The problem with this whole idea of less hours for less pay is that, where I work (AMLAW 100), "billable requirements" doesn't even enter my mind. The work is just there. It's not horrible -- each year has been between 1950 and 2200 -- But if I wanted to leave at 5:30 everyday - even if that was perfectly OK with the partners -- I couldn't, because my clients wouldn't let me. And since I have a duty to them and all...

It's just a huge prisoner's dilemma. They cut your pay and SAY you have to bill less. Well, the clients are going to the firms that have lawyers willing to put in the hours. Then your lifestyle firm is going to have to follow suit and ramp back up, drop a tier, or dissolve.

I have a reduced schedule. I aim to bill 80% of standard and I get paid 80% of standard. Of course, we'll see if this is a dead end track, but in the meantime, it works.

"“Firms are struggling with the long-term effect of associates not wanting to work as hard,” says Peter Zeughauser, a former general counsel who now advises law firms on increasing ..."

What an a**hole.

As though someone billing 90% (highly efficient) of forty-eight 40-hour work weeks (2 weeks of vacation and 10 personal days/federal holiays) every year (i.e., 1728 hours) isn't working hard!

Here is my big question. If firms, like mine, pay a BONUS if you hit 1900 hours, then why is it UNACCEPTABLE to bill 1900 hours??? To turn in a performance like that around here will draw the ire of the partners. It's much like the pieces of flair from Office Space... don't tell me that 1900 is the minimum (and really, is it when you get a bonus for reaching that point??) and then get pissed when I don't bill 2000+.

So to stay on point, I don't think there will ever be a lifestyle biglaw firm that actually delivers on a promise of less work, so we might as well get paid.

4:29, If you want to see hard work look at what tier 2/3/4 grads have to do for $44k/year:

From http://nycinsurancelaw.googlepages.com/leahey&johnson

This place is an absolute hell. No attorney should be subjected to this place.
If there is a National holiday and the office must be closed at the direction of
the US Government, they do what is called "motion madness" meaning you must
draft three motions before leaving so that the named partners feel as if you have
earned your day off. Many attorneys work for below average salary and must work
every other Saturday in a suit, no exceptions. Many people begin work one day
and go out to lunch and never come back. Partners recently have quit the law
firm without even having a position or partnership at another law firm before
deciding to leave. All attorneys work from 7:30-8 am until 7-9 pm. The
Saturday schedule is from 9 am - 3pm.

The interview process is not difficult. Simply sound somewhat intelligent and
one should be able to land a position. This law firm is always desperate for
attorneys since the average turn around is three to six months. It is a great
stepping stone for someone straight out of law school.

You will be extremely underpaid, and you will not be able to work-out any
increases.

troll

I have to agree that the quality of life and salary trade-off is likely an illusion. Again, I think its a soft way of conceding that the firm's business model does not permit it to raise salaries for whatever reason. Lawyers at so-called insurance defense firms probably work as hard as and as long hours as I do at my BigLaw, but they get paid less. The work they do just can't command the rates that mine does. And as a practical matter, if you are a talented associate at one of those lifestyle national firms, you are probably going to get hit hard with work. There's no way as an associate trying to climb the ladder at whatever firm you are going to turn it away and say "but you promised only 1800 hours." We're fooling ourselves if we think that's the case. I've seen this scenario play out in a slighty different way for attorneys on the part-time track.

Loyola 2L,
You missed the point, in at least two ways - which doesn't surprise me.

First, it's likely that practicing lawyers are working hard regardless of law school tier. It's just that some of us get paid more for the same work.

Second, those are hypothetical hours and would seem like semi-retirement compared what I already *see* first-hand.

For God's sake, people ... do not feed Loyola 2L!!!

Feed Me!

Another possible reason, amongst many, that BigLaw wouldn't go to reduced billable hour requirements (or at least relative ease of access for all for opting into a flex-time work arrangement) is that since there are only 24 hours in a day (though I am sure some industrious firm has in-house physicists looking into changing that) so the only leverage the firms have in continuing to raise billable rates year after year, other than the amorphouse, yet ubiquitous concept of "reputation", is the unspoken concept of being on retainer/24/7/365 availability. As they continue to pay these premium (read: obscene) billing rates, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the clients (and the partners) justify the cost by the fact that they can make unreasonable demands at all hours of the night or on even the most sacred calendar day of theyear and expect that it gets done. And as long as the clients have these (rightful) expectations, as earlier posters noted, going home at 5:30 everyday will be a non-option, regardless of your billable requirements.

Purely anecdotal, but of the handful attorneys I've met on "part-time" schedules, not a single one has ever worked a substantially reduced schedule. All of them received the reduce pay, though.

