwest, life can be much saner and more enjoyable. You choose the life you go into-whether it is a big law firm burn out environment, a small town practice, in house counsel, or public interest.  As for what can be done, I believe that this is a self-perpetuating sadistic-masochistic existence-where one is expected to pay dues or is paying dues and the latter has little sympathy by the time they become the former, if they become the former.

50. Posted by joe mama - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes ago

    There is some truth to what Chicago 2L said, as well as some truth to #40.  To #40, there are some minorities who are hardworking and smarter than their colleagues, but its racist to imply that all white male associates have no idea what they are doing and come to you for help.  You cannot call someone a racist for making a statement, and then turn around and make one of your own.  However, I suppose that’s the culture in this country, if its made against a white male, its not racism.

    To Chicago 2L, write back when you are actually practicing.  You are not completely off base in my experience, but it does not apply across the board, nor does #40’s statements.

    The problem here is that Chicago 2L cannot make any sort of statement or social debate because he is viewed as a racist.  The result is that no one, including big law partners, deal with this for fear of being called a racist.

51. Posted by joe mama - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 42 minutes ago

    On another note, #5 are you retarded?  That is unintelligable.

52. Posted by TBA - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 40 minutes ago

    A good workers’ compensation lawyer in Chicago can make anywhere from 150 to 300 thousand a year working more or less a 9 to 5. A good Plaintiff’s civil litigation lawyer can make even more. There are plent of Plaintiff’s lawyer in every city in America who make between 250 and 500 a year, have their own firms, or a small partnership and have a very good work/life routine (you don’t bill by the hour on the Plaintiff’s side).

    The central problem with “biglaw” is that lawyers are greedy. Period. Assume a firm of 100 people with a practice that includes commercial litigation, real estate, trusts and estates, products liability, etc. Assume a normal partner to associate ratio. Assume average billing rates for associates at 210, and for partners, 275 (this is far below what BigLaw charges).

    If there are 60 associates, and each bills, and gets paid for 1500 hours per year, that’s 315K per associate. Divid by three, you get $105,000, which by a traditional model should be the associate’s salary. In reality you would have associates start at, say 75 or 80, and progress to 105-115.

    315K times 60 = 18.9 million. Assume each partner bills 1200 hours per year at an average of 275. That’s $330,000 per partner. If there are 40 partners, that’s 13.2 million in revenue.

    Total revenue in this example is 32.1 million. Assume total overhead 150,000 per lawyer (that’s pretty high)—this includes associate salaries, supplies, secretary pay, etc.—That’s 15,000,000 dollars in overhead.

    This leaves 17.1 million dollars for 40 partners to divy up according to their agreement. Assume all partners are compensated equally (which is rarely the case)—you’re talking 475,500 per partner in profits.

    NOW—I’m not going to recheck my math—but you get the point. We’re talking about associates billing 1500 a year, and partners billing 1200. Associates will have salaries up to 105-115, and partners will be clearing in excess of 450,000 per year. How is this is a bad deal?

    Simple. Lawyers are greedy. They say, if I can make 450 pushing my associates at only 1500, then I can make even more if they bill 1800. Even more if 2000. Even more if 2200.

    In fact, this is more or less what has happened. In the 1970s, for example, a successful Chicago lawyer billed around 1400 hours per year. Some less, some more. But that was around the average. Imagine if that was the environment now? We wouldn’t be plagued by all these doom and gloom articles, that’s for sure.

53. Posted by Pragmatic - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 36 minutes ago

    If you are working at a BIG LAW FIRM and reading this article and actually wasting the time posting comments, shouldn’t you be getting back to work?  That was 3/10 of an hour you just spent where you were not making dough for the firm.  Gasp...I hope you were not billing for that time!

    For the rest of us, it is nice to have the luxory to read and comment on these articles.

54. Posted by UBU - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 28 minutes ago

    I practiced law at a large law firm for over 10 years and decided to leave this year to pursue my own business outside of law.  I loved my firm, but in the end did not LOVE being a lawyer enough to want to commit to staying for the long haul. 

