...Or, Assuredly, We Shall All Hang Separately
The WSJ Law Blog is reporting that a group of law students calling itself Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession has sent an open letter to BigLaw firms asking them to commit to four principles bearing on work-life balance. The letter is here. The organization’s website is here.
The principles are:
1. Making concrete steps towards a transactional billing system
2. Reducing maximum billable hour expectations for partnership
3. Implementing balanced hours policies that work
4. Making work expectations clear
I’m curious about people’s thoughts on this. According to their letter, some of the participating students are from Boalt. If you’re reading this, can you fill us in?
I do have some initial reactions of my own.
First, as some of my previous posts have reflected, I’m a little bit of a skeptic about the billable hours end-of-the-world-ism that we hear so much of. Interesting that neither of the two main student organizers of this push is on their way (at least not immediately) to a firm job.
Second, even if we take for granted that work expectations at big firms stand in need of remediation, what should we make of these students’ approach? At first blush, it seems like students at prestigious law schools are an obvious constituency to push for reform, since firms are trying to recruit from our demographic. However, there are real problems with law students as a constituency for any kind of serious advocacy. One is that we don’t really know what we’re talking about, because we haven’t been in that world yet. The other is that we’re such a transient population.
Because we are only law students for a short period, we have little institutional memory and little capacity to exert sustained pressure. This is a problem for any student population, but especially acute in law school, since the window is so narrow: we’re usually pretty pre-occupied for at least the first part of the first year, and most of us have committed to a firm by the middle of our first semester of the third year, at which point both our leverage and our sense of membership in the relevant population diminish.
This transience is also what makes us vulnerable, in my opinion, to outrageous prices for thinks like graduation regalia, textbooks, bar-review courses, LSAT prep materials, and so forth. I also happen to think it’s part of what makes us unsuited to edit professional journals.
What do you think?
The principles are:
1. Making concrete steps towards a transactional billing system
2. Reducing maximum billable hour expectations for partnership
3. Implementing balanced hours policies that work
4. Making work expectations clear
I’m curious about people’s thoughts on this. According to their letter, some of the participating students are from Boalt. If you’re reading this, can you fill us in?
I do have some initial reactions of my own.
First, as some of my previous posts have reflected, I’m a little bit of a skeptic about the billable hours end-of-the-world-ism that we hear so much of. Interesting that neither of the two main student organizers of this push is on their way (at least not immediately) to a firm job.
Second, even if we take for granted that work expectations at big firms stand in need of remediation, what should we make of these students’ approach? At first blush, it seems like students at prestigious law schools are an obvious constituency to push for reform, since firms are trying to recruit from our demographic. However, there are real problems with law students as a constituency for any kind of serious advocacy. One is that we don’t really know what we’re talking about, because we haven’t been in that world yet. The other is that we’re such a transient population.
Because we are only law students for a short period, we have little institutional memory and little capacity to exert sustained pressure. This is a problem for any student population, but especially acute in law school, since the window is so narrow: we’re usually pretty pre-occupied for at least the first part of the first year, and most of us have committed to a firm by the middle of our first semester of the third year, at which point both our leverage and our sense of membership in the relevant population diminish.
This transience is also what makes us vulnerable, in my opinion, to outrageous prices for thinks like graduation regalia, textbooks, bar-review courses, LSAT prep materials, and so forth. I also happen to think it’s part of what makes us unsuited to edit professional journals.
What do you think?
Labels: Legal Culture
posted by Isaac Zaur at 10:05 AM
7 Comments:
I'm skeptical of the projectm, but I do agree that the billable hour is a questionable way of delivering services.
A few problems. Billable hours inherently incentivize overbilling. A lawyer doesn't need to be unethical to lead to overbilling, and I'm not alleging fraud. I'm merely suggesting that billable hours encourage litigating every minor issue and never cutting off research, fighting, etc.
I have a hard time thinking of any service that is delivered under only one payment model. I hope that during my career my firm will discover, innovate or implement other billing methods. One that I think should be more widespread: a victory bonus. The beauty of the contingency fee is that it makes the lawyer's livelihood depend on the client's success. What if a firm used a lowball hourly billing rate (to minimize costs in the event of a loss) with a big bonus for victory?
None of these will reduce the number of hours at work for lawyers. Top-notch professional services, be they cooking, banking, lawyering, butlering - they take time. That's where I think the students miss the mark with their pleas. But I do think there are lots of things in the legal profession that could be experimented with and improved.
The reaction by WSJ and ATL to the project is decidedly skewed: big law is humming along just fine, and these crazy kids out there think things should be different.