The only formula that realistically can work is bumping up pay as hours get higher, because it's clear that the "floor" can't get much below 1700 or so.

I think I am now like the Dread Pirate Roberts in Princess Bride. Once upon a time there was a real Loyola 2L, but now that moniker is used by a number of people who carry on a tradition. And instead of it being passed on seriatum (like the DPR), a bunch of people at the same time are making asinine comments under the Loyola 2L moniker about tier 2 schools etc. in part as a joke, in part to drown out the annoying person who was the original Loyola 2L, in part to mock him/her, in part as post-modern commentary, and in part just to screw around.

Bottom line, don't take me too seriously. I am nothing, a joke, a phantom. Did you expect any more given that I come from a tier 2 school?
Loyola 2L

5:06 is an imposter. I am the real Loyola 2L.

I worked at an AmLaw top 10 firm for 2 years and then went to a non-profit, taking a huge pay cut, obviously. Before I left, we used to have these meetings about associate morale and work life balance where we would ask why it wasn't possible to have a slow track for a proportionally lower salary. The answer was always the firm's business model. But nobody would ever get up there and break it down any further to show us EXACTLY why that was the case, particularly because we were also told that the majority of the firm's profits came from partner billing, not associate billing (whether they meant that proportionally, which should be obvious, or in total, which is more surprising, I'm not sure). In the end, it seemed obvious that what they meant was, the partnership's expectations for PPP wouldn't support it. We were in the top 3 for PPP, so it seemed to the associates that there was some room there - the firm was hardly in danger of folding.

[I could only conclude that the whole thing was a steaming pile of dog crap and that if I cared about anything in the world besides money - and that includes prestige and truly "engaging" work experiences, Mr. Irving - I was better off going to the organization I'm at now, even if it meant sucking it up and living like the rest of America. And, it's pretty awesome.]

But, back to the topic at hand, the bottom line is that parroting some bullshit platitude like "time = money" doesn't cut it. The logic that Irving or the MoFo guys are employing only makes sense in the framework designed by big firm partners to maximize their own returns. If associates as a group want the option to make less and work more, you should keep pushing it - if the market can accommodate paying people who know virtually nothing about the practice of law $160k/year, it can be forced to accommodate that.

I posted this in another thread before, but I'm reposting it because even the question of working less for less money can be addressed by stopping the lockstep salary policies. (Also, quantity of work does not equal quality)

Begin Repost:
What St.Cheryl and many others (especially law firms) seem to forget is that Associates are NOT all Fungible Billing Units (admittedly, some are).

Take associate A, a third-year associated with an english degree and no business experience. Compare A to B, a second-year associate with an MBA and 10 years management experience.

Well, you can't really compare A to B, because you have to take into account the nature of the legal work. For litigation, B's MBA and management experience could be useless.

So, my point is that the move by Dechert is a step in the right direction, but the law industry is a long way away from what it should be. Probably the most enlightened law firm is Jones Day, who participates in the lockstep idiocy only long enough to hire law grads.

Pay should be based on performance, every firm should define performance any way they want, and associates should be allowed to bargain for their salary. B should be able to bargain for a higher salary then A if B's skills are more useful to the law firm then A's.

The result will be more diversity in the marketplace, with people gravitating towards areas where they have expertise (and can make more money). This will also benefit clients, who can then find law firms who more closely match their needs.

Maybe a firm with associates who all are ex-healthcare industry (but not from "prestigious" law schools) could serve hospital clients better and cheaper?

I hope that we continue the trend away from lockstep salaries. Only those who are truly FBU's need the protection of lockstep salaries.

Those of us who have something to offer besides a beating heart, ten fingers, and a J.D., will be better off.

I agree with your statement. However, I would clearly argue that the biggest monkey scribes are probably first years in the FSG. Looking at pooling agreements and checking for dollar signs, how much skill does it take to do that, and how much value are you really adding. And furthermore, we don't really know who has skill until they've been tested for awhile. Just because you got randomly assigned to the FSG doesn't mean you're any more valuable, it just means you're lucky. You could be mildly retarded and they wouldn't even find out for 2 and a half years before you had to think for yourself.

FSG?

Can anyone explain why it wouldn't be possible for a law firm to simply take on less work (and therefore require less billable hours for its associates)? Rates, presumably, could remain high, because the quality of the work will be just as high, and perhaps higher since the attorneys at the firm will be more focused on each client. And, partners and associates will still make comparable rates PER HOUR as they would if they took on more clients.

It would seem the only reason this would not work is if the partners do not share the apparent motivations of the associates, which is to work less for less money, but still have high level, interesting work. Maybe that is the actual sitation at the present, but it is certainly not an inherent law of the marketplace.

