Elie,
Great post - I especially love the final line of the proposed termination memo. Classic. ATL is in good hands.

these pretzels are making me thirdsty

DAMN WHY THE HELL AMI NOT ABLE TO GET FIRST!!!!!! THIS ABSOLUTELY SUX. IM SO DAMN FIRSTY!!!!!!!!!!!! I WILL BE FIRST, YOU JUST WATCH PUNKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HA! I like it.

I left a slowish/slowing big firm this winter. They never fired anyone that I know of, but they DID give me and at least one other person $0 bonus for hours north of 1950 + good reviews.

A less talked-about form of soft layoff perhaps?

Happily, lateraling was easy.

I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job. I hope I don't lose my job.

You must be kidding if you don't agree that one of the biggest management problems at law firms is their unwillingness to make hard decisions. Law firms are loaded with associates who are not given sufficiently honest reviews, who languish for years. Virtually every law firm's management constantly pushes senior lawyers to be more candid and honest in reviews, but lawyers are reluctant to do so. There's no question financial pressure may encourage firms to make staffing decisions that they should have made before but didn't. Calling it "disingenuous" is silly.

I NEVER have any difficulty making it 'rain.'

Damn, this post is great. . . except that the WSJ law blog beat it by 40 minutes. G/L next time, rookie.

Shake it fast
But watch ya self
Shake it fast
Show me what'cha workin' wit

Wish you were Mystikal instead of Mystal.

Niiiiiice. Welcome Elie!

Elie Mystal is a freemason. Pass it on.

You're doing a top-notch job. I'm consistently impressed by your wit and coverage.

"The seal, the pyramid, it's unfinished. With the eye of God looking over it. And the words Annuit Coeptis. He, God, Favors our Undertaking. The seal is meant to be unfinished, because this country's meant to be unfinished."

5 -

Variations of "not enough work", no reward for hard work are used throughout the business world to reduce headcount. It's most commonly seen in retail - cut back someone's hours until they quit.

Paying someone no bonus for bonus hours would have a similar effect.

the house always wins. thats why they're the house.

Great post!

I second both 8 and 10.

Elie, nice work! Seriously, this blog is in good hands. (And I was worried.) ...though I would trade your for one bikini pic of Kash.

I'm playfully arguing with a co-worker. Can you make a martini with a black olive, or is the green olive necessary?

13's impressed by sophist's "wit and coverage"?! for bloomin' sake, the post is a rip-off of kash's first item in today's "morning docket." it even includes the same damn quote! i guess kash is going to be the de facto EIC.

Elie FTW!

20: It 100% gotta be green. Its all about that green olive tang. Black olives are fir pizza and Greek salads.

This post stinks. First off, nobody commissioned a report. This is just the guy who runs Citi's Law Firm group talking about what they see based on the survey they do every quarter for the yearly marketing piece on law firm performance that Citi does in order to get more law firm business. Basically, you are making a big deal out of a 4-page ad for Citi Private Bank.
The rest of this post can't seem to get its head out of its ass. Yes, some associates suck, and this is a great time to get rid of them if like most law firm you are too scared to incur the wrath of sites like this one to do so. Sometime the complete and utter lack of business sense by the people on this site is shocking.

There are layoffs all over the place this year, but that Elie fellow seems to be working out well at this blog, let's keep him around.

24: when firms hire associates, they are implicitly saying, "You are family now. Capice?" You wouldn't fire a member of your family if they were slovenly and disgusting, would you?

20 obviously didn't go to Yale.

1) Law firms are not pyramid schemes. You obviously don't know what a pyramid scheme is.

2) ""Unproductive associate" is a catch-all term that can describe essentially whatever it is they want it to describe" - No, an unproductive associate is an associate that is not creating enough value for the firm to justify paying them a ridiculous salary. Is that not the definition of unproductive? If an associate was productive, by definition, the law firm wouldn't fire them. It may not be the associate's fault that they are unproductive, but...

3) Law firms are not charities. There is no moral reason for partners who have worked their ass of for years to subsidize associates who don't have any work to do. The government has a place for people whose employer doesn't have enough work for them, its called the unemployment office.

