Fall Recruiting Open Thread: What's Your Firm's Assignment System?
It's a subject of tremendous importance, since it has a major effect on the day-to-day lives of associates, but it doesn't get talked about as much as one might expect. So to everyone going through the fall recruiting process right now, don't be afraid to ask:
How does the law firm assign work?
It might not sound very sexy. But the assignment system employed by a law firm might determine whether you're staying until midnight every night while the guy next door, who's getting the same paycheck -- and maybe even the same bonus, if you're at a firm with lockstep bonuses -- is leaving every day at 6 p.m.
There are many different ways that firms can handle the issue of assigning work. Some have an assigning partner (or partners); some have a non-lawyer administrator who makes assignments; some have a "free market" system. Sometimes assignments and hours are tracked by computer, and sometimes they're not.
Please discuss the subject in the comments. To get the ball rolling, we reprint a recent memo from Bingham McCutchen that lays out their approach to the issue. You can check it out after the jump.
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN EMAIL MEMO ON WORK FLOW COORDINATION
From: Plishner, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Workflow Coordination and Core Hours Expectations
As all of you have noticed, over the course of the summer the Litigation Area on the West Coast has gotten busier. During the recent review cycle for new associates, questions and discussions arose regarding the firm's 2000 Core hours expectation. We thought it would be helpful to share some of our responses with all of you. We also have some thoughts about the automated workflow reports that associates and counsel submit every week which we think are worth mentioning.
First, on the workflow reports, we really do use these on a regular basis to decide who is available for work. That is especially true now as matter assignments are being made when there is work to do on a short time fuse and we need to decide quickly who might be able to help. Also, since many of these staffing decisions are now made on a cross office basis, the reports become crucial to understanding availability outside of a given office. So it is important to fill out the forms on a weekly basis (and more frequently if your caseload changes mid-week) and to fill them out accurately. For purposes of classifying availability, we want to reserve the "4" ranking for situations where a lawyer really cannot feasibly take on anything more. The "4" ranking would be applicable for weeks where the lawyer is working at a monthly pace of 200 hours or more. The "3" ranking should be used when the lawyer could assist in relatively limited respects on a new matter or perform a spot project. We think of that ranking when a lawyer is working at a monthly pace above 165 but not quite 200 hours. The "2" ranking means to us that the lawyer has availability to take on at least one new matter or several spot projects. We recommend using this when a lawyer is working at a monthly rate of something around 150 hours. Much below a monthly rate of 150 hours, we would show a "1" rating, which we take to mean that a lawyer has substantial available time and very much needs work.
Regarding the 2000 Core hours expectation, a few recent discussions we have had suggest that some people may view being on track to hit 2000 Core hours as a benchmark for turning down work. We'd suggest that view is incorrect. It is a floor for the firm's expectations of what associates in good standing should expect to achieve, but there is more to the proper calculus of workload than that. We all need to help to divide our overall workload equitably and to meet our clients' needs. Sometimes that will mean we work hard, above (sometimes significantly above) the base level that the firm expects. For example, at some points along a typical career path, as a lawyer's network of lawyer and client relationships grows and relevant substantive knowledge and skills increase, lawyers may find very substantial demands being placed on their time. Those demands often are a marker of success and professional growth and people should be trying hard to accommodate demands reflective of that success and growth. Sometimes, the needs of a particular case will require us to work really hard to get the work done that needs to be done. As always, client needs are paramount. Sometimes, as our practice reaches a peak, we all need to pitch in. None of these considerations has particular reference to the 2000 hour floor. Putting the same point somewhat differently, achieving the 2000 hour threshold may be the beginning of a workload analysis, but it should not be the end -- or even particularly close to the end -- of the analysis. The end in fact is more difficult to specify with mathematic precision -- it isn't a single number the fulfillment of which tells a lawyer that the workday is done. It is a general willingness to do the work the lawyer is asked to do and the lawyer's and the firm's cases require (and we appreciate the fact that many of you demonstrate this willingness time and time again). We should turn projects aside or seek more help when the we can't put forth our best effort or when basic family and life balance issues enter in. We'd urge everyone to consider all of this in determining workload choices and planning your availability.
As always, we are happy to talk with anyone about this and to hear your thoughts.
