In reading Cerriere's Answer, I was struck by the line " . . . if, by class, we mean the amount of economic control you have over your work." (Seems to be almost the same as the "pawn your license" critique.) I found this definition remarkable because it turns on its head assumptions about class as a descriptor of purchasing power, political clout, or relationship to industry/productivity.

In some ways, when we graduate, we get to pick our "class" in that we can decide how much control over our work we will maintain. My friend's argument was that biglaw associates produce consumable goods (memos and briefs) at an hourly rate, a better argument seems to be that they are not part of the upper class because they maintain no real decision making authority over how their time is spent or their work is used.

It isn't, necessarily, an all or nothing proposition. There are places between hanging your own shingle and Cravath that offer various degrees of autonomy. And, perhaps servitude is a more comfortable place for the risk-adverse. Nevertheless, as the firms continue to throw goodies in our face, it is interesting to think about whether they are inviting us to partake in the consumption of them, or whether we, as associates, are like the servants Veblen talks about who work to show off the master's wealth but who do not truly have any of their own.

-- AdamCarlis - 27 Mar 2008

I'm not sure the "if by" you point out in Cerriere really makes much difference for the classification you imply when you say that one class is the "capitalist/ruling/upper." There are all sorts of classifications, and I think that (say) purchasing power and control over one's work shouldn't even be considered on the same continuum (just as some would probably argue for purchasing power and blue-blooded breeding).

Dictionaries talk about "socioeconomic" classes but I think there's a great case for splitting them and leaving you with the less remarkable idea that fresh biglaw associates are of a high economic and (by virtue of their jobs, at least) mediocre social class.

-- DanielHarris - 27 Mar 2008

I find that issues raised thus far are especially important to our class as, predominantly, future biglaw associates. I argue that to focus on big law associates as people who, "Are like the servants Veblen talks about who work to show off the master's wealth but who do not truly have any of their own," is an unecessarily narrow view.

It may be true that the average fresh associate straight out of CLS at a V50 firm does not "control" his or her work as would a senior partner at the same firm. I doubt this is a controversial point. However, the scope cannot necessarily be a focus on one associate vis a vis one firm. Instead, one must look to society strata in general to identify "control".

A large and immediate salary, as well as "prestige" to some degree, is an instant invitation to a degree of social and economic "control". Yes it may be hard for a first year associate to pick which private equity deal to work on, but that same associate has a degree of consumer choice and capacity for consumer consumption that very few outside of the upper strata of the socioeconomic order are able to harness.

I echo Adam's point that there is definitely grey area in this discussion of social class. However, to have a real discussion of servitude and control, one must not just look within the legal profession and must, instead, accept a wider scope for argument's sake.

-- AdamGold? - 27 Mar 2008