Second 23, if you want to look some classless rube...go hit on a woman with a black olive in your martini. Report back what occurs.

EXCEPTION: If you are at home and you live in a place where you suffer from severe weather and you need a drink and you only have black olives and traveling to get green olives would place your life in danger and no one would see you using a black olive in your martini...

a black olive is then acceptable.

This is the first real good post by our new EIC. I think he has officially risen to the occasion. Spot on and even funny at points!

This is the first real good post by our new EIC. I think he has officially risen to the occasion. Spot on and even funny at points!

Ellie -- one of the best posts on ATL in a long time. Great job!

I really hope I get to work with 28 and people just like him/her as much as possible because they are just so much fun.

You don't really need the olive, so go with none if the only option is a black one. More importantly, martinis are made with gin.

28 - I'm sure that acting as an apologist for the current distribution of wealth and power suits someone like you, so clearly born into privilege, huzzah old chap. Clearly you are morally deficient if you can't see the reason, as a substitute, try considering the economic value of loyalty and settled expectations. Someday you too will be fired and have your work appropriated by a more crafty instrumentalist, I hope I hear about it because I enjoy karmic payback.

28: his comparison to pyramid schemes was facetious.

That said, I have a few other pointers:

1. Law firms are partially at blame for not providing the associates with enough work. This is what we call the conflation of cause and effect in Philosophy class, or chicken and the egg in the everyday English parlance. Most associates would love to bill the maximum hours, but they can't find enough things to do, and partners aren't willing to throw them bones.

2. Law firms aren't charitable organizations, but they can be compared to families. A good family manages to stick together, despite the drama and misgivings. A bad family tears apart at the seams and ends up on a reality show.

The American Lawyer article completely misses the point, as Elie has pretty much suggested here.

The management at most law firms is egregious -- profitability simply does not come down to whether the associates are being lazy, or whether there are too many document clerk, as many partners would like to believe. Better training, better distribution of work, better case management, I can't even list all the ways firms could get more out of their associates and make better use of their staff.

My firm is an organizational mess -- the wheel is constantly reinvented on research, files are all over the place and not well-kept, there is no specialization, communication is abysmal, no one knows what anyone is doing, there is no training because the partners don't know anything, and the list goes on. And I work at a top 30 firm!

I am anxiously awaiting the days when the corporate world says enough and the whole charade falls down. I will laugh so hard when the partners have to put their million dollar homes up for sale that they never deserved in the first place.

Any firm that finally steps it up and offers its clients a bargain instead of trying to put out bigger and bigger bills will be a huge winner in all of this.

Firms should never act in their economic interest. The interest of the associates is all that matters. Don't these firms know that clients hire firms for the associates! How will firms find clients if they are firing even the smallest number of poorly performing associates?

Nice post Elie - it has a good edge to it. The most important point is the honesty, or lack thereof, about layoffs. If its to keep the partners in good $$$ than just come out and say it - its a bottom line issue. All this nuance is b.s.

But Elie - why pick on PwC...well on second thought pick away on'em!

37: why don't they hire a management consultant? It sounds like you're exaggerating your points.

How about some news about white guys with asian girls??

- King of WGWAG

First of all, 23, you put Kalamata olives on greek salads, you classless hack.

28, if you don't get how it is a glorified pyramid scheme, you really aren't all that clever. Hint: associates get a fraction (I'm not complaining) of the fees they generate, and partners get the rest. There is more than one associate per partner. Now, if the partner cannot generate work for all of the associates whose fees s/he was taking a chunk of, it does not mean that the associates who get axed are "bad" or unproductive. Some of them are, some of them suck at playing politics, some just aren't big enough self-promoters to get the partners to realize they're really good, not just part of the mushy middle.

40 = another law student.

Dear Law Student (40):

When you get out of law school and begin to practice in a firm environment, you will quickly realize that most firm partners, by virtue of making partner, believe themselves to be all-knowing in the realm(s) of public relations, human resources, business management, economics, and sociology.