    Over the years, I saw tons of associates come and go for many different reasons.  I also worked with tons of partners who were dedicated to associate growth and development and those who weren’t.  Unfortunately, not all lawyers are good managers (and many don’t get the training needed to improve those skills).  I think this applies to both big and small firms, and is one of the reasons why associate leave a firm and/or the practice of law regardless of size.

    Some of the reasons why associates at larger firms end up leavings after 2-3 years are: (1) they get staffed onto large doc review cases early on and lack fun and diversity in their work; (2) they burn out quickly because of competing demands by multiple partners and their inexperience or insecurity in setting boundaries and prioritizing; and/or (3) they feel isolated and alone versus part of a community and a team.

    Some of the big firms are making huge strides in addressing these issues and others, including offering part time schedules to associates, creating teams to consider work-life balance and other special issues, offering management and other non-legal training to atttorneys, and providing opportunities for constructive no-names feedback and review of partners and counsel.

    In the end, being a lawyer is not easy chore, regardless of seniority.  Clients pay a lot and demand a lot (regarless of whether they are dealing with a large or small firm), and as a more senior attorney you experience more and more of this pressure directly.  I second all comments above that you really need to LOVE being a lawyer to stick it out for the long haul.

55. Posted by T-Law - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 12 hours, 8 minutes ago

    To the ignorant person who stated: Associates who don’t fit this mold are usually of the “affirmative action/diversity initiative” mold. Where in the hell have you been?  As an African-American Columbia Law Grad (Top 15% of my class), the color of my skin did not get me through law school, the bar, and into my Biglaw Job.  I did not elevate to partner in 7 years because of my race.  The quality of my work, my ability to master the office politics game, my community service engagement and high legal competence are attributes that elevated me at my firm.  For you to just summarily conclude that law grads of color are Affirmative Action babies is the same as me concluding that all caucasians are racist and believe they are superior to others, solely because they are caucasian.

56. Posted by Jon - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 55 minutes ago

    You can argue all you want about sweeping generalizations, but all I read every week from the ABA is the latest crisis that associates at BigLaw are having.

    It’s pretty simple.  If you don’t like it, leave. And as for the firms, if you want people to stay, make it nicer.

    See? Simple.

    Life is too short.

57. Posted by Joe Jay - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 46 minutes ago

    It’s not managerial or economic--it’s anthropological:  Why does a dog lick himself… Why do (status driven) partners grind on associates--because they can.  ...Even to their firm’s economic detriment--this is rear brain vs. front brain stuff.

58. Posted by Erin4Iraq - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 35 minutes ago

    I remember somewhere along the way hearing that law is a jealous mistress.  So she is.  Lawyering is not just a job, it’s a profession that will, if you allow the process to run its course, change you in ways that you may or may not ultimately like, but change you it will.  And it can be a tough transition to make.  I think many associates struggle with this without really realizing it.

59. Posted by Rick - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 29 minutes ago

    "It’s pretty simple.  If you don’t like it, leave. And as for the firms, if you want people to stay, make it nicer. “

    Exactly.  Stop the pity party for the horse and buggy and look up at the Ferrari about to run you over.

60. Posted by AH - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 57 minutes ago

    Big firms sow what they reap.  Rather than looking at real world experience and hiring attorneys that have worked for a living, they hire the “cream of the crop” from schools who have the same attitude as the big firms - they are “entitled” to the very best in salary, low work hours, constant admiration, etc.  When expectations don’t meet reality, people walk.

61. Posted by Jerry - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 28 minutes ago

    I worked 80+ hours a week when I came out of law school, traveled five or six months a year, usually 3-4 weeks straight since my employer didn’t want to pay to fly me back.  I made $12,000 a year, when Wall Street firms paid $15,000 a year.  But for me it was great fun, since I worked with interesting people, doing interesting and fulfilling work, with almost immediate responsibility for what was then cutting edge litigation.  That is why I became a lawyer, and that is why I am still a lawyer - interesting work, interesting clients, compatriots, and opposing counsel.  Then I was with USDOJ doing civil rights and later environmental enforcement work.  Now I am with a large firm on the other side of the table, but still working to resolve environmental problems, not to enable my clients to create them.  It’s not the money that makes a job good or bad—although it certainly helps when you have a couple of kids.  I suspect that most folks take the big money for ego satisfaction and the need to pay off school debts, and then after they have a better handle on what makes the law a great career, they look for a place that will provide that, which could be a big firm, a boutique, a govt job, an in-house position, an NGO.  The firms are what the firms are—and for some areas of the law big firms are dinosaurs.  For others, they are essential.  Pick your spots, move when you are unhappy or see something better.  What’s the big deal?

