Herewith a short but concise history of the twisted path that has led to billing by the legal hour, and the consequences of its tyranny.

During the 1800s, US legal fees were capped "per service" by state law, and litigation fees were usually paid by the losing party.  Some lawyers were able to collect "bonuses" or charge retainers to circumvent the limitations of capped fees. 

In 1908, the ABA declared contingency fees to be ethical, which opened a new source of revenue at least for litigation matters.

By the 1930s and 40s, however, the nature of legal fees was set on its head: what had been a capped system turned into a base system.  State bars began publishing minimum fees, in most cases providing that those lawyers charging less than the minimums were to be punished.  Similarly, the ABA Model Code, which stayed in effect until 1969, declared it unethical to "undervalue services."

Helping fuel this change in attitude was the expansion in 1938 of the Federal (and many states) Rules of Civil Procedure, which made litigation potentially more complicated and therefore also less amenable to flat fees.

Over time lawyers complained that dentists and doctors were out-earning them.  A 1958 ABA pamphlet contended that lawyers were bad businessmen in comparison to other professionals, the remedy being to better track time and to keep more detailed records.  That pamphlet also suggested that lawyers work 1300 hours a year-- or 5-6 hours @ day, five days @ week in a 48-week year.

In 1975, the Supreme Court, outlawing both the capped 1800s practice and the base system from the 40s, held that set fees for legal services constituted price-fixing, and was a violation of the antitrust laws.  In response, by the late 1970s, most lawyers charged for their services based purely on hourly billing.

In 2001, the ABA asserted that too much emphasis was being placed by firms on billable hour requirements, which was leading to bill padding and general inefficiency, as well as damaging firm culture.  This time, the ABA recommended billing expectations of 2300 hours annually, composed of 1900 hours billable to clients plus a total of 400 additional hours for: firm service (100 hours), pro bono (100 hours), client development (75 hours), training and professional development (75 hours) and professional service (50 hours).

Those expectations translate into a total 9-10 client and other hours @ day, five days @ week, 48 weeks @ year.  The standard guideline for billable hours is that it takes approximately 10-12 hours to bill 8 hours.  In which case, to achieve the ABA expectations, lawyers would be expected to work 12-15 hours daily.

In April of this year, a group of more than 100 law students from several of the nation's most prominent law schools--Yale, Stanford, NYU, Berkeley-- sent an open letter to law firms on the AmLaw 100 requesting that they improve working conditions at law firms.  Students Building A Better Legal Profession called for law firms to reduce billable hour requirements and to make their billing expectations of attorneys clear.  The group offered to exchange lower salaries for fewer hours. 

The group also promised that prior to the fall recruiting season it would post a list of firms that have and have not agreed to these principles.

Touche.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Should lawyers “do the right thing” in addition to “being right”?  

A favorite cartoon depicts two lawyers at a desk evidently discussing strategy. One lawyer says to the other: “Is it right?… Is it fair?  Get a grip, Carlton—we’re a law firm!”

Integrity

In an interesting study issued recently, the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence found that financial advisors who demonstrated high levels of “moral and emotional competency” nearly doubled the S&P 500 return on their client portfolios in the years 2001 through 2004, delivering an average return of 25%. 

Of the various attributes studied, integrity had the single strongest impact on client returns. “Results showed that Integrity was the key behavioral competency which predicted the most positive returns for clients." 

Integrity was defined as acting consistently with what one says is important, in other words “walking the talk.”  An example was an advisor willing to give up a lucrative client rather than compromise his/her principles, such as ultimately recommending that a client seek advice from another advisor because the advisor could not in good conscience implement a plan believed to put the client at significant financial risk.

Ethics

In the process of updating his 1996 book The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time-Based Billing by Attorneys, William George Ross determined that lawyers in 2007 are significantly more likely than a decade ago to pad their bills with unnecessary hours or bill two clients for the same time. Almost 55% (up from 40%) of associates and partners surveyed report performing unnecessary work, and 35% (up from 23%) say they bill two clients for the same time. The number of lawyers who believe double billing is ethical also rose from 35% in 1996 to 48%, and more than two-thirds of lawyers say they have specific knowledge of bill-padding by others.   