With all of these assets, why would any partner pay money to a 'consultant' when an expert already resides within the firm?

Good luck with your second semester of your first year of law school.

Cordially,

Seasoned Attorney

28 is a bad person.

Partners do have a moral obligation not to fire hardworking associates. Associates are human beings, with families, children, mortgages, sick parents/grandparents, loans, pets, etc. We need our jobs, because people rely on us. We rely on the firm to pay our salary. In return, we work long hours, weekends, and holidays doing the work the partners won't. The partners make enormous profits. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. We came to work for these kinds of firms in part because we trusted that if we work hard, we will be taken care of.

When partners start treating associates merely as profit centers, rather than the human beings - that is immoral. The definition of immoral is to treat a human being as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

Partners have a moral obligation to accept slightly less in terms of compensation in order to avoid firing hardworking associates that put their trust in the firm. The firm has no moral obligation to keep on an associate that doesn't pull his or her own weight. But to say that a firm has no moral obligation to keep on an associate who, through no fault of his/her own cannot make hours, is despicable.

40, I'm not 37, but the truth is that good rainmakers, not good managers, make partner. If you were a firm, which would you want, a poor manager who makes a lot of rain, or a good one who utilizes associates slightly better, thus increasing the profit margin in that regard, but makes less rain?

If you guys want to work at a law firm that considers its associates family, go to a small shop, anyone on the amlaw lists stopped considering itself a family and made itself a business at least 5 years ago.
And 36. nobody is saying that it is the associate's fault that they have no work, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be fired. Nobody blames the workers at the GM factories that had to close down for the fact that noone wanted to buy GM cars, but that still doesn't mean they're not going to lose their job because they are not productive.

Great post. Nice to feel that the EIC feels my pain.

28 is a bad person.

Partners do have a moral obligation not to fire hardworking associates. Associates are human beings, with families, children, mortgages, sick parents/grandparents, loans, pets, etc. We need our jobs, because people rely on us. We rely on the firm to pay our salary. In return, we work long hours, weekends, and holidays doing the work the partners won't. The partners make enormous profits. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. We came to work for these kinds of firms in part because we trusted that if we work hard, we will be taken care of.

When partners start treating associates merely as profit centers, rather than the human beings - that is immoral. The definition of immoral is to treat a human being as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

Partners have a moral obligation to accept slightly less in terms of compensation in order to avoid firing hardworking associates that put their trust in the firm. The firm has no moral obligation to keep on an associate that doesn't pull his or her own weight. But to say that a firm has no moral obligation to keep on an associate who, through no fault of his/her own cannot make hours, is despicable.

"Yes, some associates suck, and this is a great time to get rid of them if like most law firm you are too scared to incur the wrath of sites like this one to do so. Sometime the complete and utter lack of business sense by the people on this site is shocking."

Certainly, assuming that law firm partners forego making otherwise profitable decisions because they fear the wrath of "Above the Law" displays tremendous business sense on your part, 24.

What about associates that just can't hack it? Firms need to be willing to make the hard choices and actually get rid of people that don't meet the standards.

We deserve honesty. Tell us when we do something right. Tell us when we do something wrong. And if we really f-up, fire us. But if you need to lay someone off simply because you don't have the work, man up and tell the truth.

48: If Ford can't sell all the vehicles it's making, does it have an obligation to a) continue to produce excess vehicles and b) keep the excess production-line workers on the payroll until it can sell those vehicles?

Go Bulldogs!

If you know what that means you're not worried about losing your legal job!

I'll say it again: Go Bulldogs!

Everyone else = TTT

28 here,

"28 - I'm sure that acting as an apologist for the current distribution of wealth and power suits someone like you, so clearly born into privilege, huzzah old chap." - Nope, I actually grew up extremely poor and I learned that nobody gets anything for free in America. Nobody gave my dad a handout when he was working his ass off trying to give his kids a better life, so that's why I'm disgusted with entitled whining maggots like you who expect a $160,000 job like it was their God-given right, even if there is no actual work for them to do.

