Christina, Thanks for providing concrete examples to what I suggested above -- nothing like getting to the heart of the issue in a given context so that you know exactly (or almost exactly) what you are getting into.

-- BarbPitman - 29 Jan 2008

Just a side note regarding the “mommy track”: I interviewed with a woman who was about 8 months into her pregnancy with her second child. When I asked about her experience as a mother + attorney, she warned me to find out the specifics of any given firm’s maternity leave policy and part-time work policy. She said most firms like to skirt the issue with “we have a GREAT maternity leave policy and we also have GREAT part-time work arrangements.” In reality, however, maternity leave usually consists of a couple months off only to find that you’re about 3 months behind in what you have to do and part-time work entails working about 10 hours fewer/week at half the salary. She now works at Greenberg Traurig and says they have “real” part-time options; she gets into her office around 10am and gets home for dinner and also has time to take her daughter to ballet class. Also, I think Kirkland & Ellis gives you 4 months maternity leave (which I think is still not enough time to spend with your newborn, but it’s considered very generous in this field). I don’t know how many people are interested in this issue, but I hope this helps!

-- ChristinaYoun - 28 Jan 2008

While the article is addressing firm-life, I didn't mean to raise this issue simply in that context. As far as I understand, many jobs in government and public service tend to demand more hours than in the private sector. The comments about the effects of outsourcing in this area are good ones. I have spoken with a few female attorneys who are optimistic about the prospect of maternal plans, etc. that they think their legal employers are moving towards - both firm and non-firm employers. Indeed, it seems that this trend will be affected by the increase in outsourcing.

-- CarinaWallance - 27 Jan 2008

Some comments/observations that tie into some of what you are discussing:

(1) The bigger the client, the more likely the client will simultaneously use several of the top firms in a given community, divvying up the work by practice area. This way, if and when litigation time comes, the bigger firms with the most litigation expertise will already represent them and can't represent the other side. A combination of disablement and utilization going on here.

(2) Some practice areas are highly sensitive to political swings. It is always a strength for these practice areas to have several Repub and Dem attorneys on the rolls who are savvy about political connections.

This may sound crass the way I've presented it, but I'm trying to be candid here. Think about these angles, because in one way or another, chances are they will impact you.

-- BarbPitman - 26 Jan 2008

Two thoughts/observations that tie into some of what you are discussing:

(1) It's already the case that the bigger the client, the less likely the client is to consolidate its work in one firm. Companies and governmental entities often find ways to simultaneously hire as many of the prominent firms in a given community as they can, usually divvying the work by area, so that, if and when litigation time comes, all the big firms represent them. Companies basically utilize several firms continuously for different types of work so as to both disable the layer of firms with the most litigation expertise from representing the other side and to utilize that expertise.

(2) The type, nature, and quantity of cient bases in a number of practice areas is highly senstive to state and local election swings. It helps these practice areas to be composed of both Dems and Repubs who are savvy about making political connections.

These points probably sounds crass the way I've laid it out, but I'm being candid here -- take it the way you want, but realize that it exists.

-- BarbPitman - 26 Jan 2008

Cartelization drives up prices a great deal. 5:1 would be unsustainable if firms competing for clients would lower the bill, or firms competing for associates would raise their salaries. But it's in the right ballpark if the firm adds that much value to a lone associate's work.

What drive up the bill:salary at firms are the economies of scale (or is it scope?) that firms create:
(1) legal support (including paralegals, associates, subscriptions and management) --> lower overhead per attorney.
(2) clients (who consolidate legal services into one firm, and stay for the long term) --> a free client base for associates to pass through
(3) reputation (which, to those clients paying for black-box legal services, is the total value a lawyer's work)
(4) larger firm size --> more fertile network to cross-pollinate ideas

(A)Technology and globalization will change the nature of our clients.
(B)These forces, and new political pressures, will change their legal questions (our work).
C) These forces will change the structure of our firms.

RE (1): Legal support will get hardest hit: paralegals, then Wexis, then associates. Associates altogether will add less value to the partners. The pyramid will TAPER. But does that mean firms, with fewer associates, will need to lower associate attrition to replace the same number of partners? Will each associate be paid more?
RE (2): Will clients prefer less to consolidate their work in one firm? I wonder--have firms used requirements contracts? Either way, I think the CLIENTS enjoy an economy of scale (or is it scope?) by unloading all their problems in one place for all time.
RE (3):Will clients have fewer black-box legal problems, lowering the value of lawyers' reputations? (black-box = not of easily measurable value)
RE (4) Will lawyers make their knowledge more freely available, so that other lawyers can benefit without compensating them? I assume this cross-pollination is most implicated by Eben's vision for the future of intellectual property.

-- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008

Carina, thanks for that article. I also found this one in the “related articles” section relevant to our class discussion about legal outsourcing to India. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/business/27law.html?fta=y

I must admit that I am somewhat skeptical about the extent and speed at which Eben believes legal work will be transferred to India. It’s not that I think his argument doesn’t make sense (employing equally skilled lower wage workers reduces costs and increases profits), it’s just that I don’t think that law firms operate in a very competitive market.

From my relatively uninformed and obviously biased perspective, I think the U.S. law firms basically exhibit cartel-like behavior. The ABA makes becoming a lawyer extremely expensive: an undergraduate degree, 3 years of law school, being admitted to the bar, for instance. By limiting the number of lawyers, the price for their services is artificially inflated. That’s why legal advice is prohibitively expensive for most people.

Firms also bill clients several times the amount they pay out in associate salary. I think someone in class mentioned a 5:1 ratio. Such margins would be unsustainable in a competitive environment. In addition, there is virtually no price competition between firms. That’s why every firm in New York pays $160K for a 1st year associate.

It’s my impression that firms don’t respond to market pressures very aggressively. I would bet they will be slow to outsource, just as they were slow to introduce alternative work arrangements.

-- EdwardNewton - 26 Jan 2008

I was being sarcastic guys (by referring to the attorney community as "poor and exploited") - sorry I made that unclear, I have to remember that this is a conversation with people who don't know me.

-- MakalikaNaholowaa - 26 Jan 2008

• Well played mate, however I think he was being sarcastic. =)
  -- TheodoreSmith - 26 Jan 2008

Carina, I assume that you are interested in balanced work hours because you are interested in having a family and assume that you will be sharing or shouldering the caregiver duties and logistics. As the article indicates, many firms offer various versions of lower hours for lower pay with (usually) less job security, and women are often interested in these mommy track options. My suggestion would be to note while you are summering at a given firm just what its official mommy tracks are, how many women are engaged in those tracks, and where they are in their tracks. Although "big firm" is usually stereotyped both generally and by community, keep in mind that each firm, practice area, and partner has its own culture and internal and street reputation, along with its own tolerance of or acceptance for alternative work options. Note the partner/associate ratio in a given practice area, and note whether and how many attorneys hold themselves out as practicing in more than one area. To you, it's the individual people who make the difference -- so use those lunch "chits" and other social opportunities to get to know others and figure out how you can fit in, be a part of, and add to that culture. Best wishes.

-- BarbPitman - 26 Jan 2008

The concern is the working condition of big law attorneys?

Over the past decade or two, firms have drastically increased starting pay as well as the number of hours required. There are very few (if any) other jobs where the entry level position pays $160,000 (not including bonus). If you don't want to earn that amount of money, you are free to find a firm that pays less and has a lower hours requirement.

Depending on the firm and the practice area, these attorneys seem to work something like 60-70 hours per week. Many salaried positions require something similar. Retail management comes to mind as an example.

Aside from the hours, big law work seems rather comfortable: you spend your day reading and writing in a climate controlled office. You get to sit in a chair. There is no risk of physical injury.

"Poor exploited attorney community?" Perhaps I am misunderstanding you/missing something.

-- SandorMarton - 26 Jan 2008

Thanks for the link!

It seems like workers get improved worker treatment either when the government steps in to require it or the employers must to ensure that supply of workers meets their demand. I can't see legislatures stepping in to help the poor exploited attorney community anytime soon, and it seems like outsourcing is going to move the supply/demand issue in the firms' favor. So how does that effect the future of efforts like these, to achieve better working conditions for us at firms in the next 5 years? Can't be good...

-- MakalikaNaholowaa - 26 Jan 2008

<--/commentPlugin-->

-- CarinaWallance - 25 Jan 2008

I just saw this article in the New York Times yesterday and thought it might be of interest (I figured not everyone is as devoted a NY Times Style section reader as I am!). I don't know that its completely relevant to a lot of the issues we've been discussing, and as a Style section piece surely somewhat less serious - which is why I am posting it in a new topic. But the issue it raises is one of balancing work hours which, whatever area of law one goes into, is certainly a major issue in such a demanding profession - one which already concerns me on a daily basis as a first year law student. I would be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/fashion/24WORK.html?ex=1358917200&en=47