Morals

In a May 2, 2007 Law.com article entitled “From Moral Partners to a Moral Firm”, Gregory S. Gallopoulos, the managing partner of Jenner & Block, suggests that the integrated enterprise model that many successful law firms are adopting now, in which strategy and vision belong to the entity as a whole rather than to individual partners, risks producing a vacuum in the area of firm morals. 

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In connection with the 129th annual International Tradmark Association meeting in Chicago, Ronda Muir, Senior Consultant, presented a program on Wednesday, May 2, at Robin Rolfe Resource's Women's Power Breakfast for seventy senior corporate and law firm women in intellectual property.   Her presentation focused on what makes lawyers, and women lawyers, different from other professions and how to use those differences to make good lawyers better.  This year INTA welcomed over 8,500 registrants from around the world.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Do we have a deal?  An easily-missed recent entry in the legal press noted that DLA Piper had decided to award the latest round in starting salary increases to entering associates in only one practice area--patent litigation.  The article noted that patent litigators often have science and engineering degrees and that clients are willing to pay premium billing rates for these services.  DLA's co-managing partner for the US, J. Terence O'Malley, said the move was in response to "listening to the marketplace."

Partner compensation at law firms usually differs depending on seniority, origination, productivity and whatever else goes into the formula, and individual compensation arrangements, at least for a trial period, are often negotiated with lateral hires, including associates.  According to an Altman Weil Survey, however, nearly 2/3rds of firms with more than 100 lawyers have some sort of lock-step feature by class for associate compensation, and that proportion must approach 100% when it comes to first-year associate entering salaries. 

DLA's small step is remarkable in several respects.  Given the traditional associate compensation structure, hiring entering associates at varying salaries, particularly in this competitive recruiting environment, is a real departure.   This proposal must have provoked lengthy discussion at DLA about whether, regardless of its usefulness in snagging more patent types, the move would also turn off high-quality associates not interested in patent litigation.  Isn't DLA saying that some associates are more valuable to them than (most) others? 

But if there is premium billing to be had, why not pay premium compensation?  There is something to be said for sharing the wealth with the associates who are doing that work.  It's just that that is not how law firms have reasoned in the past.  Call it a "professionalism ethic," or maybe something else, but there has been a widely-recognized premise that at least all young lawyers in any given firm are created, and paid, equal. 

Further, for a law firm to have gone through the process of officially determining that some corporate legal services--in this case, bet-the-ranch patent cases-- are more valuable in the marketplace than others, and that they are going to pursue those, is notable, the critical word being "officially."  Firms have long been able to bulk up bills in areas where they own the field, using an implicit what-the-market-can-bear standard.   What is the client's alternative? 

But this announcement publicly acknowledges parsing the demand for legal services in a way that law firms have traditionally not owned up to--we intend to take advantage of the demand for a specific type of particularly profitable work.

The correlation drawn in the article between premium billing and the associates' salaries makes it look like DLA's analysis was based on the old-line cost-of-production concept--since we will charge a higher hourly rate for this work,  we can afford to pay these associates more as well and still retain our profitability margins.  But in fact, these facts can also support a newer type of value pricing-- we can pay these associates more because this work is worth more to the client, regardless of how much time it takes to perform. 

This announcement may also be part of a shifting in the wind away from the convergence rage. There has been much made of the convergence trend among corporations, no doubt the brain-child of a legal consultant hoping to reap the law firm M&A bonanza that the announcement of such a trend has in fact put in motion.  But this bit of DLA's market analysis, if true, may put the lie to the contention that  firms should do it all.  IP boutiques have in part managed to ratchet up hourly rates because of the uniform nature of their hotly-demanded business.  In short, they are the antithesis of the general service law firm and they are profiting from that status.  Large law firms, burdened with years of the convergence message, currently sport a blended, averaged or standard-per-class billing rate that applies to both more and less profitable work.  