"28 is a bad person." - No, your mom is for having you.

"associates get a fraction (I'm not complaining) of the fees they generate, and partners get the rest" - that's not the definitino of a pyramid scheme, please look up what a pyramid scheme is.

"Law firms are partially at blame for not providing the associates with enough work." - Obviously, they're a failing business. But that doesn't mean that they should keep associates who can't make money. That's like saying to a sandwich shop owner "sorry your business model sucks and you can't sell sandwiches, but you still have to pay me to stand behind the counter and dilly daddle"

"Law firms . . . can be compared to families" - A law firm is like a family? A "family" is different from a business. In a capitalist society, if you treat your business like a family (i.e., like a charity) your business fails. Period. That's why communist countries failed. Period. It's also hypocritical for an associate to call a law firm a family. I don't remember the last time I joined a family because they paid more than other families. In most law firms, all the lawyers hate each other anyway.

43. You forgot to mention that management consultants are often times nearly as bad as many law firm partners. It was a management consultant that recommended to Sonnenschein that they expand rapidly in real estate and securitization with large guaranteed payment to incoming partners in 2006 and has resulted in the huge problems that firm has had.

51: THIS ISN'T FORD. WHAT PART OF THEY'RE STILL MAKING MILLIONS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!

Sorry for the caps, but that comparison is absolutely absurd.

Who would have thought that raising salaries in the midst of an economic meltdown which had been ongoing for six months prior was not a smart move?

51: Of course it does. A moral and an ethical obligation.

Sincerely,

UAW local #319

54: no way. Management Consultants are omniscient go-getters who help you to isolate the market trends and capitalize on them. Innovation. Success. Exit strategy. 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week, management consultants are helping you to maximize the most of your business.

Maybe associates should actually start losing the attitude and show some gratitude for their lifestyle. Partners bring in the work and get to choose who works on it. I love the angst that is coming off this board.

All you suckas will do the same to junior associates when you become partners! Little Timmy needs a law job? Screw little Timmy; I gotta pay the mortgage on the Hamptons home sucka!

- 50 cent

56: It actually was a smart move because some firms could still afford it even during an economic slowdown. It then created a catch 22 for crappier firms. The other firms had to raise if they expected to get good associates, but they would perish because they could not afford it.

28, make sure you read Getting to Maybe before you start your classes next week; it really really helps for those tough 1L exams! Remember, the best answer in class is "It depends."

1:10 - This post is much better than the WSJ post.

The WSJ post just recycles / excerpts the DiPietro column.

Elie's post adds value - analysis, opinion, humor.

This is why Elie's post has 60 comments, and Slater's post has 10.

51: Yes and no. There are a few important distinctions. First a caveat: we're talking about morality, not economics. Economics in and of itself is an amoral exercise, neither moral nor immoral. A conclusion about economic best interest says nothing about the morality of the conclusion. For example, it is a better economic decision to invest heavily in a company that maximizes the externalizition of the environmental costs of its business, i.e., pollutes as much as possible, because that company will be more profitable. It is, however, immoral to invest in such a company. See the difference?

To your example about Ford. Ford, as a corporation, represents a community of interests: shareholders, debt holders, employees. Ford has to balance the fiduciary duties it owes to shareholders with the obligations it has, both moral and otherwise, to its employees and debt holders. Of the members of the community of interests the most powerless are the employees, so one could argue that Ford owed them the greatest obligation. Unfortunately, corporate law requires Ford to consider the interests of the shareholders above all else. If Ford were to take an action favoring employees over shareholders the board would have a derivative suit shoved up their ass before they could blink. Ford may have a moral obligation to employees - but it not one they can legally act on. Is that right? No. Is that the way it is? Yes.

Is a law firm a corporation with a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder profits? No.

Is everyone else slow in August? I feel like I have close to nothing to do!

55. I did not make the comparison, but it is not absolutely absurd. You are a worker in an organization that is trying to maximize its profits. If you are not generating a profit for the organization, even if it is through no fault of your own, I don't know why you should expect to still have a job. Some organizations, may decide that it is better to keep you because they expect you to generate more as business picks up, but others may just not expect business to pick up.

