ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Joe Koncelik - 4 months, 4 days, 20 hours, 19 minutes ago

   The idea of allowing an associate to work in the public sector with a promise of a job in the future is not a realistic option in most states or the federal level.  The authors must not know there are a multitude of ethics laws that would prohibit such an arrangement.

2. Posted by Robert - 4 months, 4 days, 19 hours, 55 minutes ago

   This plan fails to address the ridiculous billable hour requirements that are one of the primary reasons why associates flee law big firms.

   One of the largest problems is that big law automatically assumes every associate wants to earn a ridiculously high salary, and in turn big law demands ridiculously high billable hour requirements. Associates are not given the option to take a lower salary in exchange for a lower billable hour requirement.  If this option were offered on an annual basis, and without any stigma attached to the decision, big law would be able to retain a great deal more of their associates.

3. Posted by Ronnie - 4 months, 4 days, 19 hours, 8 minutes ago

   The key part of what Robert said, which I agree with, is the element of “without any stigma attached.” I worked in a law firm (not as an associate or summer) with a dual billing system.  New associated could choose either 1950 hours @ $125,000/year, or 1825 hours @ $112,500/year (numbers are approximate--this was 7 years ago).  I was in the recruiting department, and NOT ONE associate ever took the lower hours/pay.  It wasn’t until I was in law school that I realized that it was probably because of the stigma attached. 

   Associates do want to have a life, and that’s okay.  I bill significantly less hours at my non big-law firm (approximately 1500/year), and I make a lot less, but I’m a lot happier and a LOT less stressed than most of my big-law colleagues.  The “I did it; they should too” mentality that I see prevalent in many firms just isn’t working with today’s associates, especially since many of them aren’t going for partner.  I’d think it’s a very interesting environment to be in.

4. Posted by Sarah L. - 4 months, 4 days, 19 hours, 1 minute ago

   I completely agree with Robert’s comment.  The reason many associates leave big firms is not because they aren’t intellectually stimulated, it is because they don’t want a life where they are under 24/7 pressure; they are tethered to their offices and blackberries; they are forced to cancel personal plans more than 50% of the time because something ‘came up’ at work; and they are forced to search for remote locations that have no blackberry or cell service just to get a real vacation for a measly couple of days or a week.  These authors need to get a clue.  I think their suggestions are ridiculous in response to the problem that they claim to be addressing.

5. Posted by Erika Carter - 4 months, 4 days, 17 hours, 41 minutes ago

   It’s funny how many of their suggestions seem to be focused as much on reducing their legal costs as on improving associate lives.

6. Posted by William - 4 months, 4 days, 17 hours, 27 minutes ago

   Nothing is going to change until there are succesful competiors with a different model.  When there is at least large law firms, with no billable hours quota, billing on a model different than manhours, who steals enough major clients from other large law firms to be news, and also proves to be more successful in terms of the outcome, then the industry will change.

7. Posted by JG - 4 months, 4 days, 17 hours, 4 minutes ago

   Erika - You’re right, but I actually thought it was a savvy way of presenting the options in a way that would help someone else apply a little pressure to make a mutually beneficial change.  No one in that level of business is going to step out on a limb unless there is some perceived benefit.

8. Posted by Christopher Scott - 4 months, 4 days, 16 hours, 52 minutes ago

   There are a multitude of reasons why associates at large law firms have incredibly high rates of turnover. 

   From the law firm side, the biggest problem is that few young associates are capable of doing work that merits the fees that their firms charge for their services and ethical firms must write off large portions of their associates’ billable time.  In other words, associates are not profitable for the first few years of practice unless their firms can successfully hide their fees from their clients. 

   Litigation associates become profitable after about one and a half years of practice, corporate and real estate associates become profitable somewhere around three to four years of practice, and tax and intellectual property lawyers become profitable somewhere around seven or eight years of practice.  Training the transactional associates is enormously expensive and they are free to leave their firms at any time.  Consequently, it makes little economic sense for a law firm to invest time and effort in training more than a handful of their associates that they want to stick around the firm for the long-term.  Instead, the bulk of the associates are barely trained litigation associates who work on discovery issues in various employment related litigations defending blue chip corporate clients.  After an associate gets burnt out, he can be readily replaced by an army of hungry recent law school graduates.  This means law firms maximize both short-term and long-term profitability by pressing their associates as hard as possible to squeeze out impossible amounts of billable hours during the current year.

   From the lawyer side, the biggest problem is that there is very little job security.  Most associates at law firms are in a situation akin to non-star professional athletes who can make pretty good money for a few years but they have limited prospects for long-term job security and will suddenly find themselves out of work some time in the short to medium-term future.  In other words, the prospects for making partner for almost all associates is non-existent because it makes no economic sense for law firms to make them partner.  Associates react to this situation by looking for other jobs after they realize what their true prospects are and how easily they can be replaced.  The only reliable way out of this situation is for an associate to develop his own book of business.