According to last year's survey, 28 of the AMLaw 100 law firms shrank in size.  All but two of those also improved their RPL.  For example, Akin Gump shed 25-30 lawyers as they found asbestos defense work to be increasingly commoditized and price-sensitive.  That  move raised RPL nearly 5% for 2005.  Managing Partner R. Bruce McLean noted that  "In the 1990s we tried to build a national firm, and we grew from 450 lawyers to 1,000 lawyers."  The firm now has 794 lawyers.  "Since 2000 we have tried to focus on doing what we do well, so we can compete at the top of the market in those practices."  In other words, they are no longer trying to be all things to all clients.

DLA's move looks to be in response to clients who, at least in this particular patent litigation area, want the best in the business, wherever that is, and further, whatever that costs. 

Where this type of reasoning could take law firms is wide open:  carefully drawn billing rates (and salaries) that differ among practice groups, and possibly even among types of work within practice groups, as well as over time, all based on the latest market analysis.

Regardless of whether DLA's analysis is right, the important step taken may be in their acknowledging publicly, however quietly, that engaging in this process, "listening to the marketplace" and then attuning your firm's economics to what you hear, is a respectable way to run a law firm.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir, Esq., Senior Consultant at Robin Rolfe Resources, was featured as a speaker at a conference on Risk Management for the Modern Law Firm, sponsored by ARK Group. The conference was held in Chicago on April 17 and 18, 2007. 

Muir's presentation was on the risks that arise in managing a law firm's greatest asset: its people. She pointed out the ways in which lawyers are different from all other professionals, the challenges and risks that those differences pose to management, and how to use those differences to make good lawyers better. 

Participants raved:

• "Innovative, new information!"
• "Excellent, new material of real value.  I would love even more detail and time on this topic."
• "Great presentation!" 
• "Great speaker!  Knowledgeable and forward thinking."

ARK Group also lauded Muir's participation: "Your involvement was pivotal to the success of the program… and brought a fresh perspective to the agenda."  

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An extraordinary and convincing vision of a revolution in big law's future was presented by Mark Chandler, SVP and General Counsel of Cisco, in a speech in January at Northwestern School of Law's 34th Annual Securities Regulation Institute.  I would like to join other legal commentators in paraphrasing Chandler's comments and commending him on his far-sightedness.

Driven as are other GCs to realize productivity improvements in his department, Chandler is committed to reducing Cisco's legal expenses as Cisco gets bigger.  Chandler points out that information, a law firm's stock in trade, will only get easier, and therefore cheaper, to access over time.  Already standardized on-line legal data is available, with residential leases and individual tax returns now largely done by software.

But even Cisco's first tier corporate legal work is being drilled down to a cost-effective, accessible product.  Contracts are drafted, executed and archived by employees using on-line software. Cisco pays a fixed fee for patent prosecution and intends to pay at least 5% less each year, requiring its firms to find ways to lower costs.  It also pays a fixed fee for the review of license offers, which Baker & Botts has been able to make profitable by developing a more efficient systematic approach.   In the corporate secretarial area, Cisco has replaced a group of outside firms with a one-firm solution that aims for a 20% reduction in legal expenses in part by using standardized forms and open interfaces. 

In litigation, Cisco has a fixed fee arrangement with Morgan Lewis to manage all of its US commercial litigation, which has made litigation avoidance the firm's key goal, aligning perfectly with Cisco's interest.

Counseling will be the next frontier, Chandler believes, as online tools like tax counseling via www.taxalmanac spread to other legal areas, such as export regulations, human resources and employment and eventually securities law compliance.  Cisco is already working with eight other Fortune 500 companies and a number of law firms on a site called Legal On Ramp to allow direct access to search law firms' knowledge management systems.  See www.legalonramp.com.

And in each instance, what was novel in Cisco's legal management strategies five years ago has become more commonplace among its peers today and may well eventually become available for purchase as packaged software.