62: I'm a lawyer, but not a whining maggot lawyer like you. I realize there are tons of Americans who are struggling to get by on minimum wage, single moms working 2 or 3 jobs, and people living in debt. So I don't feel any sympathy for people like you, who feel like its law firms' "moral obligation" to pay them for useless work.

Its actually amazing how people about to get fired get all choked up on "ethics" and "morals." Associates have no ethical qualms when they are benefiting. Is it moral for an associate to trick a law firm into spending $100,000k+ for recruting them and wining and dining them as a SA and then go somewhere else? Is it ethical when associates are getting paid thousands of dollars for suing huge corporations which are actually doing something positive for society? Amazing how ethics isn't as simple as "I want my money give it to me"

This is really stupid: the bottom line is that associates are employees; if you want "fairness" become an owner along with all the risks involved; otherwise, shut up

employees are cattle

I think it is particularly insulting to arbitrarily give a swath of associates sub-par reviews when you need to bloodlet -- especially since the system is set up to reward sub-par work. The levels of redundancy built in are not meant to produce stellar work, they are designed to produce detailed work that takes many, many billable hours (eg partner chats up client, assigns task to midlevel, who punts to junior, junior drafts, checks, rechecks, midlevel redrafts, checks, rechecks, partner redrafts, junior weeps at 2am trying to decipher partner's markup etc). Slowly (because it is 2 am and assoc. is tired) rechecking work that has been done by 2 other people is not training, it _is_ poor performance, but it's in the interests of the firm to have assocs do things over and over again...slowly....so they bill more. I think the firm telling _you_ you are an underproductive associate under these circumstances is spectacularly hypocritical, since it is the organizational structure of the firm (ie not results driven, billable hours driven) that encourages associates not to be productive.

IF I SAY SOMETHING IS ABSURD IN CAPS LOCK, I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT.

--55 impersonator

Nice work Mystal.

Does it rhyme with "crystal" or "Cristal"?

do single moms with three jobs have time to post on blogs and analyze the ethical and philosophical dilemmas (and underlying economic principles) surrounding their life situation? I think this blog proves that associates have too much time on their hands and like to whine

72 - nice generalization

It strikes me that some of us partners need to take paycuts. If we can't provide our associates work, well, then there is either something wrong with us or hard for our clients.

I, for one, think I have an obligation for the kids that toil for me.

53, You really don't get it. Associates more than pay for themselves, and some partners do not. Partners let associates go when they could acknowledge that their poor forecasting skills lead to not enough work, or they could take a pay cut. Guess which one they pick? The take on much less of the risk, and get much more of the reward. If you do not see how having many people at the bottom who contribute more than they take, in the hopes that they will be winnowed to the top, to make more than they contribute, is a pyramid scheme, I cannot help you.

44: dude, you seriously fell off a turnip truck or something. Your only moral obligation is to kiss some partner's ass. Looks like you'll be needing it.

74's reasoning: Partners take paycuts -> PPP of the firm goes down -> PPP shows up in AmLaw rankings -> law students see the AmLaw rankigns and think the firm is shit -> smart law students go to other firms -> Firm gets shitty associates -> shitty associates do shitty work -> clients hate the firm -> clients stop hiring the firm -> Said partner loses his job

74- wow, can I come work for you? I dream of the day when I am referred to as a "kid" as opposed to a "worm" or "piece of lint"

I want to work with 74. I hope 28 gets fired and then feels satisfied that his firm made the moral decision.

Having been a BIGLAW associate for some time now, I have to say that we are an incredibly self-centered, whiny, self-serving bunch. The vast majority of Americans have a much harder life than us and all we do is complain in our little bubble. Get a bunch of BIGLAW associates together and what will the topic be? Complain, complain, complain.

Look around, we are lucky.

having said that = NYC to $190k!

Questions about law firm economics:

Doesn't every associate who bills over, like, 1500 hours make money for partners?