   The oxygen that feeds this system is an over-abundance of recent law school graduates and gullible blue chip corporate clients that are willing to pay big law firm’s exhorbitant fees for their unqualified young associates’ time.  I don’t see either of these underlying conditions changing any time soon.  This situation results in a few extraordinary wealthy partners and a large multitude of relatively well paid but very insecure associates who are looking to get out of the profession.  Thanks.

9. Posted by Candaba - 4 months, 4 days, 14 hours, 35 minutes ago

   The article has seriously overlooked the real reason for the unhappy but highly-paid associate. It is a cultural shift in values. The younger generation would like to spend more time with family and home.

10. Posted by Alfred - 4 months, 4 days, 12 hours, 17 minutes ago

    What a bunch of whiners you people are.  You make 200K/year making everyone else miserable, and still you complain about it?

11. Posted by Melissa - 4 months, 4 days, 12 hours, 13 minutes ago

    Thanks, Christopher.  Your comments were enlightening.  As an associate at a big law firm (trying desperately to make it work), I’m realizing that you’re right on the mark when you say that “The only reliable way out of this situation is for an associate to develop his [or her :)] own book of business.”

12. Posted by Rob - 3 months, 4 weeks, 7 hours, 49 minutes ago

    The market is going to sort this out.  Associates have options - if they aren’t happy at large firms, they simply leave big firms and either start their own or join smaller firms.  Companies will learn to be more selective about firms and should spread work to smaller firms instead of paying for the training of ever-green associates.  Capitalism works.

13. Posted by Mark - 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Or, what the law firms can do is hire no associates younger than 3 or 4 years out of law school, stealing them away from mid-sized firms that can train them right out of law school.  That would do away with the ridiculous costs of summer associate programs, weed out those who can’t handle the work, and avoid the need to pay too-high salaries to unproven associates who will leave after 2 years anyways.

14. Posted by Ethan S. Burger - 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 hours, 43 minutes ago

    The situation described can be attributed to numerous factors—I will identify only a few: (i) law firms have increasingly taken on the characteristics and behavior of many of their large corporate clients, which under-invest in human capital and focus on short-term profitability, (ii) the breaking of the social contract—i.e. hard work (billable or not) will be rewarded, (iii) the high cost of education forces law students not to pursue public interest or government jobs, which are better suited to their personal interests, and (iv) the up or out mentality common at many law firms. 

    Many large law firms have difficulty retaining associates since the tasks they are assigned or behavior they observe are not consistent with (i) the reasons that led students to attend law school or (ii) their own personal ethics.

    If only the ability to generate clients is valued at a firm, there are usually few reasons to remain there for a long time (other than possibly earning money, made possible only by billing clients in amounts that results in lower productivity). 

    It also should not be overlooked that non-rainmaking partners and senior associates (i) often lack the time or interest to mentor junior associates since such activity does not add to the bottom line and (ii) hoard work that would be more cost-effective to be performed by associates since they are reluctant to give up billable work (this often leads to the “writing off” of associate time).

    Ultimately, the public will suffer since it needs a large supply of competent, ethical, experienced and skilled lawyers.  The current system does not seem the best way to produce them.  Law schools are increasingly addressing the problem by strengthening clinical programs and increasing the number of classes focusing on “lawyering” skills.

15. Posted by Peter - 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 hours, 41 minutes ago

    The entire firm model is inefficient and riddled with perverse incentives.  Yet, the system remains in place because of the immense profits partners are used to.  Let’s not forget, an associate who bills at $300/hr sees less than a third of that money.  Where does it all go?  Useless backoffice marketing offices, equally useless summer associate costs, and partners’ summer homes.  All on the backs of well paid slave labor.  But the companies continue to pay the bills, so there’s no incentive to change.

16. Posted by John - 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 hours, 28 minutes ago

    QUESTION FOR MARK:  And how do you know that the associates hired at 3 to 4 years out of law school and stolen from mid-sized firms are going to be that good for your mammoth firm?  What do you think their references will say?  And are you going to have references from the mid-sized firm where they worked?  Probably not.  If you do, don’t be surprised to find out that the mid-sized firm is trying to get rid of some of its deadwood and will paint a very pretty--and inaccurate--picture for your potential new employee. In short, your suggestion is a good way to buy “a pig in a poke.” Summer-associate programs allow a firm to see whether there is potentially good employee at a relatively low cost--at a MUCH, MUCH lower cost than hiring a relatively unknown lateral hire from a mid-sized firm.  If the summer associate program is too expensive, look at the NUMBER of summer associates hired.  Maybe there are too many.  If you are having a high turnover rate in associates, try analyzing what the causes of that turnover rate are.  There are many reasons suggested by the comments preceding yours, as well as the initial article.  In short, the inherent principle of a summer associate program is well known in human resources as a very effective way to reduce turnover and to reduce the expenses of turnover.