The current law firm business model, according to Chandler, reflects a fundamental misalignment of interest between clients who are driven to manage expenses and law firms compensated by the hour.  Clients are not in the market of buying time, he points out, but value.  The current system not only mis-serves clients, but also the lawyers themselves, particularly associates, who Chandler says are beating down his doors because they don't want to work for law firms any more--enslaved by a billable hour-based compensation system that is inefficient in producing a valuable product and that offers them little chance of making partner.

Chandler recognizes that law firms are currently profitable as structured.  Clay Christensen of Harvard Business School calls large American law firms "the most profitable businesses in the world.  Speedier information-gathering capabilities allow large law firms to increase utilization of less experienced lawyers without passing cost savings on to their customers."  But Chandler is convinced that the very source of success for firms today--the ability to control client access to expertise, requiring 1:1 delivery--will be the source of their failure in the future.  It is top quality boutiques that Chandler is betting will change and survive, and it is in Cisco's interest to help make them profitable while doing so.  Chandler views slower-moving, cost-heavy large centralized firms to be at risk. 

"If the economic system of law firms is frustrating to associates and even some partners, I can tell you that from the standpoint of a metric driven general counsel, it is more than incomprehensible.  It looks like the last vestige of the medieval guild system to survive into the 21st century."

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The linchpin to forging a solution to the associate recruitment/retention/compensation issue may be getting partners to acknowledge that partner profits, hotly negotiated, carefully calculated and closely compared, have to take a hit.  Accounting firms have managed to significantly lower their attrition rates and achieve strikingly higher diversity than their law firm cousins in part by sacrificing some portion of partner profits.

The Logic of Lower Partner Profits

Lower partner profits seem almost logical when today's associate pay is compared to historical ratios of partner profits, according to a recent National Law Journal article.  As a percentage of average profits per partner, the starting salary at top law firms is at its lowest level in a decade.  In 2005 new associates at 500+ lawyer firms made 11.7% of the amount partners earned, the smallest proportion over the last 10 years.  By contrast, new associate salaries at the AmLaw 100 were 15.4%of partner profits in 2001, the highest percentage over that same time.  While new lawyers at smaller firms earned a higher proportion of profits, their percentages have declined in recent years as well.  (The article notes, however, the methodological challenges posed by combining different sources of data to reach these conclusions.)

Surely no one is arguing that some set ratio should be rigorously maintained regardless of the larger economic scenario.  Or even if they are, that it could be.  Associate salaries are set for the year ahead, and are paid regardless of the legal industry's or the individual firm's profitability that year.   Partners, on the other hand, ride the wave of  what could be a banner year, like 2005, or a financial dog, like 2001.  No one asks associates for money back when the firm's economic projections have turned out to be too rosy, and few would argue that associates should be entitled to the same degree of additional compensation that partners realize in an unexpectedly good year.  So the variations cited above may well be left as just that-- the vagaries of profitability.

The general consensus is, anyway, that without any further ado the gap between associate salaries and profits per partner will narrow over the next few years as a result of an anticipated plateau in overall law firm profitability, which is being negatively impacted by the escalating race for qualified law school graduates, among other things.  See our February 20, 2007 entry "The Looming Associate Crisis and What It Means For Your Firm."  Salaries will have to rise for firms to stay competitive and partners will be the ones who finance them.  Simpson Thatcher, for example, the firm that started this latest round of raises, will, because of those raises, reshuffle approximately 2% of the firm's anticipated net profits for 2007, or at least $8 million, to its 520 associates, for a minimum contribution of $50,000 per equity partner.  And there is no anticipated increase in demand for legal services.  In fact, there are credible arguments that the legal business, like nearly every other industry, may well see a concentration of demand and streamlining of delivery over the next decade or so.

