Comments on: Should Law Firms Compete on More than Salary?

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 05:06:45 +0000

Very interesting article. I posted on the same group of students over at my blog, The Legal Scoop (www.thelegalscoop.com).

As a law student, I expect to be working long hours when I first begin practing. However, I also expect the law firm that I work for to be “Family-friendly” and to understand when I need to miss work for important life events, etc. I think that most law firms today, based on coversations with others, are becoming more family-friendly…

I enjoy your blog and keep up the good work!

By: anon

anon — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:00:41 +0000

Edward Swaine has the right idea. The answer is that transparency is pretty awful within groups of firms. If firms simply posted the actual number of hours billed per associate in each department (or provided ranges or 75/25 numbers), that would go a long way toward helping the market eliminate the inefficient firm hopping that goes on a year or two down the line. Of course, if you’re working for a big firm in NYC, you should expect the worst, and if you work in a small town, you should expect the hours (and sophistication of practice and the amount of pay) to be less. There is a large area in the middle, however, and even among firms in NYC there is some variation that is non-trivial. Some mid-range cities expect NYC hours because they work on deals opposite NYC attorneys. Students don’t realize that coming out. Better transparency for more than just salaries and minimum and/or average billable hours would be very helpful.

By: Edward Swaine

Edward Swaine — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:27:42 +0000

I think the students are trying to do to things: the first is to induce change by persuading firms to sign on to a set of principles (e.g., we will move toward transactional billing, to the extent possible), and the second is to promote transparency (e.g., make work expectations clear).

Unfortunately, I think the principles are so soft and aspirational that they’re not of much value; students deciding between firms based on whether they’ve signed up will be doing themselves a disservice, because it won’t be revealing much about what firms genuinely do.

The transparency aspect may be more meaningful, and is also more consistent with the desire to have diverse options (and is what would enable the students to vote with their feet, as Mike Madison puts it). I’d prefer to see more effort put into producing disclosure of that kind, to the extent the market isn’t providing it, or at least requiring more tangible pledges.

By: Mike Madison

Mike Madison — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:02:58 +0000

My first law firm job featured a partner who had only one piece of advice for a new lawyer: “It’s a service business.” So count me among those without a lot of sympathy for the students. Is there some flaw in the hiring market here that shields would-be law firm associates from true knowledge of the horrors of big firm billable-hour life? Is there some flaw in the market for law firm services that prevents law firms from billing and servicing clients in something other than six minute increments, 24/7? If law students want to “refirm” the way that law firms do business, don’t cajole hiring partners. Vote with your feet, and find a different job.

By: David

David — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:24:36 +0000

Geoff–I think you’re taking Frank far too literally there. I don’t think he ever implied that some central authority should be determining the metrics on which law firms should and should not compete. He’s just exhorting young associates to consider more than just the sticker price of first year salaries when making their decision on where to toil away while paying off their student loans.

There’s so much hysteria surrounding salaries that Frank is just asking everyone to look behind those salaries a bit and consider other things.

So relax, Geoff. Take a deep breath. No one is going to touch your precious markets.

By: AF

AF — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:19:24 +0000

Geoff, I think you misunderstood the post. Nobody mentioned government intervention or centralized control. Rather, they’re trying to persuade people and firms to change their preferences. I don’t see the free-market critique.

By: geoff

geoff — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:50:47 +0000

Yes, "let" law firms compete on more than price. "Let" them compete on whatever dimmension they want. "Let" some of them locate in more desireable locales. "Let" some of them be big, some small. "Let" them make minimum billable hour representations that differ from each other. "Let" them offer more or less secure tracks to partnership. "Let" them offer all sorts of other perks like gourmet lunches and health club memberships. "Let" some offer flex time. "Let" A&P differentiate itself.

Oh, wait--we already "let" them all do this. There is competition out there along pretty much every dimmension you can imagine, and all without the specific authorization of the UN, the Interstate Commerce Commission or anyone else.

The mindset that suggests that even vigorous competition must come at the direction of some central controling authority is, Frankly, mindboggling,