Isn't a dumb, high-billing slug especially profitable?

The excerpt from the article says "winnowing out unproductive lawyers." It is presumptuous to think that this refers only to associates. There have been several reports of de-equitization and undoubtedly "unproductive" partners feel significant pressure to look for better fits for their books (such as they are).

As for law firms being families, if you really believe that, you suffer from sever cranio-rectal inversion. Law firms are NOT families and have not been since the 60s. These are big businesses, don't let the corporate structure fool you.

Associates typically have little control over their destiny early in their careers because they rely on partners to provide the work for them to do. That said, if you are in school, make sure that your future employer has enough work for you and your peers. If you find yourself in a large summer class and the associates in your group have enough time to attend all of the events and don't appear too busy (or are otherwise fighting to make hours), you should have second thoughts about your future with that firm and its ability to provide you with enough work.

81: only to the extent that they don't make mistakes, that clients don't complain about them, and that they are content to toil in the dark recesses of some massive project where they are out of sight, out of mind.

77, this is 74. You are entirely correct in the way it works. I want to be able to look myself in the mirror each morning. Last time I looked, I wasn't in danger of starving.

Clients never complain about associates do they?

64: Morally, why does the partnership owe its shareholders (the partners) a lesser duty than the board at Ford owes its shareholders? Are you saying that morality is defined by the potential consequences -- the derivative suit in your example?

But, if you don't like the Ford example, try this one:

Does the owner of an art galler (owner +3 sales people) owe his employees a duty to protect their jobs in an economic down-turn? If enough customers came through the door over the last two years to justify three salespeople, but the down-turn reduced traffic to where two could easily handle all of the customers, does your small business owner have an obligation to keep the third person on the payroll? Or does he have an obligation to himself, his family AND HIS OTHER EMPLOYEES to pare back and try to make sure they can still pay their bills?

And for those of you suggesting that partners should take a hit rather than fire associates, how much are you talking? 5%? 10%? 50%? Where do you draw the line? Where does your morality meet the amorality of economics?

77, if you and other law students are looking at the AmLaw PPP Rankings in deciding where you'd like to work as an *associate*, there's no saving you. "I want to go to the place where I have to work the most hours for the same salary as every other firm, so that the partners at my firm can make the most money off my back." I'll give you this: you've got just the bootlicker mentality some partners love.

I second # 87 - if PPP is what you're looking at while you're a junior, you're a lost cause

86: Good points, for the most part. Morally Ford doesn't owe its shareholders a greater or lesser moral duty than a partnership owes its the partners- however Ford's actions are constrained by corporate fiduciary law. (Quick note: if you haven't taken corporations class in law school, we can just stop this b/c you won't get it). Ford cannot legally make the moral choice to accept a decrease in profits because its first duty is to maximize shareholder profits. If the corporation cannot legally act morally, is it still immoral? Good question, and a bit "above my pay grade." That's why I said "yes and no." But certainly different from a law firm's situation.

A law firm is not constrained by corporate fiduciary law - it is a partnership and can therefore choose to accept less in terms of profit maximation in exchange for other, soft benefits, such as taking care of associates during a temporary economic slump.

There's really no need to get into your art gallery example. An AMLAW 100 law firm is just not comparable in any useful way to a small business of 4 people. At a firm where partners are making in excess of a million dollars a year, if they take even a 25% pay cut (which they won't, and don't need to) the partners and the firm will not be in any genuine economic danger. They will just be slightly less wealthy - though still very wealthy. Obviously, not so for a small business owner.

I third #87. It's like all the 2Ls who constantly ask about the partnership track during interviews. The vast majority of associates either can't or don't want to make partner -- what makes you the exception? The smart move is to have your exit strategy planned before you even start interviewing, and go to the firm that will make your eventual exit the smoothest.

meow

59 - What lifestyle are you talking about? If partners saw the lifestyles of average associates, they would be sickened and confused about how associates don't have better based on what they are paying. That's mostly because they are ignorant, egotistical morons.