The Necessity of Lower Partner Profits

But still firms may have to contemplate even lower partner profits.  Hiring associates and keeping them are two different matters.  After high salaries have landed associates, it might be that only rejiggering the traditional law firm business model can make them stay for what seems to be the increasingly unattractive partnership prize.  Higher associate salaries put more pressure on productivity and hours, exacerbating precisely the quality-of-life issues that apparently make junior lawyers so unhappy.  See our February 14, 2007 entry "What All That Money Is Buying You."  Particularly for Generation Xers, Yers and beyond, the benefits and lifestyle that are their stated priorities may not only be a matter of steadily higher (and expensive) compensation, but, just as intrusive to partners' pockets, also require hiring more bodies to accomplish the same amount of associate work.

Leverage statistics often get bandied around in the discussion of associate salaries and partner profits.  Leverage has always been a two-edged sword: both an engine for producing more revenue when business is plentiful and an albatross around the neck when business turns south.  Interestingly enough, according to the (possibly skewed) NLJ statistics, over the last decade, law firms of all sizes turned out to be the most highly leveraged in some of the least profitable years-- 2001 and 2002.  But the kind of leverage we are talking about possibly evolving is the worst of both worlds-- leverage that produces no more additional revenue and, once again, higher expenses.

So it is partner profits that will suffer.  This is a difficult pill to swallow.  No one likes to see their compensation heading south, least of all the lawyers in your firm making the most money, i.e., those with the most seniority, the highest productivity and the strongest ties to clients:  the very ones who may well be billing more hours than the associates whose salaries they are being asked to subsidize.  The pundits say that firms will continue to raise either associate hours or hourly rates before they ask partners to pony up.  The alternative is too risky.

Firms are Already Lowering Partner Profits

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A number of corporations are taking steps to restrict which of the associates at their outside firms work for them, according to the Managing Outside Counsel Survey Report prepared by the Association of Corporate Counsel and Serengeti Law of Bellevue, Washington in late 2006.  In some cases, corporations specify that only attorneys with at least five years of experience be assigned to their matters.

Given the billable-hour fee structure that most firms retain, if such requests become a trend, it could play havoc with the traditional law firm business model. Currently, firms hire three times or more the number of associates that the firm expects to stay, immediately putting those young associates on clients matters in order to push down less complicated work, provide training and make a proving ground to determine who should stay and who shouldn't.  OK, let's admit it:  and also maybe sometimes to plump up some of those thinner bills.

If clients start demanding only more senior lawyers on their matters, the high cost of young associates would immediately become much higher, since it would be even longer before they could reasonably be expected to produce a return on the firm's investment in them.

Of course, one way to counter such a trend would be to use a more carefully calibrated hiring process that relies less on "where ever the outstanding offer chips may fall," and more on knowing the best fit for the firm.  We at RRR advocate the use of culture and personal style inventories as a way to fully understand your firm's prevailing attitudes, values and attributes and also to identify the areas where it needs to grow or broaden.  

Aggressively pursuing those candidates who meet that profile not only results in spot-on hires more likely to contribute from day one, but also produces a mountain of "I'm special-- you really-really-like-me" feelings in your incoming class that could make even Sally Field shed a tear, and also produce the kind of we're-made-for-each-other associate loyalty that not many firms currently enjoy.

Targeted hiring should then be followed by an equally targeted training program of the sort that few firms currently offer.   Information gleaned from the inventories would make this training much more efficient, so as not to necessarily require more time.   We at RRR also offer targeted associate training in the areas of understanding the business of law, professional performance and career development, business development, client relationship management and communication, among others.   

Together, these two strategies--targeted hiring and targeting training-- are likely to produce young lawyers who are valuable to clients and profitable to their firm.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There is an associate recruitment and retention crisis looming for which there are no easy solutions.

Supply and Demand

Law schools continue to graduate 40,000 students a year, as they have for the last 20 plus years. The AmLaw 200 law firms have been steadily hiring an average of 4%+ more associates each year, resulting last year in an average incoming associate class of 50. That means that AmLaw 200 firms now hire about 10,000 new associates a year, or about 50% of the graduates from the top 100 (hardly the Ivy League elite) of the nation's 200 law schools.  

