Over at Ms. JD, a first-year biglaw associate discusses a meeting with law firm partners about work-life balance. The partners' view was basically, "Your starting salary is obscene, so don't complain to me about balance."
To me, the most interesting part of the post is that she describes law firm partners as "angry" about the ever-increasing first-year associate salaries. It seems like it's a vicious cycle that nobody wants to be in. Law firms think they have to keep raising salaries to compete for top students. Students aren't going to turn down extra money for doing the same job. But the point isn't that students are getting more and more greedy -- it's that to get them to choose based on the firm without factoring in money, the salaries have to be equal. Whether they're equal at $160,000 or $135,000, where they were just a few years ago, I don't think matters much to anyone.
Last year, I got to discuss the same issue with a managing partner at a law firm. (The dynamic was different because, unlike the author of the Ms. JD post, I hadn't already signed on with the firm; if the partner I spoke to was angry, I doubt he'd express that to me.) I told him that I was suspicious when I heard about another salary hike, because I expected that would mean increased pressure to bill. He said that, in fact, the firms just passed the costs on to their clients. "How do the clients feel about that?" I asked. He explained that, just like the pressure to increase salaries to keep up with other firms, there's also pressure to increase billing rates to keep up. If your rates get below market, clients think they're getting cut-rate service and perceive you as a "discount" firm. "But is that sustainable?" I wondered. That's where he shrugged and said, "We'll see."
Even though my starting salary will be market, I expect to make less at my firm than I would elsewhere because I've heard that bonuses are not at all guaranteed and are far less generous than at other firms. But that's fine, because I'm still making plenty of money and it seems like my firm is a place where attorneys make time for their families and outside commitments.
I would love to see firms competing on work-life balance rather than on price. We're always hearing about how the current generation coming out of law school cares about balance at least as much as money. How about offering basically a reduced schedule, where you make $125,000 and bill 1600 hours? Or increased vacation time (and a policy of encouraging people to actually take it), or periodic sabbaticals (maybe not as generous as colleges, but something like a continuous month off at the end of five years with the firm). The 1600-hour option would be incredible -- if firms routinely offered that, I would have had far less hesitation about becoming a lawyer in the first place.
10 comments:
My billing rate as a first year associate at a big law firm just went up on jan. 1 from $215 to $320! Boy, those clients are getting screwed! But, seriously, they keep telling us they don't bill out all of our time, so maybe this is a way to compensate and not lose quite as much money on us? In any case, I agree about everything here, although, that $25,000 pay raise before I walked in the door was much appreciated, if unearned.
I completely agree. I wish firms would stop raising as a way to "compete for the best students." It's ridiculous- if you all do it, you're not distinguishing yourself, and article after article talks about how our generation is looking for balance. Paying me $160,000 will ensure that I have a Very hard time finding precisely what I want in a firm. I would love multiple tiers where I could choose to bill 1600 and get paid 80% without the potential stigma of being "part time".
I have great hope that my firm, above any other firm I looked at, will work out for me, but I hate that I'm going to be walking into a job I think I'll like already looking for exit options. I just don't see how I can bill 2000 hours a year and raise my family the way I want to do it.
I love your idea on work-life balances as incentives. I really hope I can find a law firm that allows me to balance work with family obligations!
I'm just a little bitter that there's such a disparity between "big firms fighting for the top students" and the rest of us. My starting salary at Mid-size Firm? $40K. And I'm still expected to bill 2000 hours. Why is no one fighting for me? Why is having good grades absolutely indicative of being a good attorney? Of course, this doesn't apply to the top schools, but if you aren't in the top 10, you might as well be in the bottom 10.
Proto Attorney, that's a really good point -- firms are so worried about recruiting, but meanwhile they're ignoring a huge swath of law students solely based on the prestige of their school.
Proto: I totally agree that it's ridiculous. In the same law.com newsletter I'm reading about a top NYC firm actually firing associates because they aren't expecting 2008 to be a good year, and an article about murmurings that there might be yet another raise to $180K to attract "top students" - combine that with a complete lack of correlation between "top students" and "top lawyers" and it just makes no sense at all. How can all these firms need to compete so much when there are so many students graduating from other law schools (and all passing the same bar) without jobs at all.
Basically, the hiring process is all messed up and no one will think just a teensy bit outside the box to change it.
I agree with everything you said. And this paragraph:
Even though my starting salary will be market, I expect to make less at my firm than I would elsewhere because I've heard that bonuses are not at all guaranteed and are far less generous than at other firms. But that's fine, because I'm still making plenty of money and it seems like my firm is a place where attorneys make time for their families and outside commitments.
makes me wonder if you're talking about my firm. :-)
I read the Ms. JD article and I've heard these BigLaw guys talk and I think the Ms. JD poster was dead on with what they really think. "Let's just throw money at them and see if all this balance shit goes away." They figure the people who really want the money will stop complaining about the hours.
I know somebody who works at a big firm, and they're now offering paid 4 months of maternity (instead of paid 3 months previously). I think the big firms are trying to advertise themselves to perspective female associates as having a work/life balance even if this doesn't actually exist. They're trying to lure people in with high salaries and "benefits." (Note: I have yet to meet a first-year associate who has taken all of his/her vacation time for the year)
Everyone makes good points. Most firm associates are unable to take all of their vacation time. I have friends that do it, but bust their buts billing 2700 hours the rest of the year. Yikes.
Firms only want to pay lip service to part-time and alternative work arrangements. A part-time attorney at my firm (who is not a mother - yes, men are left out of this one) would have a stigma that such attorney is not interested in her career. It's sad.
Post a Comment