17. Posted by Sam - 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 hours, 24 minutes ago

    It isn’t just big firms.  I work at a small firm and as a 4th year I bill at close to $300 an hour and I get about 1/5th of that, including bonus AND benefits, the other 4/5ths goes to overhead and profits.  Also our hours requirement is 8 hours a day, assuming 10 holidays and 2 weeks vacation (which will never happen) that is a 1920 billable hour requirement.  In my experience, big firms and small firms are both driven by partner greed, end of story.

    I think it is less a function of the size of the firm and more a function of the legal market in which they reside.

18. Posted by Michael - 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 hours, 16 minutes ago

    Three reasons associates leave well-paying jobs:

    1.  As the author states, associates want to know where they stand in the firm and what their future offers in terms of compensation, hours and professional freedom.  They are ususally kept in the dark about these things because partners are too busy which leads to job insecurity and paranoia.  Once an associate learns the financial structure of a firm, they soon realize that developing their own book of business offers them the freedom (and compensation) they seek.  However, they usually have to develop this independently of their billable hours.

    2.  Many associates, especially ones who are in their late 20’s and early 30’s, are starting their families and would gladly take a paycut for a reduced work week.  Few of the large, high-salary firms offer this because there is always another associate within to work their life away...and, of course, the profits flow upstream.

19. Posted by Michael - 3 months, 4 weeks, 5 hours, 14 minutes ago

    Sorry, I meant “2 reasons”.

20. Posted by Brad Lyerla - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 54 minutes ago

    I think the most interesting question lurking behind the observations offered by Heineman and Wilkins is why hasn’t the market for legal services corrected for these inefficiencies. What is it that causes clients to continue to buy legal services from the large law firms that have these enormously inefficient practices?

    Is this the same phenomenon that caused corporate America in the 80s and 90s to buy pc s when the Macintosh was hands down a better computer? Or is there another explanation?

    Understanding the answer to those questions will go a long way to understanding the question whether the big firm business model can persist?

21. Posted by SlyFrog - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 53 minutes ago

    I see a lot of incompatible things being posted here.  Reduced work weeks, but developing your own book of business.

    Associates billing out at $300+ an hour for 2000 hours a year, but associates purportedly not being “profitable” for a firm until they are many years into practice (apparently, the $300-400k spread between their salaries and revenue generation magically disappears - those firm functions must be quite fancy).

    Until the profession learns to stop lying about the real reasons things happen, this will not be solved.  So it will not be solved.

22. Posted by Ann - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 42 minutes ago

    Wow… I knew I wanted to go into non-profit work from the time I knew I wanted to go to law school.  I picked an affordable law school with the externship program to help me get the experience I needed, and here I am today where I wanted to be.  I’m living in Washingon DC, making 40K a year for 40 hours a week, and I couldn’t be happier.  I’ll take half the pay for half the work (and a life, interesting assignments, and more responsibility) any day.  Others can make it work too… they often just choose not to by picking way overpriced law schools that leave them with impossible loans and then getting sucked into the big firm craze that all of their classmates succumb to after their first year of law school.  Non-profits often care more about your experience and committment to their cause than they do about where you went to school… someone needs to tell that to kids considering law school so that they can think reasonably, plan accordingly, and be able to afford the job they actually want.  As for those who actually WANTED to go to big firms… god help them.

23. Posted by Michael - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 39 minutes ago

    I think “reduced work weeks” is compatible with developing a book of business if the reduction is billable hours us used for civic activities, professional/client networking and the like.  Thus, reduced hours is not just more hours at home, but a higher concentration of “working” hours spent developing relationships.

    As for the “profitable” paradox, I agree.  New associates are profitable if firms can pass those billable hours to clients who are willing to pay (ex: large corporate clients?).  If not, then the postponed profitability argument applies.

24. Posted by Pia - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 33 minutes ago

    Commen #5 is very accurate.  I noticed the same thing.  The reason that associates leave is that becoming a partner is no great shakes.  Unless you happen to have a huge book of repeating business - upwards of $2 million every year - you have no job security regardless of work product.  That is hard for intelligent people to deal with.  But it isn’t just law firms - in America working hard and doing your job well is not going to get you anywhere.  You need luck and fortunate connections to succeed - and that fact has not been created by law firms.