There was a time, not long ago, when a 10-year-old boy could head to a neighborhood fair, get his face painted like a Halloween zombie and blurt out something utterly inane to a local TV news correspondent and nobody would ever think about it again. Oh, there'd be an audience that night, much of which would chuckle and think "Whaaaaa?" But that would be the end of it.

42: Kalamata (sp?) olives ARE black.

If you are some fancy oliver expert that wants to delve into the various sub-genres of black olives then be my guest, but the post was botanically accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive

The fruit is a small drupe 1–2.5 cm long, thinner-fleshed and smaller in wild plants than in orchard cultivars. Olives are harvested at the green stage or left to ripen to a rich purple colour (black olive). Canned black olives may contain chemicals that turn them black artificially.

Take THAT, you twit!

Guys at my high school used to fire unproductive associates all the time. It was no big deal.

Hey Lat (or Sophist or whatever group of chimpanzees is running ATL at this time): Why don't you do a posting on goverment lawyers and whether they're happy (DOJ, SEC, etc.). Ask about money, hours, interesting work or not, that sort of thing.

Oh, 89. you are very naive. I bank a large number of partners at a number of very high profile and profitable firms and let me tell you, about 50% of the partners (and 90% of all partners who have been partners for less than 5 years) would be in serious financial trouble if their pay went down by even 15%. It is only those partners at the top who have enough put away to weather the storm.

Hey 51,

You wrote:
"48: If Ford can't sell all the vehicles it's making, does it have an obligation to a) continue to produce excess vehicles and b) keep the excess production-line workers on the payroll until it can sell those vehicles?"

No, it has an obligation to make better cars. Not fire the assembly line workers, after blaming them for the inability to sell cars.

I second 96 -- actually, I would like a discussion of all the possible exit strategies -- in-house counsel, small firm, government positions (each of them specifically -- DA, AG, DOJ, etc.), non-profit advocacy group, etc. Maybe spread them out and every few weeks highlight a different option and have people comment who have left biglaw to take such a position.

Personally, after 4 years, two biglaw firms, and slaving for many different partners, I've come to realize that the boss is the biggest factor in my satisfaction at any given moment. So, I would like to see a discussion of where to go where the training is good and you're treated like a human being -- i.e., your late-night efforts are appreciated, you're allowed to say you have too much on your plate, if you schedule a vacation you can actually go, and you're given more responsibility than a 3 year old.

97, it's not my fault partners spend like they think the status quo will last forever. The house of cards will tumble, and the idiot partners who bought houses at the peak of the housing bubble will have to pull their kiddies out of private school. Ha ha, so sad. Their ability to plan about parallels their ability to manage.

I completely agree with # 99. That would be a far far more useful series of postings than those Asia chronicles crap

Can we have an open thread about starting your own BigLaw firm? If Wachtell did it in the 1960s, then why can't we?

I'm serious.

It's stories like these which really shed a lot of light on why people choose to go to midsize shops. If you truly want to be a lawyer and develop a practice, you can actually do that as an associate at a smaller place. The exit opportunities out of the big boys are better, but rates make developing a practice from scratch almost impossible, unless you are fantastically connected to the Fortune 500 or a complete all-star in the courtroom.

# 96, 99, 101: maybe you should paying a bit more attention. ATL tried something like this a few weeks (months?) ago and it received almost no one's attention. Of course, if I remember right, it was a series of posts about non-Biglaw jobs for JD's, not exactly on exit-strategies, so maybe a new sales pitch would be more successful.

104: you're right, but the posts focused on non-legal jobs that prefer JDs, and, quite frankly, they were totally useless. "Legal recruiter" and "law school administrator" are hardly jobs, much less positions you can take in order to advance your career as an attorney.

How about more Hope Winters?

#105, fair enough... just sayin'...

-104

105:

Plus, this nonsense about 'which firm do I go to if I want to learn' has to stop. Even at some very bad shops, there are senior attorneys that you can learn from, whether that be positive teaching, or negative 'don't ever be like this person' example.