Can anyone explain why it wouldn't be possible for a law firm to simply take on less work (and therefore require less billable hours for its associates)? Rates, presumably, could remain high, because the quality of the work will be just as high, and perhaps higher since the attorneys at the firm will be more focused on each client. And, partners and associates will still make comparable rates PER HOUR as they would if they took on more clients.

It would seem the only reason this would not work is if the partners do not share the apparent motivations of the associates, which is to work less for less money, but still have high level, interesting work. Maybe that is the actual sitation at the present, but it is certainly not an inherent law of the marketplace.

Margins don't work that way 6:09. Even an unemployed tier 2 student like me knows that.

I WOULD EAT COW DUNG TO WORK AT BIGLAW

6:08/6:09--I think risk avoidance plays a role in taking on as much work as possible. If a firm decides to turn down some work in order to have a better lifestyle, what happens if that work dries up, or if the clients decide to go to another firm that won't down any of their work?

It is kind of like treading water. You need to keep your head up (enough business to make ends meet), and it is safer to get your whole body out of the water (as busy as you can be) than risk drowning (not enough business). Ok, that is really a stupid analogy, but I'm going to leave it in anyway.

There are probably small, elite firms that can afford to do this--the ones that are highly regarded in specialized areas without any comparable competition. Similarly, there are individuals who are well known enough that they can turn down work and still stay as busy as they want. But the majority of firms and majority of lawyers are fungible and interchangeable.

L2L,

instead of eating cow dung -- how about just getting your grades up to top 10%?

I can't control my professors. Who knows what pattern of words will tickle their fancy enough to give me 4 points for analyzing an issue instead of 3. The 10% cutoff wouldn't be that bad if the grading weren't so random.

yet you managed to get top 25%, so work harder. you also can't control firm recruiters, hiring partners and gravity -- but still have to deal with all of them. In my experience (I was top 20% at top 10 school), grades are mostly a function of how much time you spend studying. you really want that biglaw job? so look yourself at your apartment for the remainder of your time in law school and make those grades happen.

Those smart enough to get into Biglaw often don't really need the money.

Some Ivy League graduate, whose parents likely went to college, had a decent amount of money, and forced them to study hard, get good grades, doesn't know what to do with his life and goes to law school. Succeeds.

Ends up working nightmarish hours. The money isn't really that appealing. Asks, "Why the fuck am I here?" Quits.

My question is -- how do firms REALLY feel about associate attrition? Do they want associates to quit after two years? or is that bad for their business model?

They want you to quit at the end of your third year latest. The biggest of the big NY firms (or those with highest PPPs - I'm looking at you S&C and MTHM) want you out sooner. Burn through 6000 hours in your first 2 years and get the F out! And why not, they've got fools like Loyola 2L waiting in the wings to get in and burn through their own 6000 hours in 2 years.

I hate firm hours. And i don't care about all the money. But I don't want public interest salary. Why isn't there a happy medium? I don't get why a firm wouldn't keep me, a third year associate, for like $110K, and let me work 9-6 each day. No nights and no weekends, ever.

I mean, I got really good grades at a really good law school, got a really good clerkship, get great reviews at my firm ... maybe i should send out some resumes. I hate firm hours.

Are there legal recruiters for part-time work?

I'm sure people working here want their lives back:

Mayer Brown Finance Group

Office Absences/Working From Home

Several associates and some partners have expressed concern about the physical absence of associates from the office during normal business hours – whether because the associate is working from home, due to arrive in the office late or tending to personal matters.

Response: We request that associates observe the following guidelines:

a) Working from home should only occur in unusual cases where, because of illness or the need to tend to unavoidable personal matters during the work week, an associate must be out of the office for a period of time. When associates do work at home, advance notice should be provided to partners and other senior associates on active matters and the associate working at home should be available to fully participate in servicing our clients.

b) Please make efforts to regularize your work hours by arriving at the office not later than 10:00 a.m. except in unusual circumstances.

c) If you will not be in the office before 10:00 a.m., please make sure to communicate as much to your secretary with instructions to inform relevant partners of your anticipated schedule. Please also let your secretary know your whereabouts during the workday if you are away from your office for more than a few minutes.

"They want you to quit at the end of your third year latest."

But why? If I'm willing to take a pay cut, and have no intention of making partner, how come? Aren't I an asset?

You know your lifestyle is messed up when you deeply envy your secretary when you watch her walk out door every night when your evening is just beginning.