25. Posted by Hadley V. Baxendale - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 33 minutes ago

    A couple of suggestions to work toward solving the problem:
    1.  Let associates count training time (e.g. attending a trial or deposition) toward billable goals.  Sure, some will take unfair advantage, but they are the ones who are already padding their time.
    2.  Allow associates to spend time on a project learning how to do it, that can’t be billed (ethically) to the client, but counting that written-off time toward billable goals.
    3.  The number of hours in training/observation cannot be revealed to evaluators until after the decision about next year’s salary, etc is established.
    4.  Firms need to go back to accepting an economic loss on associates in their first year (used to be, firms made more from a copy machine than a first year).
    5.  Don’t be surprised at how many associates “don’t work out” when you only hire from top of the class @ top tier schools.  The savvy and hard-working candidates are plentiful a few rungs down the ladder.  Just ask them!
    6.  Eliminate all expectations of an associate being “on line” when he is not in the office.  No cell, blackberry, email contact unless the associate chooses to initiate (firms that expect associates to use the cell phone when driving are in for a big big liability suit when there’s an accident).

26. Posted by Dan - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 19 minutes ago

    So associates at these firms are “lost” because they can’t be bothered to work for their 6-figure salary?

    As a 3rd year student looking for a tax position and who still doesn’t have a job, I have an easy solution for them - leave.  I’ll gladly take your “lousy” job.

27. Posted by Maria - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 18 minutes ago

    There were several reasons I left big law after 7 years as an associate - but the bottom line was that there was no one I could look to as a model of how I’d want my life to be.  All the partners were either entirely overworked or, if they were working reduced schedules, seen as second class citizens.  I didn’t want either of those futures for myself so I jumped at a fortuitous opportunity to go in-house. 

    I think that a lot needs to be done to make associates’ lives better and the suggestions here could help - but the issue goes beyond associate culture.  The entire practice of law has changed, and a lot of attorneys are just figuring out that they need to think beyond the “big law partner” model to achieve both a satisfying legal career and a full personal life.

28. Posted by Jill - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours, 5 minutes ago

    Many of the solutions offered to these problems come from an acceptance of the existing system and its values, including the assumption that money is an appropriate substitute for life.  I for one feel more optimism about the profession when I hear that associates in large numbers are not buying into that assumption.  I wonder whether they also feel that even the most intellectually stimulating law practice is still a small slice of what life has to offer.  Law tends to be narrowing and exclusionary; what is left out is, generally, the emotional, psychological, and spiritual dimension of life.  It’s no wonder that lawyers seek balance, but we become so limited in our thinking process that we continue to pursue satisfaction in a rational, cognitive way. “Work-life balance” is one way of describing the reality that we need much more depth and meaning in our lives than legal thinking provides.  If we find a way to practice law that provides that depth and meaning, we are very fortunate.

29. Posted by anon - 3 months, 4 weeks, 4 hours ago

    Stop whining, Dan.  I’ve worked until midnight (and later) every day this week for my Biglaw salary.  It’s not our fault you’re at a TTT law school.

30. Posted by MP - 3 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 55 minutes ago

    The articel forgot to mention an overarching cause for associate attrition:  douchebag partners

31. Posted by JB - 3 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 51 minutes ago

    Heineman and Wilkins’ suggestions are ridiculous.  The real issue, however, is why anyone would want to practice law in the first place.  The economic model is all wrong.  You are paid an hourly rate like a plumber, but unlike a plumber the demand isn’t keeping up with supply and, as a result there is zero job secuirty. Also, you can’t sell your business 20 years from now.  It’s a personal service business.  When you stop working, your clients will move on to someone else.  If you’re willing make less to work less, why not find something with a better revenue model (like one that produces revenue when you’re not sitting at your desk) and one that doesn’t have an up-front fee of a few hundred thousand dollars? Buy an HVAC repair business instead.  Only when the legal profession accepts fixes those problems will the turnover rate drop.

32. Posted by Big Firms Are a Waste of Money - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 57 minutes ago

    Working for a small boutique firm is more rewarding than a large firm.  Here as a 3rd yeat associate, I am drafting the Series A documents that a partner at a top 10 law firm is reviewing reviewing.

33. Posted by atlj - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 55 minutes ago

    I must be an anomoly because I agree with the article and my issue isn’t about hours. I don’t want to bill 3000 or more hours a year as some associates I know do, but I also would gladly bill over 2100 for interesting and/or substantive work and possible even some respect, communication, or mentoring, or (gasp) the possibility of making partner. 

    Biglaw firms hire law students who went to top law schools and are obviously intelligent people, many of whom are intellectual or creative or entreprenurial, and then they stick us in our offices to second-level review millions of documents for weeks and months on end and then fight over discovery for the next couple years.  Some associates work on 1 case their entire career. The bright side? The opportunity after a couple of years to write a section of a brief with 5 other associates. Not like the brightside woult be the opportunity for partnership; top biglaw firms make more than a handful of their litigation associates partner, they just lateral in partners with business from other firms. I can count on one hand how many midlevel or senior associates I know at elite biglaw firms who have argued anything (excluding pro bono) or taken more than a deposition or two (if any), or worked on a trial.  The type of work many biglaw associates do now, due to electronic discovery and the prevalence of large cases involving tens of millions of documents, is mind-numbing, and steals the creativity and drive. 