But in fact, if you talk to friends, read the articles, and look at the #s, big law is NOT doing fine -- it is hemorrhaging mid-level associates, prompting a talent drain and ridiculous staffing where you have 2 1st years and a partner on a case. Anecdotally, I understand many Bay Area and LA firms are trying to respond with more flexible part-time arrangements, mentoring, better training, etc. But the rest of Big Law seems to think the solution is to throw more money at associates -- nothing else -- and they'll quit leaving. But this is only going to attract more people into the profession who just want th paycheck for 2-3 years and will be even more anxious to depart.
So if the net result of this project is that a bunch of law students can collectively scream: Fucking work us a little less and pay us less accordingly, we're fine with that trade!! -- then maybe Big Law will hear and fix its own problem.
I'm not sure you can fully appreciate the insanity of biglaw unless you are doing it.
I graduated from Boalt last year. I am basically in a biglaw firm and I think I realized in the past few weeks that if this is the pace that I must maintain to get to partner, I will not make it.
I'm not a whiner. I have pitched in on projects big and small. I have slept in the office. I have cut my christmas vacation abroad to four days. I almost missed my spouse's birthday for work-related travel.
But when you wake up, eat in the car, get to work, eat dinner at work, and then if you're lucky, finally get to go home to your SO/dog/cat/apt whatever--well, a few weeks of a life like that in a year in which you're already going to top any billable assignment someone would give you, it makes you think long and hard.
I can honestly say that I have never worked harder in my life than I have in the past few months and I'm not a slacker.
I appreciate Anonymous 6:37's comment, especially the first sentence. I've been very mindful in the past few months of just how unable I am to evaluate--in advance--"the insanity of biglaw." I absolutely believe that you are a disciplined, dedicated lawyer, and I believe your description of your experience. But it's very hard to know how it will feel for ME. I guess that's what strikes me as so weird about having law students speak up on this subject: how the hell do we know?
Does everyone already know about this memo? It was written by a bunch of Clifford Chance associates in response to Vault survey that ranked their firm last in associate satisfaction. I admire its detail and particularity. The authors sound to me as though they are completely sincere and know exactly what they're talking about.
Can we drop this whole "you have no idea" bullshit. Maybe 25 years ago, students didn't know what they were getting into. But with blogs, surveys, novels, manuals, friends, significant others, summer experiences, hard numbers, parents, career offices, newspaper and magazine pieces, and mentors all sharing their experiences, I think we have a pretty good idea. In fact, I'm quite certain what's about to go down. So I have no problem commenting on it in advance. Yes, maybe none of us knows how we'll RESPOND to it -- but I have a pretty good idea of what the EXPERIENCE will be like.
I heard the same shit about going into 1L year -- "you have no idea." But it turns out that the common tropes -- LOT of reading, initial confusion, high-pressure tests, awkward classroom moments, transitioning into a more manageable pace -- turned out to be just about accurate. I said to myself, "That doesn't sound so bad." And that's pretty much how it worked out.
Also don't forget that many of us worked in high-pressure jobs before law school. Or is a law firm somehow commonly divorced from a consulting firm or an i-banking firm or a high-pressure journalism gig or a job on the hill? This ain't our first rodeo.
Not saying that makes it easier. Just saying we've got an idea of what it's about and a right to start bitching proactively.
isaac - on your transience issue, check out EP THompson's Making of the English WOrking Class
7:20 - i think "how you'll respond to it" IS "what the experience will be like." and that is something you can't know until you get there.
Further thoughts on the student memo:
I think I can put my finger on what's funny about the memo - the idea that the students have some role in deciding how a law firm governs itself.
They don't work there. The students who posted don't appear to intend to work there (neither going into a law firm). But most importantly, a law firm is owned by its partners. While no one likes the kids who takes his ball and goes home, it's his ball.
If a law firm's partnership doesn't want to take these steps, it doesn't have to. Graduating from Stanford or Boalt does not entitle one to a job in a successful & profitable law firm. These partners own the firm, they want to turn a profit, and if not meeting criteria 1-4 are how they choose to do it, fine.
There are other law firms out there. Many smaller local firms have diminished work expectations in exchange for less pay. So do government positions (JAG for one: mandatory hour of exercise three days a week as part of work!).
If these things would actually make a law firm more competitive and profitable, a firm will eventually begin advertising these qualities to its recruits. I am suspicious, however, that a "balanced hours policy" is simply not as profitable as dedicated (i.e., life-consuming) lawyering.
I shared some ideas in re: to point 1, which I think is a good one. I hope that wherver I work will adopt such policies, or perhaps I'll do what most law school graduates did decades ago - start my own law firm. I think I'll get some experience (and hopefully clients) first, but entry into the legal industry is easier than most any other market.
[Post-script: talented classmates, keep this mind seven to ten years out...]
Post a Comment
<< Home