Debbie and Mike
(82) Comments
"[A] few recent discussions we have had suggest that some people may view being on track to hit 2000 Core hours as a benchmark for turning down work. We'd suggest that view is incorrect."
my firm assigns work rather informally... a partner will contact an associate with a project and it is up to that associate to accept the work or let the partner know that his/her current workload will not permit taking the project
"Sometimes, the needs of a particular case will require us to work really hard to get the work done that needs to be done. " Gee, can we get any more condescending?
What if I bill 300 hours/month? Can I give work to partners billing 150?
Quinn is totally free market in terms of what specific assignments you get. In terms of managing work-flow, it's not totally precise, but you fill out monthly surveys of what you are working on, how busy you are, etc. and they presumably use those to staff anything that needed staffing. I suspect they also look at your hours reports to determine who has time. I don't really know because I always assumed any case that couldn't find staffing was a dog case, so I tried to stay busy enough to avoid being put on one of those.
Bingham sounds like a place to avoid.
Lat - good thread. Someone told me in law school to ask about staffing, but I never really understood how important it was until I started working. Method of staffing not only affects distribution across the office, it affects what sorts of opportunities you are given and how crappy your cases are.
At my McDonalds, work is scheduled several days in advance by one of the managers.
In places that don't have a free-market system, who the assignment coordinator is for a particular office greatly impacts the quality of life of an associate. We have two people in our office that handle associate assignments - one clearly looks out for the associates, is honest when the assignment is a crappy one and tries to offset it with more substantive work next time around. The other lies, misrepresents the time commitments, and generally is not at all interested in looking out for the associate.
One one hand, that memo is terrible - especially because it contains nothing but a parenthetical reference of apprecation for the hard work associates do.
On the other hand, if I tried to assign work to an associate who refused it on the sole basis that they were on pace to hit 2000 hours, I would probably want to fire them on the spot.
Bingham is a great place to work. The partners are very understanding of individual needs and work with the associates to make sure everything gets done in a timely fashion. This memo needs to be read in the context of a workplace that is a top truly cares about its associates and is a top 100 place to work.
kirkland in ny is completely free market and that system seems to define its atmosphere largely.
As a 2L choosing between different firms, it would be good to know what the merits and drawbacks of various assignment systems are. Are systems where an assigning partner distributes work preferable to a free market system?
"We all need to help to divide our overall workload equitably and to meet our clients' needs."
Or, "we need to hire more associates to cover the work we, greedy parnters (not you, lowly associates) promise clients we will do in order to make more money."
If you want associates to hit 2200, then say so, but any economist will tell you that doing so will *gasp* raise the costs of an associate (i.e., if $160k + x bonus pays for a 2000 hour associate, a 2200 associate will cost $160k + x bonus + y).
The fact that firms have more work than they can cover with $160k per 2000 associates suggests that associate salaries are too LOW, not too high. That, or they need to hire less-credentialed associates who are hungrier for work, which will *gasp* deflate the perceived value of the work (i.e. billable rates).
Amazing how free-marketeer partners become Marxists when it comes to associate compensation/QOL issues.
I do not accept assignments after 4PM so I can load my bong by 4:20.
anyone know anything about Paul, Weiss assignment system?
CNN: Florida campus cops on leave after Taser incident
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/student.tasered/index.html
I'd like to see what Bingham's weekly "workflow reports" look like. We fill out similar reports; they are also used to determine which associates have free time to take on sudden projects. Other than that, we have a quasi-free market system: workflow coordinators take care of assigning associates to cases, but once you are assigned to a case, you (and the others assigned) are expected to handle all the work for that case or to go to the coordinators in the event you anticipate being unable to handle whatever is coming.
A "free market" is never really "free," as you likely have a limited ability to turn down work unless you're absolutely swamped. If you're proactive in filling your time though you can use the system to your advantage.
A free market really just means less structure -- i.e., you're approached by the partners on the case directly as opposed to through some assignment coordinator.
CWT usually shoots one first year for slow hours in October, just to show the other associates they mean business.
I worked at a firm that was ostensibly free market. That system only works if the partners truly respect their associates. If they don't, the free market ceases to be free, and you are simply given work without asking if you want it, which leads to the problem of working with the same partner or doing the same sort of work over and over again. In this scenario, if you wanted to work for another partner or do different sort of work, you are stuck in the politically awkward position of telling a partner that you don't want to work with him/her, which is not the nicest postion to be in as an associate.