    I would gladly work harder for the chance of taking a deposition, arguing a motion, or writing a brief myself.

34. Posted by Top law school - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 54 minutes ago

    Top law school and top grades to do equal good lawyer.  Best lawyers come from the law schools ranked 50-100 with a B grade point average.

35. Posted by Katie - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 52 minutes ago

    I’m annoyed at those who seem to say that associates who want to leave Big Law because they’re overworked are somehow lazy.  I spent 3 years at Big Law coming out of law school.  Sure I made good money and I actually did get good, interesting work, but I was also on call 24/7 and basically did not have a life outside of work.  I constantly had to cancel plans with friends because of work, I had no time (or energy) to exercise because I was always working so I gained 25 pounds.  It was miserable.  I left because I realized if I stayed, yeah I could make partner but I would never get married, never have kids, etc.  The money wasn’t worth it to me.  Now I am out of law altogether, making a third of what I would be making if I was still practicing and I am SO much happier.

36. Posted by NCLawyer - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 50 minutes ago

    The reason the model persists is because in-house counsel at big corporations hire the biggest firms to do their work, because 1) the big firms have the multiple offices and army of support staff it takes to do things like close big mergers, and 2) if litigation goes badly for the big corporation, because, say, the corporation’s product is defective, then in-house counsel doesn’t want to be blamed when the corporation gets hit with a multi-million dollar verdict.  In-house counsel wants to be able to say, “Don’t blame me, I hired ‘the bestl’” Also, where do you think the in-house counsel at big corporations come from?  That’s right, senior associates at big firms who have the relationships with the big corporations, and who’ve decided to leave Big Law because they’ll never make partner.

    Even 20 years ago, or so I’m told, big firms actually mentored their associates because they expected them to stay with the firm and become leaders in the community.  Unfortunately, “business models” have taken over both law and medicine, impoverishing both professions.

    Oh, and to Alfred, who said, “You make 200K/year making everyone else miserable,” why don’t you go find yourself a nice island to live on? One that doesn’t have any other people on it.  Because unless you would prefer to live in a society where the only protection to your life and property are the physical force you can exert to keep either, then the rule of law requires that there be people like us, lawyers, to see that your life and property are protected.  Yes, some of us are overpaid, and some of us are assholes.  Just like every other job and profession anywhere in the world.  Either show some respect, or take your nasty and ignorant attitude elsewhere.

37. Posted by 3rd year attorney - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 49 minutes ago

    "Biglaw firms hire law students who went to top law schools and are obviously intelligent people, many of whom are intellectual or creative or entreprenurial, and then they stick us in our offices to second-level review millions of documents for weeks and months on end and then fight over discovery for the next couple years. “

    I work in a small venture capital/securites firm - average size depending on the year 4-7.

    In my 3 years, I have drafted more venture capital and private equity documents than most of the attorneys who have been working 5-7 years at a top 50 law firm that represent the other side have.

    If you want to sit in a back room looking at papers, go work for a top 10 law firm.  If you want real work, go work for a boutique firm in your field.

38. Posted by Ken - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 49 minutes ago

    This article is nonsense, the poor law firms, how do we save them and the associates.  I say don’t complain about the devil when you sell your soul out to him.  And, don’t listen to the whinings of the “poor” law firms about losing their best associates.  You’re just billable hours to the Hampton set and replaceable too when the next Harvard Law class graduates.  Smart people, including lawyers, follow the money to see what’s up.  Well, who has the money and who slaves?  Who wants the young lawyers to stay and work till midnight and who goes to their expensive meals, golf outtings, and parties?  Which young lawyers want the “big” Manhattan lifestyle?  Who gets it?  Do the partners really care about your life and encourage you to balance yours, and tell you to go home to your wife?  Do you even have time for a wife or GF?  Well, figure it out and act on it accordingly if you dare.  We all have to make choices.  These are the same people that turned the profession into a business and a logo.  There is plenty of work out there for intelligent people with confidence and hustle.  The satisification that comes from closing a million dollar deal for someone small and appreciative is more gratifying than the $10 Billion deal and a hunk of deal lucite.  I know.

39. Posted by Working - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

    "I was also on call 24/7”

    This is the life of every Big Law laywer.  Get used to it.  Most days the clients are calling our cell at home with changes to documents they need done.

40. Posted by Michael - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

    Good post #30.  Being an associate is both good and bad.  The good:  you are a revenue generator which, if you are a good earner, equals job security.  The bad:  you are a revenue generator which, if the partners think they can replace you with someone able to produce more, you have little job security.  As a result, your mind competes with the “hypothetical” associate who is willing to work 24/7 and you end up skipping vacations, working weekends, etc. out of fear.  Anyone ever felt guilty about ONLY working a 60 hour week?  I haven’t seen that mindset much in non-law firm jobs.