Do some firms foster this environment more than others...? Sure. But this has been said over and over again, and I'm starting to understand it more and more. This blog is being overtaken by law students, many of whom do not heed the biglaw cries of current associates. Law students believe that if they go to place a., they will be a cog in the machine, but if they go to place b. their legal minds will be fostered and they can parlay the biglaw experience into some other type of practice.

TOO MANY LAW STUDENTS HERE. YOUR BIGLAW CAREER IS WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT. IT IS LIKE BOOT CAMP, NO ONE ENJOYS IT. BUT YOU CAN MAKE IT OUT AND STILL BE SUCCESSFUL!

(I can write in caps too, I've been told its for effect).

And right now, regardless of where you go, the economy blows. Even the most gentle lawyers are under pressure. Teaching is not their top priority.

78 and others: the real reason the firms can't cut back PPP for associate salaries is because their rainmaker partners (esp. those in highly profitable areas like PE, Securities, White Collar) will then take their book of business to the firm across the street (which will gladly pay him/her more).... and then the firm is really screwed. When cross-town laterial partner movement was rare-to-nonexistent, you could expect across-the-board belt-tightening. There was a sense, in fact, that the firm was a family of sorts. No more.
Cutty: Game done changed.
Slim Charles: Game ain't changed. Just got more fierce.

108, are you serious? Firms vary widely on the type of experience you'll get. On some level you're right -- law students constantly ask about "training," but they have no idea what it means. So, they diligently take notes on what seminars the firm offers and which ones give you a senior associate advisor -- that sh#t is meaningless.

Some firms give young associates more responsibility than others -- what helps is when the firm has some small cases that mid-level associates can essentially run themselves.

Some partners clue associates into the process more than others by including the associate on calls with the client, allowing the associate to develop a relationship with the client, and generally permitting the associate to do more than churn memos into a vacuum.

Finally, some partners are smarter, better lawyers than others. If you really think you can effectively learn by the negative -- not doing what the partner is doing -- you're highly deluded. It really helps to be able to have some control over which partners you work for. At my previous firm, if you were a superstar associate, you could seek out the awesome partners and turn away the crappy ones. At my current firm, you have no control. It makes a big difference.

Let me second as a government attorney that it would be useful to have a thread on the most common agencies people exit to (SEC, DOJ, FTC, etc.) That way we can set the record straight that it is not all sweet peas and berries over here --

108: let me tell you something you may not know about life: after 80 or so years of it, the overwhelming majority of people cease to exist.

The older guard may have seen the law as some sort of boot camp where law professors harass you, fellow students demean you, and older partners take advantage of you, but this generation is smarter, faster, and cooler. The Internet has leveled the information asymmetries that allowed older generations to engage in predatory behaviors, and people have started to assert their rights as human beings.

Now, I realize that the law isn't an easy profession, and that young associates don't always deserve their big bucks and shouldn't feel entitled to them, but you'll be gosh darned if you think that the answer to these issues is an assertion of authority, a vulgar display of it. Instead, I suggest you learn to behavior like a decent human being, and to elevate the rest of your game, rather than becoming an apologist for all that is miserable and grubby in our Fortune 500-serving existence on a rock curving arcing round an indifferent sun.

110 -

108 here. I will not ask that you call out your firm, or prior firms(s). But what you describe in your post about the level of involvement in any given case can be easily achieved in most mid-level shops on day one.

The comments stating the biglaw is a pyramid have a point (to a limited extent). There must be some level of churning and burning for a Top 50 firm to survive. Younger associates must perform these tasks.

I am surprised to hear someone (ostensibly in a biglaw top 50-100 shop) state that assocaites had control where they wanted to go. It seems more likely that 'allstar' associates worked with partners that 'made it rain.' They had a choice because the partners wanted them on important files (or exposed to important clients). These people were future partners.

Why should a company be more beholden to their shareholders than their employees? The employees are the ones that actually do the work that make allow the company to sell its products or services. Shareholders just sit around and collect dividends. I know that a company needs to keep its shareholders happy for the most part, but sometimes it seems like its more important to get an extra few cents a share than it is to keep from laying off employees.