I agree, Adam -- just keep in mind that "input" (specifically, as you suggest, into the types of cases and clients the firm takes on) and "control" are not really the same thing. Input can make you feel like you've got a measure of control, but that doesn't mean you really have it.

-- BarbPitman - 30 Mar 2008

But "control" is one of those things that, once given up, clearly separates you from those in the decision making process. There is a difference between a firm where lawyers - even new ones - have input into the types of cases and client the firm takes on and those where lawyer - even experienced ones - are given assignments.

Once you make a habit of giving up that control, it is easy to be viewed ask, for lack of a better word, someone of a lower class and, therefore, significantly harder to regain it.

-- AdamCarlis - 30 Mar 2008

As I said, I wanted to take Adam Gold's comments in a little different direction. I frequently hear students disappointedly comment about the "control" issue. Yes, the prior conversation was about control as it relates to elitism, but I think the connection is misguided -- the control issues in law firms, in my opinion, reflect not social elitism, but economic protectionism. And whether one feels in "servitude" is immaterial, I think -- whether you are an associate "serving" a partner, or a partner "serving" a client, technically, everyone in the firm is in servitude. This may sound strange, but my husband, who has been at a large Midwest firm for almost 25 years, with 17 of those years in a partnership position, would echo what I'm saying here. And don't get me wrong -- my husband loves his job, but I don't think he feels that the level or quality of the servitude in which he has been engaged has changed much over the years -- any notable change has been in the identity of those to whom he is in direct service.

In sum, in many ways, law firm associates, with their educational level and income level, are part of the elite -- they just aren't as elite as those higher up on the letterhead. Of course, everything is relative, but say that to anyone who works in a law firm and who doesn't have a law degree.

Then again, I think the "ruling class" (distinguished from the "elite") is, if you are just talking about the economic ruling class, arguably composed of those who do not need to work for a living. To how many of us in the CLS 2010 class that currently applies is unclear. To how many of us it will apply later in life is also unclear.

All this by way of saying, based on the realities of law firm life that I've seen and heard about over the years, I don't think Veblen's theories are a very relevant overlay. But if you disagree, then "have at me" again -- I appreciate your comments -- they push my thinking on this.

-- BarbPitman - 29 Mar 2008

If I understand him correctly, Adam Carlis' contention was that because of the nature of the law firm structure, young biglaw associates can't be categorized as members of the ruling class, as Veblen and Robinson understand it. I tend to agree with Adam Gold, that a more nuanced understanding of the social strata - that takes into account issues like the social perception and desirability of the work - would seem to place biglaw associates in the upper crust, despite working conditions that might seem more like servitude. Either way, the normitive assertion that associates shouldn't have more freedom, seems, in my opinion, somewhat irrelevant. No one meant to say that associates deserve better or that they shouldn't be grateful for their positions; rather, the idea is to engage Veblen as a way of understanding how those positions fit into our social strata.

-- JuliaS?