I now work at a firm that has a very rigid assigning structure, and it seems to be better, although it does lend itself to reducing associate desires into hours-worked/availability on a weekly basis.
I think inequity in work distribution is inevitable to some extent, and that the real disenchantment results from having to account for every moment of your life in 10-minute increments.
Interesting thread. Would someone please explain what a "free market" system of assigning work is? Thanks.
"This memo needs to be read in the context of a workplace that is a top truly cares about its associates and is a top 100 place to work."
But does Bingham have a THEME SONG?
They had a policy similar to Bingham's at my girl friend's last job. There's actually a video of my girlfriend discussing this policy with her boss. You can view it at youtube. The link is below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1njCxv3_Czk
In my office, you're fired on your first day. You want your job back, you get leads and you f'ing sell them.
11:35 -
I believe "free market" refers to an assignment system in which there is no "system." Associates pick up work by going out and asking for it when they need it and/or when partners or senior associates stop by your office looking to hand it out. Probably the least efficient and most used method out there. No surprise there.
I'm at a firm that has a "free market" - "up or die" system, or so they say. What really happens is that not all partners behave the same, so the idea of a "free market" becomes bull.
Some partners are really demanding and you can't turn down work for them. Some are a joke to work for and never criticize your work, nor put pressure on you to accept new assignments. So what happens is that some associates, who manage to work with the nice partners, have an easy time within the "free market" system. Others get killed.
This is ironic because one purpose of the "free market" system is that the best associates will survive, i.e. survival of the fitiest. What happens, however, is that the clever associates who can weasel their way into the right partner's cases end up playing the system, and everyone else gets screwed.
I agree totally with 11:33 AM, but I think this was a good memo. It really depends on the practice area, but if you are trying to have a career in law, it really isn't about making sure to hit 2000 hours every year, it's about learning the substantive practice area and gaining the necessary skills to be successful. Given that most junior associates want to try out different practice areas when they start at a firm, you end up working a lot even before you focus on just one practice area.
It's just the reality of the situation. Of course, most people are lazy and just want to take the money and run, but that shouldn't blind someone to the reality of the situation they are in.
11:46 - Hello, that's life. Get over it.
11:28 is right. Firms with hours requirements want it both ways: they want to avoid paying bonus when works slows and avoid paying when associates work more. Hey partners, guess what, that just means associates are going to demand higher base salaries.
I know firms aren't going to lower their standards because that would require admitting that a monkey could do the work, and partners have egos way too big for that.
Yeah, at CWT DC they have a wierd work assignment system. We have to roll ourselves in glue and then jump in a hot tub full of fortune cookie papers with client/matter numbers on them. Everything that sticks we keep.
And the October shooting thing in the Charlotte office is no b.s. 11:32 must be an insider.
11:46, what is inefficient about a free market system? People develop relationships, trust the people they work with and can be honest about when something needs to be done and how it needs to be done. Having some formal assignment system where work gets dumped on you without you agreeing to it might be better for dumping crap work on people, but it's not efficient, and I think that it would suck. I guess it's a Chicago thing, but I have only ever worked in "free market" firms, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Translation of Bingham memo: "Hours targets are for NALP reports marketed to gullible law students. The reality is you will work as much as we tell you to and you will not push back ever even if you are swamped."
BIGLAW life is spiralling out of control when a 160 billable hour a month pace isn't considered too busy to pick up something else. Those raises are great but obviously they are going to cost us.
at my firm we pick assignments out of a hat....but it is a giant hat and we pick 100 times. and if we dont hit 3000 hours we get tazed.
fitzpatrick and fitzpatrick to 190!
This topic makes me super, super happy to be a public interest lawyer.
I like the idea of an assigning person, if only to have some kind of control over the situation. I guess I can see the appeal of a (supposed) "free market" approach, but I wonder what recourse an under/over-committed associate has when there's nobody in charge of the system. A formal assignment system may create bureaucracy, but it can also protect associates. For example, I was working in a practice group during my first few months that I really hated. They kept giving me work and going around the assignment system and I was afraid of being pigeonholed early on. I went to the assigning partner and it stopped. A "free market" system seems to put the onus entirely on associates, which isn't always a good thing.
At my firm they line the associates up against the wall at 9:00 am and 5:00 pm and the partners throw darts with client/matter numbers on them at the assembled associates.