"The rate of associate attrition we're seeing today at big firms is the highest level we've ever seen," says Paula A. Patton, chief executive of the NALP Foundation, a nonprofit group in Overland Park, Kan., that examines law-firm hiring trends and practices … According to an NALP Foundation study unveiled last year that looked at law firms for the three years from 2002 through 2004, nearly 60% of all entry-level associates at firms with more than 500 lawyers had left their firms by the end of their fourth years. For firms of all sizes, it was 62%, a record since NALP began tracking it nearly 10 years ago. "

I really don't think the attrition problem is about associates wanting "better, more interesting work." Even if pay was slashed to a fraction of what it is now, most people I know would happily shovel piles of elephant shit for a steady 8 hrs every day, as long as they could take lunch, leave at 6:00 and get their weekends and vacation days. "More interesting work" usually just means more stress and more problems for associates.

I think it's more about associates wanting A DECENT SHOT AT A DECENT LIFE. I mean, junior associates look at senior associates and partners and don't envy them. What good is money when you are a slave to preschool tuitions, your billz, your blackberry, and your clients? And your husband, wife, or partner thinks you're a total douchebag? And even when the work's interesting, it's not as interesting, as say, dinner and a few laughs with your loved ones every night. Money is completely meaningless without the ability to live a healthy, happy, satisfying life.

For the biggest of the big firms, no associate is an "asset." Are you bringing in millions in business? No. Can they bill you out at $850/hr and inflate your time? No. Buck up - you got 3 years of brand name, big time practice. Leverage that into an eventual partnership at a nice, relaxed, regional shop that does the work you want to do.

If you don't want to make partner, stick it out 'til they fire you, then look for some relatively sane in-house gig.

I like how the Mayer Brown memo tells associates they must be at their desks by ten, but doesn't say what time they are allowed to leave their desks.

I always wondered that at my old Biglaw firm. They told us when we started that "firm hours are 9:30-5:30." Of course, if you left every day at 5:30, you'd have been fired. I usually thought if the coast was [rarely] clear by 7:30, it was ok to go home....

7:26: if you have marketable skills (IP, finance, corporate; in that order), why not take an in-house job at a smaller technology company? The salary should be about what you are expecting and, most of the time, the hours will be reasonable. Plus, now you will get to tell partners at your big outside counsel firms what to do.

None of the hour pressures change until the economic model changes. At this point the pyramid is limited b/c there are only 24 hours in a day. Selling time for money is a very inefficient approach. The real cash is in being able to assess risk well enough to move to firm fixed price contracts. A quick look at leading consulting firms shows you how profitable those commercial contracts can be (margins close to 20%). Law firms that take the leap and realize that they are running a global business will move away from hourly billing (aka cost plus contracts). At that point you can de-couple salary from just hours billed and focus on value of work. If you are good at what you do, the firm will gladly pay you for a reduced schedule, b/c they make a huge profit based on your contribution not your hours. In fact, in a fixed fee arrangement - the firm has every incentive to minimize the hours you work. Unfortunately global firms are just starting out. My guess is that it takes firms at least another 10 years to move in this direction.

Perhaps this was stated earlier, but one obvious reason why it doesn't make economic sense for a law firm to have a bill less/pay less strategy is that most law firm costs attributable to an associate are fixed and will not decrease commensurately with a pay decrease. Higher billing associates are significantly more profitable to firms because the revenue from an additional billable hour is much greater than the variable cost associated with that additional billable hour (chiefly salary in our example). Therefore the pay cut that a low billing associate would have to take in order to be as profitable as a high billing associate would be much greater than the pro rata billable hours to salary reduction (i.e., 80% billables, 80% salary) that associates seem to expect.

Re the costs-of-an-associate-are-fixed model:

I see how that makes sense when it comes to hiring associates straight out of law school. But once they've sunk costs into me, and I'm a third or fourth year, and I'm thinking about quitting or staying and taking on some kind of position at the firm where I bill less/getting paid less, do I then offer any value to a firm?

As for biotech, i have no marketable skills other than my law degree and undergraduate liberal arts major.

8:55, sunk cost means sunk cost

i.e. sunk = doesn't factor into the future

You need to look at replacement cost. How much do you cost to be replaced?

At Biglaw, the answer is often "not much," because they run the training anyway and there usually are others waiting to take your place.

Yes, but they've already trained me. If there are others waiting to replace me, then don't they need to expend money to train them?

trust me, firms DO NOT want to lose mid level or senior associates (who they want to keep). very profitable and expensive to replace.

7:24 posted that big firms want you to quit by the end of your third year, latest.

One data point to the contrary - the head of litigation at my global firm told me (in the meeting where I told him I was quitting) that if associates leave before their 6th year, the firm has "lost the bet."