62. Posted by R - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 28 minutes ago

    THEORY:

    1. It may cost $350,000 to train another associate to replace the one that left, but that’s not “real money” that partners see. There’s no incentive for partners to avoid that expense.

    2. By the time the associate leaves at year 4 or 5, he or she is earning substantially more than the starting salary, so to the extent the 4th-year associate is still doing gruntwork that kind of makes up for the training cost.

    3. Chicago 2L is full of crap with the comments about minorities. (Correction: that’s a fact, not a theory.)

63. Posted by anon - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 8 hours, 10 minutes ago

    I agree with “working man.” Law students have no clue what it is really like grinding out in the real world.  Chicago 2L should spend less time posting and more time studying so he/she can make sure he/she actually gets to work at any firm.

64. Posted by iRAK - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 13 minutes ago

    T-law,
    Affirmative action stigmatizes a lot of blacks regardless of ability. Justice Thomas said, blacks are now “tarred as undeserving.”

    I’d like to see where these people end up rather than assuming they are stepping down. Most people end up moving around anyways before they find the job they like.

    Also, this “training” cost is a tax deduction they claim. Just as Domino Pizza claims to spend thousand training people to throw pizza toppings on dough.

65. Posted by M ike Montes - 5 months, 1 week, 5 days, 5 hours, 46 minutes ago

    Y’all stop complaining.  Much of what Chicago 2L is saying is right.  I went to a four year night program, interviewed with a couple of Big firms (mostly because of my engineering background from a top 20 University) worked my but off at a small “firm”, I was the “token Mex”, given all of the loosers, until realized I could go solo on the same type of cases and make money for my self.

    In a two years I gross over a million/year as a solo.

    In comparison, I have gone up against younger top tier associates who are totally incompetent.

66. Posted by been around - 5 months, 1 week, 4 days, 13 hours, 56 minutes ago

    Big law is like a big corporation - those at the top want to stay there at the expense of those below them.

    I went to third tier law school at night while working full time about 55 - 60 hours per week living on 4 hours sleep.  I managed over a hunderd people and a multil million dollar budget in a heavy industry.  I did ok in law school - 3.0 which I though was pretty good everything considered.

    I managed to get two interiews at big law firms in my area - neither as large in people or dollars as I was managing.  Both interviews were a disater.  The first the interview obviously hadn’t seen my resume as he stated I was older than those he was use to interviewing.  His main point to me was that some one of my “level” would need to be able to bring a book with them.  I wonder how many other interviewees for a first year assoicates job he asked that. 
    In the second interview about ten minutes in the interviewer (who was the managing partner) told me I was better qualified to manage the business end of the firm than he was.  We spent the next 20 minutes doing hypoticial how would I manage this money or pesonnel situation.

    Big law does not what people who will think outside of thier box or who have experiences different that of their own.  In my class there were a group of us who were over 40.  None of us ended up at a big law firm.  All are either practicing in a small firm or have gone solo.  Each of us has a better quality of life, is happier, and is earning more on a per hour basis than those in our class who are at big firms.

67. Posted by Jeff Starnes - 5 months, 1 week, 4 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes ago

    Start by hiring me.

68. Posted by Malcolm Rattliffe - 5 months, 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 34 minutes ago

    I have a felony in my past.  I am now attending law school both at night and through interactive methods.  I am not going to let this stop me.  Gettling my JD is not the difficult part of my quest, it’s being allowed to sit for the BAR exam. l am currenty living in Chicago with strong ties to IA.  What is the proper way to address my situation?

69. Posted by In response to Comment No. 2 - 5 months, 1 week, 3 days, 4 hours, 50 minutes ago

    In response to the second comment, I went to an elite law school (ranked #2), worked during school (every semester after the first one) and have worked since I was 16 years old.  I worked 3 jobs sometimes through school to support myself.  Still, working at Big Law was poisonous.  The culture is bad and unethical in many cases.  Associates leave not because of not being used to hard work but rather because it does not fulfill their reasons for becoming a lawyer.