12:11 that reminds me of the harry potter sorting hat... wouldn't a sorting hat be a fun way to assign work in a law firm?
At my firm work is assigned on the basis of the size of one's penis.
My firm has a free market system. It used to work well when the partners would cooperate to staff deals across offices to find associates for new deals. Watching the partners work through staffing issues was good for morale and a good exercise for the partners. It also worked out well because partners would not be able to find associates for their deals if they were jerks. The good natured partners did well under the system.
In recent years, however, we haven't done as well at the free market system. Partners have identified certain associates as their pets, and the pets get a good degree of protection while the rest of the associates have to pick up the slack.
At my office, you're fired on your first day, and there's no way to get your job back.
12:36 - 12:31 here. That's exactly the scenario I was talking about. I'm sure some would argue that "pets" get to that place because of great work, but the unfairness lies in the opportunity to do great work not being extended to everybody.
Baker & McKenzie NYC is a free market.
12:08 --
The inefficiency is introduced when one first-year associate (associate no. 1) is sitting in her office with her thumb up her but and another, two doors down, is billing 50-60 hous a week (associate no. 2) because the two partners who needed to bring a junior associate in on a big case happen to walk past the associate no. 2's door first, run into him in the elevator or any other of the random-ass ways work gets handed out in the "free market."
"Relationships" are great and all, but is a first year associate supposed to tell an equity partner, "Thanks for offering to bring me on this huge, high-profile case but I'm already swamped on a big case at the moment, so you might try associate no. 1 down the hall." Never going to happen if the associate wants to be successful.
The crappiness of Bingham's e-mail aside, at least they have some way to the let the people who matter know that associate no. 1 is free and associate no. 2 is getting killed. That kind of modified free-market approach makes sense.
Any comments on how Gibson's free market system works, in particular?
i like free market -- you can tell when someone is about to get canned because they are begging for work just to fill a 40 hour week.
1135 -
At KE at least, the free market system means that you can turn down work. I works kind of like this. First, you NEVER answer your phone, you always let it go to voice mail. A partner will leave you a message to call him/her back. Then you ask around about the partner and what the project likely is. If it sounds good, you call the partner back and take the assignment. If not, you make up a reason why you can't take it. The key is to always have at least one thing going, so you can say that "I'm on a case, and I think it's going to get really busy soon. I don't want to shaft Partner Y, so can you keep me in mind next time?"
The free market system tends to marginalize asshole partners, b/c people will avoid working for them. It also rewards those who go out and find their own work. Crappy associates end up with the crappiest work.
If you are not getting the good projects, it's highly likely that it's b/c you suck.
Stop sucking and maybe you'll get better work.
"It also rewards those who go out and find their own work. Crappy associates end up with the crappiest work."
Do brand new associates get their first assignments assigned to them, or do they seek them out? I ask because the brand new associates who aggressively seek work from powerful partners where I am tend to be a. male and b. the type of people who seem to be running for office. I understand that's the name of the game, but it seems disingenuous to me to have a firm claim that it is committed to associates' professional development but, in fact, leaves it entirely up to associates.
12:11, that is the funniest thing I'm going to read I'll day: "but it is a giant hat and we pick 100 times . . ."
Thank you.
I think the free market-type system works if the partners have a f-ing clue about what their associates are up to.
But since 83% of partners have no f-ing clue what is going on with their associates...
I guess the bottom line is that you need to be honest with yourself about your personality when choosing a place to work. If you're on the timid side, you might want a place with an assigning system. If you're confident/outgoing/etc., you'll probably be okay either way.
11:46(2): The free market system rewards people who do good work, build good relationships and are proactive when they are too slow or too busy. I am sure that it is sometimes used to not give work to certain associates, or to give work to certain associates, for the wrong reasons. However, the vast majority of the time, the reasons that people are or aren't getting work are performance-based and personality-based. If you want to work in the kind of firm where other people decide what you work on, fine. But I think that would totally fucking suck.
Assigment systems are inherently flawed. It is about to the young attorney to make sure they keep their plate full. That means on ocassion proactively seeking out work. To include the type of work you like and/or is important for your development. Keep in mind also that a lot of partners in big law firm works are scrambling to fill their own plates because they are getting their knuckles wrapped for being underproductive.
