Goodbye Firm

-- By MichaelPanfil - 15 May 2009

Introduction

A few months ago I attended a conference hosted by the group Building a Better Legal Profession. BBLP billed itself as a grassroots organization, made up of law students with a common goal in overhauling the legal profession. I was immediately interested in the group – like many here I see the system in its current state as unsustainable. The conference focused around a simple premise – the current firm model is detrimental to associates, and a vocal, student-led movement is needed to end the current system. Of course, I agree with the sentiment, but agreement in itself is not enough. Since the conference I’ve asked myself, is this my cause, and if it is, does BBLP provide an avenue towards that goal? If it does, what are the means towards this end?

Is this my cause?

During the conference I assumed my interest in BBLP’s goal. The system as it exists limits what one can do, incentives and mandates long hours (and the mediocre efforts that come from overwork and exhaustion), and generally provides little to no substantive training in how to develop into a better lawyer. The question of adopting this cause was not on my mind at the time of the conference, and only arose several weeks later, when a friend asked, to make sure I was still planning to work in public interest after graduation.

The point my friend may have accidentally made is interesting. Is this really my cause, when I intend to choose a different career path? Am I truly interested in working towards changing something I have no vested interest in? At root here, is an issue of interest. Why don’t I want to work in a law firm following graduation? I believe the answer lies in the way they operate. If they did provide a level of training, I would be more interested. If a law firm provided real pro bono, encouraged throughout the firm, I would be more interested. If a law firm encouraged growth, rather than long hours, it would still function – perhaps not at the same levels of extreme profitability for a select few, but it would provide an environment where gains could be made outside a bank account.

Wolf in sheep's clothing

BBLP’s mission statement, to overhaul the legal profession can be read in two ways. Is this overhaul a restructuring and repair job, or is it a complete change? The former is potentially far more detrimental than if the group didn’t exist – posing as an organization committed to full-scale change, it would do nothing of the sort. Minor changes could potentially be made, and firms, operating under this guise, could claim they are of a new and improved variety – far more user-friendly and employee-concerned than before. In reality, little would change. This type of path has been taken before. Pro bono was initiated in response to concerns, but now operates in many law firms as a façade, with hours spent on pro bono not counted towards billable hours, and firm culture discouraging too much work towards the public good. Work-life balance issues have likewise been addressed with specious programs – part-time that is available to only very few, vacation time that exists in name only, and free car services home after 8 pm.

BBLP seems to address this concern. The system in place is fundamentally flawed, and these programs that exist in name only are part of the recognized problem. However, this is a question that needs a constant reminder – working with BBLP in the future will involve an awareness of the duality in the ways the mission statement can be read. So long as members work towards the latter choice, rather than cosmetic changes, real change and a complete overhaul of the system will be the goal.

How does it work?

With cause intact, and group intent found, the next question is how BBLP can best reach its goal. Knowing the goal – to fundamentally change the system in place by asking for real experience, transparency, work-life balance, and diversity – is important. However, equally important, is figuring out how to obtain this goal. I’ve heard, from the classroom to the newspaper, that this is in some ways a moot point. The system is unsustainable, and change will occur. However, institutions work towards self-preservation, and a grassroots effort designed in opposition to bad practice can help, at the very least, in speeding the overhaul along.

Data creation and providing opportunities to hear personal law firm accounts seem the best ways to accomplish BBLP’s charge. With data creation, metrics can be created on not only firm ‘happiness’, but also rankings – showing how many hours associates actually practice pro bono work, actual vacation days, and how many hours a week are spent teaching. Surveys can be created to show what level and type of partner to associate training occurs – measured both through interactions and self-reported assessments. If a reliable ranking is established firms will have to take note. They will be measured against their peers, and the impact would hopefully be similar to that of salary accounting (when a top firm increases their salary structure, others follow suit).

Providing a forum for personal law firm accounts is another way to accomplish the same goal. Bringing in associates to talk about their lives – the type of work they do on a day-to-day basis, the hours they practice, and the pro bono they are involved in, will help in separating reality from fiction. Rather than reading vault guide praise and bias, BBLP can help to shed light on the reality of the situation – that a degree is exchanged for a high paying factory-esque job in a line. Spreading this type of awareness creates, an impact at the most important level – the soon to be firm employees. If the reality of the option is exposed, and students demand a change (and, with this new knowledge, know what change we seek), law firms will have to change their model – the alternative will be insolvency.

Word Count: 998 (not counting headers) Why aren't you counting headers?

• I think this is an interesting essay, but I'm not sure exactly what its purpose is. Are you speculating about the future of this student group? Are you asking whether law firms can be restructured by pressure from prospective associates? Are you asking how to crowd source data more useful to prospective law firm juniors than the existing placement materials? Are you inquiring whether you should expend energy on student agitation over law firm working conditions in view of the fact that you don't want to work in a large law firm? Each of those questions is suggested or raised by the draft, each (with perhaps the exception of the last) might require 1,000 words to discuss fully, and all cannot be addressed within the scope of a coherent essay. I think the route to improvement is the clear definition of thesis and a resulting focused outline.

• If you are considering focusing on the proposition that law firms can be restructured by pressure from prospective associates, let me just point out the relevance of what you don't say, that this is the worst job market for prospective large-firm associates in three generations. The full breadth of the reorganization of the market in corporate and financial legal services has not been glimpsed yet. The firms are restructuring, and the partners who own them are rapidly trying to adjust to an extremely complex and primarily unfavorable situation. Most of their best choices involve radically reducing the size of their firms at the lower end, because leverage now works against them. Prospective employees seeking to bargain with them for more autonomy or a larger proportion of revenue-consuming to revenue-producing work will not have much clout. They will get heard precisely to the extent that they misunderstand the situation thoroughly enough to assist the partners in rebuilding their profits at the associates' expense, and not otherwise.

• If you are considering writing about the future of the student group, you might want to ask what course of existence you anticipate for it if the employment picture at large leveraged firms continues to deteriorate.