    #2 - You shoud stop stereotyping people from elite schools just because you did not graduate from one.

70. Posted by seeking advice - 5 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 37 minutes ago

    I’m currently an attorney working for the government - came here right out of law school, have 7 years expereince.  I’ve started my family - now want to give them advantages that money - not time can give. 

    So...do I jump into big firm life?

71. Posted by NYC Lawyer - 5 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago

    I agree with Post #54 above.  After working for two very small law firms, I moved with my last firm to a large NYC firm to form a practice group in a specific area of law.  I was pleasantly surprised by my smooth transition into a big firm, and I must agree that some bigs firms are making great efforts to create an environment that allows for life balance.  Part of this firm’s success may be in that it acquires “practice groups” as opposed to focusing on hiring a ton of new associates every year.  I came in as a 5-year associate - but I’m still working with my old colleagues from the small firm.  As far as I’m concerned, I’m just getting off at a different subway stop every day.

    Working in a small firm right out of law school was a positive experience for me in that I got a lot of hands-on experience and mentorship right away.  However, moving up to a big firm has been great too, and although I find that I’m still working the same amount of hours, there is a better support system in place and the hours spent here have been much, much more productive. 

    The pay here is good, but if you look at it from a regional standpoint, the cost of living is so much greater (here in NYC). Someone above mentioned that the national pay average is 40k.  Well, sanitation workers in NYC make more than that, and for good reason...it costs a lot to live here!

    Frankly, I’ve been lucky and I feel that law schools themselves put way too much emphasis on the goal of working for a big firm.  It is a shame that many young associates experience burn-out so quickly.  And as poster #69 said..."associates leave not because of not being used to hard work but rather because it does not fulfill their reasons for becoming a lawyer.” Amen to that.

72. Posted by splaw - 5 months, 1 week, 2 days, 7 hours, 9 minutes ago

    #68 Malcolm.  You need to learn how to do research. See http://www.abanet.org/legaled/publications/compguide2005/chart2.pdf

73. Posted by George Lundin - 5 months, 1 week, 1 day, 6 hours, 16 minutes ago

    I found the commentaries more interesting than the article.  Perhaps I am older than most commentators, but I can recall when one could attend a top school on a modest scholarship, augmented by waiting tables and graduate with no debt, but with a wife and two children and a full time legal job, albeit in the service.

    I have no insight to offer those working gruesome hours for ransome-high salaries but this--we are all headed to the same destination.  And we need to learn to enjoy our time in the practice of law.  It is a great profession, but it can be demanding.

    I think that there was a song some years ago that went to the effect:  “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one your with” Maybe that applies in part to new members of our profession.

    Professional regards from Seattle.
    GSL

74. Posted by Elliot Smith - 5 months, 1 week, 23 hours, 22 minutes ago

    The law firms need to take a lesson from the big four CPA forms.  5 weeks paid vacation, dinners brought in every night, enviornment structured to promote learning, open door policy to almost all partners, form and a large say in the type of work performed.  The CPA firms put in big time hours but seem to do a lot better keeping associates around.

75. Posted by AKY - 5 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 13 minutes ago

    There are still many associates at the 4th year and beyond that want to continue being in a private law firm.  The point firms are missing is this:  stop meeting the ridiculous salary bases for 1st years.  All the big firms are paying that $160k, and as this article points out, most associates will leave the firm that paid them all that money, and trained them (assuming they received training), an amount the firm won’t recoup on them until they become more efficient and experienced, because they want to try a different firm, they burned out on the partner they work for, etc., etc., around the 4th or 5th year mark anyway.  If law firms want to get the best talent, and the most return on their investment, they should leave 1st - 4th year salaries at a lower rate than the market (say, the 2nd tier base of $145k), but offer salaries for 5th year associates and above at a $15-$20k mark up over the going rate.  Why waste the money on the 1-4th years, who are going to (a) leave the firm and (b) likely leave the profession, when everyone knows the most valuable lawyers for the firm are those above the 4th year because they have the experience (they can, and often do, run most all aspects of litigations for example), have higher bill rates, and bill more anyway?