41. Posted by asad - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 43 minutes ago

    39 - revenue generator isn’t billing hours.  Revenue generator is the guy who brings in clients.  I don’t care about how many hours I bill.  I just show the partners, how many clients I bring in and how many hours are billed from those clients.

    If you want a job - bring in clients

42. Posted by Wilson - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 40 minutes ago

    The premise behind the article is that high associate salaries and turnover are a problem.  I don’t think most partners at large law firms see a problem. This how they recruit the best legal talent in the country and then winnow out the ones who aren’t compulsive workaholics.

43. Posted by Hill Staffer - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 33 minutes ago

    I’m on call 24/7 and work insane/weird hours under incredible pressure but get paid maybe a 1/20th of what a ‘Big Law’ lawyer makes, but I’ll gladly take my job and its insane hours over working for a firm any day. It comes down to being able to work on the issues I care about in a intellectually stimulating, create way and have a real, unarguable impact upon the world around me. And while the job might have intense pressure, the pressure itself is kinda fun. I have difficulty seeing ‘Big Law’ as anything more than shuffling money around from account A to account B and I really don’t think that many big law lawyers have much fun in their jobs.

    I’d rather write the laws than argue endlessly--and with no really impact--about them.

44. Posted by Katie - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 29 minutes ago

    Working - no, I didn’t want to get used to being on call 24/7, that’s why I got out.  I looked around at my life and realized I didn’t have one and the money was not worth it to me. And it’s not worth it to a lot of people.  I started at Big Law in 2001 and almost all of the 40+ associates I started with left within 5 years.  For us, there are things more important than money - namely, friends, family, health and actually having an enjoyable life.

45. Posted by ATLJ - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 26 minutes ago

    Well, 36, I’d go to a boutique if I could afford to with my six figure loans (the interest on my private loans seems to just soar 4% higher on a yearly basis) plus rent and the other expenses of living in a big city, and if they weren’t even harder to get into than biglaw (the litigation boutiques around here only hire appellate/Sup Ct clerks and/or top ten law school).

46. Posted by Law Clerk - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 11 minutes ago

    Well, Michael, as Dan has proven, that associate isn’t much of a hypothetical, is he?  I’ve pretty much resigned to the fact that if I choose to work at a big firm after my clerkship, I can kiss my personal life goodbye.  Otherwise, there is always someone like Dan chomping at the bit to throw his life away instead.  Voluntary slavery.  (If you calculate your hourly wage, are you really making much more than a bus driver?)

    Go ahead, I say.  I agree with comments 9, 17, 21—someone else can flush his life down the sewer pipes getting other people rich, and I will get by on less money.  Why make more money if I can’t enjoy that money, and I’d have to hire somebody else to live the rest of my life? I’m in my late 20s and would like to start a family in about 5 years.  Even if you work 40 hours, your child will spend more time with a nanny or daycare than with you.  Why close that gap down to seeing your spouse, child, and friends, well, never?

    I also see a huge problem with comment 13 because, at least where I live, small and mid-size firms often only hire those with experience.  They rely on the bigger frims to train associates, who come knocking once they burn out.  If everyone hired only attorneys with experience, where would those attorneys get their experience?

47. Posted by anonymous - 3 months, 4 weeks, 2 hours, 1 minute ago

    Wilson (Comment 41) nailed it.  The reality is big firms don’t see attrition as a problem because the make plenty of money off of them—contrary to the “associates are not profitable for the first few years of practice” myth that big-firm partners routinely spew.  If they were making money off of them, they would be making more effort to retain them.  Period.

48. Posted by Frank Shostack - 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

    I endorse Ken’s Comment (#37). After 38 year’s of practice, I have no sympathy for whining associates or big time firms.  We all have choices to make; There are no victims - only volunteers.  I have always chosen quality of personal and professional life over big money.  I’m not rich, but I can’t complain - I’ve had many clients for 25 - 35 years.  There’s no amount of money that provides more satisfaction than that

49. Posted by Support the little man - 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 15 minutes ago

    That is why when I refer a potential client out, it is never to a big firm. 

    Clients are tired of paying $$$$ when they can get better service, just as expereinced lawyers and at a cheaper rate from smaller firms.

50. Posted by Big Law - 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

    lol - cry me a river.  Everyone one of you wishes you were working for a top 10 firm with a starting salary of $190,000 and easily making 3-400 within 5 years.

    Go back to work.

51. Posted by Elease - 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

    As a 4th year at a big firm, I’m enjoying my work.  I choose not to work with jerky partners.  I am not a slave to my blackberry.  My weekends are off-limits.  I have an active personal life.