But associates who don't quit before their 5th year have also "lost the bet" in terms of marketability.

Conclusion: everyone reading this board should quit!

Why are you all talking about getting paid less?

It's time for firms to pay what the market demands, and that is 190K for first years and corresponding increases for other classes.

unless you are a legal eagle, always best to lateral somewhere else around year 4 or 5, since most of your F ups occur before then ...

Way back in the early 90's, I summered at Sullivan & Cromwell, then went to Anderson Kill Olick for "lifestyle" reasons (they made a big fuss about being a kindler, gentler firm). God, was I naive. I worked as many hours at AKO as I would have at S&C, with arguably meager results. Then at the first downturn in AKO's business (lost a few big clients/ cash cows), I was of course told to start job hunting asap. I lost out on both opportunity to have the "golden ticket" of S&C on my resume as well as a better "lifestyle" at AKO, the self-styled "unfirm" (yeah, that's what they called themselves - guess I should've seen it right there!).

I'd tell anyone now to take the first few years at the best firm you can; suck it up and forego sleep; and establish your exit plan with all due speed. It's like getting into the best law school you can: you're going to work your butt off anywhere, so why not get the ticket punched en route?

7:27 - what is wrong with that memo at all? (except the fact that it was associates complaining.) The idea that you need to be in the office during normal business hours is completely reasonable. Most jobs expect you to be at the office from 9-5 or 10-6 or whatever. I take it that this is what they were referring to when they said that you need to clear it with whoever. I don't think they were saying "if you are going to do evening work at home you need to tell us."

Rohita, by taking responsibility for your bad choices you are ruining it for whiners like me at tier 2 schools. Cut it out and blame someone else, AKO used a jedi mind trick on you right?

Well, in all fairness, AKO *tried* (for a while, at least) to be a kinder, gentler place. A few things conspired to undercut their efforts: they had a ton of attys. working "flex" schedules (*very* parent-friendly policies); overexpansion (hired too many attys; moved to fancy/$$$ digs); lost some big clients in one swoop; changed their structure from rule-by-"committee" to standard partnership; etc. They had to adapt (i.e., change completely and abandon their "principles") to survive.

The point: All the things young law grads want out of "lifestyle" - flex time/shorter hours, less hierarchy, family-friendly policies - can and likely will fall right by the wayside when competition and clients rear their unattractive heads. That's a lesson I've learned the hard way; and it's no surprise that my old firm has taken it to heart by doing a 180 on itself. Now they're indistinguishable from the sweat shops - but don't even have the reputation to match them in attractiveness to new hires! (ouch)

My (only somewhat useful) insight is that this should be drummed into the heads of law students: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. KNOW what will be expected when you accept that offer from any decent-sized firm in a major city. Know that you will be sweating it out; or at least keeping your light on, jacket on the back of the chair (putting in the face time); and fighting with all your peers to bill way more than the so-called minimum billables. Know that it'll suck; and be realistic about how much you can handle that. And know that it's the market - not just the firm - that will ensure the system perpetuates itself.

And believe me, all firms are pretty much fungible - as are you.

I just logged on and read through the discussion. I have to say that person who posted the "Anonymous | February 13, 2007 07:32 PM" entry summed up what I feel every day that I leave my family to go to work, not knowing what time I will be able to leave to go home, and then, inevitably, calling my husband at 5:30 and begging him to leave work to relieve the babysitter so that I can work late, feeling guilty about being such a crappy mom and wife, and at times, crappy attorney. When I walked in this AM, I thought to myself that I would rather go work at The Gap and at least have some balance. I don't feel like I have any more prestige than any other working schmuck - the money is not worth it. After all the work-related expenses and student loans, I don't save anything - not a penny. I think the only option if you want a life is to go work at a small firm. Who knows - you might develop a greatly successful practice and actually not resent your job. I was supposed to take a personal day on Friday but my boss who is going away just told me that I have to cover a hearing 2 hours away in a case that is a total sh--fight. My week just went from great to heinous. Just had to vent.

Maybe it's the NY/DC focus of this board, but one little-mentioned option is choosing a smaller market, like a Raleigh, Charlotte etc. What you sacrifice in national name-recognition is more than made up for by being at a place where you don't have to commute far to work, cost of living is low, your clients work at a slower pace, etc. We still won't have 9 to 6 jobs, but no one's sleeping in their office at the regional firms either. There are plenty of us down here that could have gone to NYC or DC and chose not to, precisely because we didn't want to make the sacrifices that the NYC big firm experience requires of you. I went to a top law school and in the past few months there has been a surge of my classmates trying to move down south instead of going to DC as they'd planned.