Best advice? Young lawyers need to diplomatically and andruitly take care of number one.
Assigment systems are inherently flawed. It is about to the young attorney to make sure they keep their plate full. That means on ocassion proactively seeking out work. To include the type of work you like and/or is important for your development. Keep in mind also that a lot of partners in big law firms are scrambling to fill their own plates because they are getting their knuckles wrapped for being underproductive.
Best advice? Young lawyers need to diplomatically and andruitly take care of number one.
Cahill has a free market system that functions really well. Sometimes partners call to offer work; other times it's associates.
There are no workflow reports. You know how busy you are and whether you wish to take on more work when someone calls.
There is no billable hour target. Associates' hours tend to be distributed around 2000/year.
It is easy at Cahill to avoid working for certain (bad) people - at least when you're a junior associate - because of the emphasis on the free market system. Everyone accepts an answer of "Sorry, I'm too busy now" and moves onto the next person.
Cahill's free market system works perfectly for me. As long as I work in biglaw, I will do it here.
Since this thread has turned toward billable hours anyway... what about non-billable admin, biz dev, and recruiting time?
For example, for a 1-3 year associate billing 2000+, how many *additional* hours typically are devoted to non-billable tasks? What credit, if any, are firms giving for that time?
Atleast with a work-flow system, it isn't as easy for the firm to throw you under the bus if you have a slow year.
"What do you mean I'm not getting a raise? I had no billable work to most of the time. I put 1's and 2's on my work flow report every month."
12:53: what did you expect in biglaw? FORGET ABOUT ANY professional development that you do not initiate yourself, lowly associate. If you are waiting to be taken under the wing of some white-haired mentor you will be disappointed.
1:29: 12:53 here. None expected. I'd just prefer not to be bullshitted about it.
1:20 - very good question. I found that there are lots of non-billable requirements and that one cannot rely on whether or not you'll get credit for them.
I worked at a 80 lawyer office of a national firm, and the assignment system was severely flawed. There were two partners who served as Assignment Partners, and who were tasked with making sure work was distributed evenly. Problem was, these two partners also had the two worst cases, and so anytime anyone needed an assignment it was to one of their cases. Other partners learned to side-step this process and contact associates directly. However, it was always a race to keep your billables up because if you didn't the punishment was working on the two crap cases helmed by the assignment partners. Echoing the remarks of others, it worked out that a couple of savy junior associates worked the system and worked for good partners, everyone else got screwed.
1:52: Totally. Another problem is having some harried partner in charge of assigning.
Can someone from Bingham please define "Core hours"? If they are just billable hours, I assume the firm would call them that. If they include other things, then what other things?
Thanks 1:48. My experience is that I cannot rely on non-billables for any credit whatsoever.
My related question deals with pre-bill vs. post-bill hours. I understand most firms' billable hour requirements are pre-bill hours, but I've heard some firms require post-bill minimums too (e.g. 1950 *after* being written down by the partner). Any input re: (1) which firms do this and (2) the differential between pre-bill and post bill hours requried?
This Bingham memo IS condescending, but at least it lets you know what the expected monthly hours are, and it has a system for "labeling yourself" depending on what your monthly hours are. So at least Bingham associates always know where they stand.
At my old firm, there was an assigning partner rather than a free-market system, but it was never entirely clear what the benchmark was for being considered "not busy." Every once in a while he would call me to say "I notice your hours are low," but wouldn't tell me what level they should have been at to not be considered "low" -- and usually he didn't have any work to offer me in that phone call either.
In other words, whether any firm has a free market or assigning system doesn't matter nearly as much as the management skills of those who assign the work, and whether there are clear expectation as to how much you should be billing.
Compare and Contrast
________________________________
"Regarding the 2000 Core hours expectation, a few recent discussions we have had suggest that some people may view being on track to hit 2000 Core hours as a benchmark for turning down work. We'd suggest that view is incorrect. It is a floor for the firm's expectations of what associates in good standing should expect to achieve, but there is more to the proper calculus of workload than that. We all need to help to divide our overall workload equitably and to meet our clients' needs. Sometimes that will mean we work hard, above (sometimes significantly above) the base level that the firm expects."
__________________________________
STAN
I need to talk about your flair.
JOANNA
Really? I have 15 buttons on. I, uh,
STAN
Well, ok, 15 is minimum, ok?