    How do I do this?  When I work, I work hard and focused so my work hours are very efficient.  I’m not the biggest biller in the firm, but I’m in the top quarter.  It might not be enough to make partner, but I don’t think I want to make partner anyway.

    I’m enjoying this experience.  I’m learning a lot.  I’m paid incredibly well.  If the partnership has me on the “not a long term prospect” list, so be it.  For now, we have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.  And I’m saving money like a survivor of the Great Depression!

52. Posted by gazinnia - 3 months, 4 weeks, 32 minutes ago

    @#50:  Better pack your parachute.  You have less than 2 years to find an exit or you’ll be given one.  You will become to expensive to do junior work and too risky to give more senior work.  No BigLaw partner will risk you developing an independent relationship with any of their clients if you’re viewed as not in it for the long haul and your work assignments will increasingly reflect that.

    Truth is there are only two types of lawyers that survive at BigLaw:  misanthropes for whom the attrition pyramid serves their pecuniary interest and misanthropes for whom there is no alternative but a large law firm because they lack the business acumen and personal skills to succeed anywhere else (and BigLaw is so ridiculously inefficient that such a type can survive if not thrive there).

53. Posted by shut up - 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 34 minutes ago

    you are just a sore loser who couldn’t cut it

54. Posted by anon - 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 23 minutes ago

    How are biglaw associates who work in major markets who don’t come from rich families and don’t have friends at corporations or other types of connections supposed to develop clients so we can make partner? I hear a lot about joining bar associations but how does attending a NY bar association filled with lawyers at rival firms help an associate develop business?  Any concrete suggestions here or are we just screwed?

55. Posted by sweetness and light - 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 46 minutes ago

    I have little smpathy for the top tier firms and I worked at one for one year in the early 1990s. It is cosmically just that the greedy/egomanical managing BIGLAW partner gets what he or she deserves in designing the structure that brings to their doorstep their mirror image at 25, only now, at the obscene slaraies they’ve agreed to pay! HA! It’s just funny that y’all are so miserable together sitting around wondering, WHY??. Of course these lunatics pay these big salaries to know-nothing first years so they can crow to each other in their clubs that that they can!  These are also the parnters who die in their offices becase everyone else thinks they’re the most miserable creature on the planet. There’s one in his office in my firm right now. He’s our toekn. I’m sad that it will probably take years after my retirement to see the whole BIGFIRM debacle come crashing down. Couldn’t happen to a better bunch. And: by the way: who are the little pischers who are complaining about being so “used” at $180K year (secretly hoping to make 1M)? Apparently, the mirror image of the original greedy, egomanical prostitutefacing them. Lest you think I’m bitter, read on. I am now, some 18 years later, an equity partner in a large metro area at a small firm (less than 10 equities).  I work hard, though not as hard as I could. When I get flak from other partners about no face-tme at the office, I tell them I’m out of the office cultiving the clients whose fees they are soooo keen that I share. That shuts them up. I keep existing clients, obtain new ones through satisifed existing relationships, make sure that the relationshup I have to the other equities is beneficial to me and not exclusively to them and, in the process, ta da: I make what I consider to be a lovely, lovely, living ! I’m banking for retirement and I’m 42!. Prioritze, people - its either all about the money in which case work yourself to death for it, endure being berated and treated with suspicion and distain from those who were you 20 years ago and shut up, or GET OUT. This is top-down dictatorship not a bottom up grass roots movement.  You won’t reform it.  I’m lucky: I’ve happened to find associates who feel as I do by making sure I ask the right questions during our interviews. I want a reasonably good in the top 1/3 of his/her class who appears to be honest, who values life outside of the profession (the law is what we do, not who we are) thinks he or she will LOVE their profession and who wants, most importantly, to learn from ME, in particular.  My associates shadow me almost everywhere.  I talk to them like the people they are and I consider it my FIRST job as an attorney, not my second, to help them love their chosen profession, even before servicing clients. If they’re happy, my clients will be happy.  I love being a teacher and I TRULY love my associates sense of wonder.  Consequently, I don’t tend to lose them. Of course I risk an associate stealing clients, and I have to watch for signs of disloyalty, but, so far, I’ve weeded out the fabulous BIG LAW candidates. The large firms can keep them, and, by the way the self-centered 20-somthings (no offense) aren’t terribly hard to deciper when you’re over 40.  I’m now happily getting ready for retirement in the next 15 years or so and will retire under age 60 if this all works out. I’ll be exicted to turn over the partnership to my hand-picked associates, be bought out of my partnership, and enjoy the many other interests I have outside of the practice of law. Finally, heres a big hint, too, young lawyers: If you can cultivate the clients, you can make the big money and do it on your terms.  Get out and join the rotary- go to the symphony, volunteer with big bros/big sisters. Go to your AA meetings. If you’re at a big firm when you hook a big client or two through these contacts, GET OUT! What are you wating for??!  Control your own overhead costs, keep more of your own money and, please, get a life! Best of luck to you and glad I won’t be around to witness the last gasp of the profession.

