Biglaw

Abusive, Sexist Partners In Biglaw: Better Just Endure It!

Forget the screamers -- let it roll off your back. It's all about the money.

By  
on

What do you think about when you think about the virtues of Biglaw? Besides the money, I mean.

[Silence]

Okay, okay …

It’s the money.

But what should we make of the seemingly competing posts about Biglaw published here on Above the Law. One post’s headline declares that “If You Have The Chance To Work In Biglaw, Take It!” Another decries that “The Screaming In Law Firms Needs To End.”

Take the Biglaw job … and endure the screaming?  Why?

I wrote here that “Let’s face it: everyone who goes to law school — just everyone — longs to land a job in Biglaw, right?  You passed through law school, the first phase of the law-hazing process, and passed the demanding entrance exam to become … a lawyer! And now, Biglaw!”

Sponsored

The many virtues of Biglaw

I’ve also extolled the many virtues of Biglaw: “the leisurely lifestyle, the sense of freedom and autonomy, the back-slapping camaraderie (isn’t your Biglaw firm like that?), and the … (wait … umm, there was one more minor thing), oh yeah … the money.”

Sure, I wrote, everyone knows about those virtues of Biglaw, but are there others?

Of course: there’s the wonderful incentive to keep running faster on that billing treadmill because of “the constant cajoling and threats to ‘BILL MORE!’ and the warnings that if your hours fall below 2,400 hours, the $1,000 bonus would not be given, or you could be canned,” as well as “the wonderous mysteries of compensation” and the “kiss[ing] up to the right people” and the “fun game of hide-and-seek fun game of hide-and-seek by devising creative ways to be scarce on Friday afternoon [trying] … to be scarce on Friday afternoon.”

See? The virtues abound!

Sponsored

But there must be some downsides to Biglaw, right?

I suppose.

Maybe.

Kathryn Rubino wrote here about “screamers” at law firms, and how “it’s a form of abuse designed to keep subordinates, well, subordinate.”  She noted that “Biglaw firms (at least those that tout their culture as a benefit) love saying they don’t have any screamers. But, unfortunately, that can be wishcasting by folks in charge who have no idea what it’s like to work three floors up in a different department.”

So count the screamers as a negative — that is, only if you don’t like screamers.

“You should almost never assault associates – physically!”

Well, now that you mention it, the Biglaw firms that I was at had a lot of screamers. One partner screamed so loud and hard at associates that one was almost rendered “lame and halt,” and the partner was no longer permitted to work unmediated with associates.

In another Biglaw firm, a partner whipped a paperweight at an associate’s head — and just missed possibly killing him.  Boy was that partner given a lecture for that: “You should almost never assault associates — physically!”

White male hegemony in Biglaw

Oh yes — I now recall a post that I did:  “Sexual harassment and gender discrimination are being rooted out in every other institution, so why not Biglaw? After all, it’s no secret that Biglaw (and its national trade group, the ABA) has an unhappy history of discrimination.  Recall that African-Americans were not permitted to join the ABA until 1943. Oh yes — and gender. (The first woman member of the ABA was not admitted until 1918).  So it’s no surprise that in the age of #MeToo, white male hegemony in Biglaw is being exposed, called out, and challenged, and its Biglaw factories sued.”

Funny … guess it just slipped my mind.

Coming from an advantaged social background helps only men and hurts women

Similarly, even given the recent confirmation hearings, I somehow forgot that I previously noted an article by two professors who discussed “subtle class cues” and prior research which showed “that hiring in top professional services firms is highly skewed toward applicants from wealthy families,” and their disturbing conclusion that “coming from an advantaged social background helps only men” and hurts women.

“Biglaw apparently deems ‘higher-class women as ‘flight risks,’ who might desert the firm for less time-intensive areas of legal practice or might even leave paid employment entirely.”

Right, right… the discrimination, harassment, and misogyny.  Okat, so there are one or two negative things about Biglaw.

Nothing to see here … keep moving

But, critics of Biglaw, these things are totally unsurprising aspects of Biglaw. It’s not a particularly well-kept secret that these things are simply inherent in its structure: power, authority, submission — all of which seeks to maintain white make hegemony.  Why should this shock you or even deserve mentioning — the same thing exists in every other long-established hierarchical bureaucracy.

“It should come as no surprise,” I once wrote, that Biglaw perpetuates white male hegemony, since “it’s built into the Biglaw DNA.”

“Nothing to see here … keep moving,” I say.

The screamer is a rainmaker … he’ll pack up his ball and go to another firm

In her post, Kathryn Rubino said that “Usually this kind of unacceptable behavior is justified at a law firm because the screamer is a rainmaker and everyone’s scared that he’ll pack up his ball and go to another firm.”  Quite true, and also inherent in the Biglaw model.

As I posted here last year, “[a]s long as the profits keep rolling in, why should Biglaw care about gender equality? … Nothing must get in the way of billing, the billable hour, the almost-sacred realization rate, or profits per partner. Certainly not you, lady!”

So …

So, deal with the screaming partners — an inherent aspect of Biglaw, which must maintain partner authority.  Kathryn put it well that the screaming is “a form of abuse designed to keep subordinates, well, subordinate.”

So, deal with the “paperweight flingers” — okay, so they go a little overboard sometimes.

And deal with the sexual harassment and inequality — an inherent aspect of Biglaw, which values power relationships and misogyny over respect and equality.

Oh, One More Thing…

In mentioning the one or two small downsides to Biglaw, I forgot all about that recent post which is a counterweight to the naysayers, “If You Have The Chance To Work In Biglaw, Take It!”

As the author astutely notes, “it is undeniable that law school is extremely expensive.”  Indeed, very expensive; most initiation or entrance fees to trades or professions are quite steep.  And, therefore, he touts the biggest virtue of Biglaw:  that if you “got debt” and are “considering a career in public service, but ha[ve] the chance to work in Biglaw, take a job right out of law school that pays the most money.”

See, it’s the money!!  That’s the whole point.

He concludes his left-handed compliment of Biglaw by stating that “if you can bear deferring your dreams for a few years, the reward of financial freedom might just be worth it.”

Dreams are a lot of crap, anyway!

Takeaway

Forget the screamers — let it roll off your back.  I told you that it was all about the money.

But just don’t forget to duck when the paperweight starts flying.

richard-b-cohenRichard B. Cohen has litigated and arbitrated complex business and employment disputes for almost 40 years, and is a partner in the NYC office of the national “cloud” law firm FisherBroyles. He is the creator and author of his firm’s Employment Discrimination blog, and received an award from the American Bar Association for his blog posts. You can reach him at Richard.Cohen@fisherbroyles.com and follow him on Twitter at @richard09535496.

Topics

, , , , ,