JOANNA
Ok.
STAN
Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare
minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a
terrific smile.
JOANNA
Ok. Ok, you want me to wear more?
STAN
Look. Joanna.
JOANNA
Yeah.
STAN
People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, ok? They come to Chotchkie's
for the atmosphere and the attitude. That's what the flair's about.
It's about fun.
JOANNA
Ok. So, more then?
STAN
Look, we want you to express yourself, ok? If you think the bare
minimum is enough, then ok. But some people choose to wear more and we
encourage that, ok? You do want to express yourself, don't you?
JOANNA
Yeah. Yeah.
STAN
Great. Great. That's all I ask.
To 3:00.
For starters, that's great. Great. Brilliant.
I would say, however, that if you view your committment to your firm, development, and career the same as a waitresses views her commitment to her restuarant, you forfeit your right to complian about the firm's committment to you. Don't do the bare minimum and then complain that they won't consider you for partnership or give you the higher level bonus.
I'm just saying that a firm has more reason to expect a higher committment than a restuarant. They have put a lot of money into your hiring, training and devlelopment. They want to see that level of committment in return.
That was dead on 3:00!
3:10: Good points. Except that when my firm decides to value my worth entirely based on the number of hours I bill, with complete disregard to whether I'm performing my work efficiently and well, and they tell me that I'm expected to work 2000 hours a year, they can't later turn around and say, "Sure, we SAID 2000. But you were supposed to understand that we secretly meant 2300. But then again, if you REALLY want to impress us, you should shoot for 2400." Etc.
From 11:33: "[T]he real disenchantment results from having to account for every moment of your life in 10-minute increments."
Very, very true.
Michael Bolton (1): I hope that was a joke (except to the extent where doing the minimum doesn't get you made partner, I agree). Otherwise, if you think that firms see us as anything other than dollar signs and that we owe them something, you're sadly mistaken. Restaurant managers care more about waitresses than partners do about associates.
I view this memo as a sad, pathetic gasp from a confused, dying old way of thinking that will meet with more and more resistance from younger generations until they finally cart the bloated, rotting corpse out of the building. Utilization rates are too high on average. Accept that and hire more associates so that you can make more money instead of trying to get blood from a stone (or a cog).
I believe for summers the system is: Don't take on so much work that you can't leave before 4pm every day to start binge drinking until 3am on the firm's dime at some really overpriced bar.
"Core hours" includes pro bono (to some extent) as well as certain "creditable hours", which includes time spent on firm committees, time spent mentoring junior attorneys, time spent on partner-originated publishing activities, etc.
2000 total for Bingham (i.e., including mentoring, article writing, etc) is a lower target than other firms. MoFo is 2100 (1950 billable and 150 non-billable but expected hours which includes recruiting, mentoring, article writing, firm committees, etc).
4:20: You're absolutely right. 2000 with everything else included isn't too bad. I've spent countless hours doing non-billable stuff that doesn't "count."
On the flipside, I guess I know why my west coast litigation with B/Mc isn't getting much attention from them....
11:33, 3:23 -
Try 6 minute increments instead, it is no more palatable but at least it equals .1 hour.
To: 3:29: The waitresses I used to work with busted their humps every day for every dollar they earned. They were always looking for more shifts and more tables. I honestly respected many of them more than some of the associates I work with now. Certainly more than some of the naive crybabies on this string.
You're right about the system coming to a breaking point, but let's face this fact: partners have clients and associates are fungible. If the system breaks, its guaranteed that the associates willl be on the losing end of the bargain.
6:11 -- Seriously, I bitch about my day and then I look outside and see some landscapers digging holes and laying sod on 95 degree, 90% humidity days and I realize that their job still sucks more, but I have a new appreciation for the fact that, despite BIGLAW still being a big steaming pile of monkey poo, I get paid lotsa cash to wallow in the poo and those landscapers are lucky to get a few hundred a week.
"For purposes of classifying availability, we want to reserve the '4' ranking for situations where a lawyer really cannot feasibly take on anything more. The '4' ranking would be applicable for weeks where the lawyer is working at a monthly pace of 200 hours or more."
Wow, 200 hours in a month means that "a lawyer really cannot feasibly take on anything more" at Bingham? Sounds like a great place.
I wonder how many annoying self-serving over-worked associates have rated themselves at a 5...?