56. Posted by Anon - 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 52 minutes ago

    Everyone has a choice to make in this profession; and you can choose to work in a large firm settting service large corporate clients or you can stake your path to achieve balance to other things in life. God bless you whichever path you take. I personally believe they both have their rewards, and it is a choice.

    This is to those of you who are in or are contemplating the large firm/large corporate client arena or are contemplating that lifestyle. It will always be hard work, but there are many satisfied people working in large law firms, including me.

    What I want to say is this: I have never seen the sophisticated users of legal services take their share of responsibility for the changes in the legal profession. It is an extremely competitive world, with ever increasing pressure for users of sophisticated legal services to reduce their costs, and to do things ever faster and ever more efficiently. We should all understand that, and when you cut through it, the fact is that demand is driving the changes in legal practice and it is not going to go away as the world globalizes its econcomies. I personally am fine accepting this fact, however, it infuriates me when the users of legal services, who are at the leading edge of this change, play pin the tail on the donkey with private law firms, because, let’s face it, it is easy to do because no private law firm will every complain about it lest it hurt their business. Yet, you will constantly hear conflicting mandates from the users of legal services. We want 24/365 service. We want quick answers from people who don’t have to learn at our expense. We want you to have flextime programs so that we can see that you are doing good things for diversity. BUT, we don’t like the costs or burdens that are necessary to do this.

    Users of legal services may not like the way that costs are allocated, but the reason they are going up is because these services cannot be provided without significant cost, and they aren’t going to be significantly lower if you change the allocation from junior lawyers to senior lawyers. There is a demand for this type of work.

    I am not so cynical as to say that the only motivation of users of legal services is to reduce their own costs; but there is a lack of balance to the views that goes completely unchallenged, and everyone should be aware of that fact.

    When I see a client say, let Susy get me that answer three days from now so that she can go to her Friday music class with her daughter and have her flextime, I may be amenable to these disingenous propositions.

    When was the last time you said that to your lawyer?

57. Posted by Anonymous - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 23 hours, 28 minutes ago

    I agree with everyone who says “quit whining.” The biglaw associates chose their paths, let them suffer the consequences of their greed. I, too, have large student loans (even with scholarships), but I do not expect to be driving a Mercedes and living in a penthouse for my first five years as an attorney. As a first year associate working at a small firm, I’m keeping my “student” standard of living and have no problem making my loan payment. PLUS I actually still have a social life. PLUS, this year, I will be drafting an appeal and second chairing two (most likely) trials. What biglaw associate can say that?!

    Another thing---I have written oppositions to the most frivolous motions from biglaw firms--and won, of course. Maybe biglaw associates wouldn’t have to work so many hours if their firms weren’t intent on screwing the client by racking up needless billable hours.

58. Posted by Second-career lawyer to be - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 19 hours, 24 minutes ago

    I’m a 3rd yr career-changing law student here, soon to be JD. Question: Re the 1,800 hour requirement, is it realistic to figure on billing an average of 7 hrs/day and no weekends? How many total hours do you typically need to work in a day to achieve 7 billable hrs?

59. Posted by Odysseus Rex - 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 11 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Ahhhh!  I’m devistated that I never knew the Big Firm experience!  Booohooo!  For 40 years I was a Judge Advocate, practiced in small to medium size firms, and was a Chief Deputy Prosecutor. (And I had the time to be a pro tem Judge and a Bar Examiner...oh yeah!  And a NORMAL family life.) BECAUSE OF THAT DIVERSE CAREER, I am now a very well paid DoD contractor, doing cutting edge “Rule of Law” work in conflict countries...looking around, I see lots of lawyers like me, and not a single big firm groupie.  Oh yeah, we are compensated VERY WELL:  LARGE salary, transportation, meals, top end lodging, medical care, great fringes (medical insurance, 401Ks, stock purchase plan in a NYSE-traded, Billion $ corporation....and the satisfaction of having MADE A DIFFERENCE!  How many of you overpaid, pampered, big-name law school Law Review editor Big Firm associates (or even partners) can say YOU do anything more than chase the fees?

60. Posted by d - 3 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 19 hours, 49 minutes ago

    crazy…

61. Posted by Public Interest Lawyer - 3 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 52 minutes ago

    Is anyone else sick, sick, sick of reading this same tired old story every week?  Hello, ABA Journal, these articles about billables vs. salary apply to such a small part of your readership.  The constant barrage is getting really old.  How about you do an article about those of us who chose to work in public service, working long hours for about a quarter of what these whiners make?