Every year the number of associates those firms will be trying to hire will be higher.  And the competition from hedge funds and investment banks offering attractive alternatives will increase.  Not far along the horizon is a point when nearly every associate in the top half of every law school, whatever the law school, is likely to have several high-dollar offers to choose from.  Which means many firms will be left with fewer incoming associates than they want, or certainly fewer of the caliber they are seeking.

The Starting Salary Piece

As day follows night, associate salaries are rising.  Entering associates are now earning $160,000 before bonuses at the largest law firms across the country (essentially the same that federal district judges make), thanks to Simpson Thatcher’s opening volley. Starting salaries (not including bonuses) at firms of 500+ lawyers are thus up 130% since 1994, with the annual rate of increase averaging more than 10%--significantly above both the rates at firms of other sizes and the average for all firms (6%). And with each new class's salary increase, the salaries of associate classes up the ladder must also be increased.

The Profitability Piece

One estimate is that this year's salary bump will result in an average hit to partners in big firms in the range of $40-70,000 per partner. But that is hardly where the impact on profitability stops.  Until this year, associates were usually not profitable until their third or fourth year.  Higher salaries stretch that time out even further.  With average associate attrition rates at big firms pushing above 20% annually, culminating in 78% of associates leaving by their fifth year, firms have less and less time to recoup their initial recruiting/training/salary/overhead investments in associates, let alone realize a significant profit.  

The graph showing the curves of how long it takes to realize a profit on associates and how long they are likely to stay make it clear that these two lines are coming perilously close.  What used to make for good document review/bill plumping fodder may start looking more like loss leaders in the business of looking for good lawyers who will actually stay.  It has already been noted that we have reached a state where partners often bill more hours than their associates.  How does it  feel to be working for those you supervise?

What's to Be Done?

The traditional solutions are few and running out of steam.

As always, billable rates can be raised, banking on good evidence that at least some clients will pay whatever they have to to get the best legal advice.  But there will be some clients insisting that their rates be reduced or hours written off while others may simply leave. 

You can try to recoup salary increases by raising billable hour requirements. But given the current associate sentiment about billing, ratcheting requirements up runs the risk of ratcheting up attrition rates as well. See our February 14, 2007 entry "What All That Money Is Buying You."

Recruiters may have to become modern conjurers, ranging broader among law schools and deeper down classes, looking for the proverbial gem in the rough.  Medium and smaller law firms may have to change recruitment strategies altogether.  Some have already publicly declared themselves to be out of the business of hiring first-year associates, like Philadelphia's Kleinbard Bell & Brecker, or recruiting at national law schools, like Pittsburgh-based Tucker Arensberg.  Instead, they will wait for those associates to come to their firms after they've spent a few years at larger firms willing to bear the cost of training them. 

The dire truth is that what ultimately may have to change is the current law firm structure, and possibly in several respects.  See our upcoming entry "Leaving Behind the Medieval Model."   And the fallout may include the hardest pill to swallow:  a reduction in the high profitability that partners have long enjoyed.  See our upcoming entry "The End of Profitability As We Know It?"

There are ways to read your firm's tea leaves and then progress toward a new vision, cognizant of the prevailing hiring and retention realities.  Is your firm taking the steps necessary to survive the looming associate crisis?

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The legal industry's current strategy for hiring and keeping lawyers seems to be to throw more and more money at them, a strategy which has succeeded to date in producing unprecedented attrition and dissatisfaction rates.

Major law firms around the country just upped the ante for hiring a baby lawyer to $160,000 @ year, before bonuses, or roughly what seasoned federal judges in our country make.

Why more money?

Jack Nusbaum, Chairman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, says "We expect our associates to work hard… maybe this will make them feel better about the Saturdays and Sundays."  

Has anyone taken note of the American Bar Association survey conducted just this past November?   Of the 2,377 respondents (most of whom were between 26 and 35 and had been practicing law for five years or less), 84.2 percent said they'd prefer to work fewer hours for less money.  More than 30 percent would like to work 20 percent less and said they'd give up between 25 and 30 percent of their pay in exchange.  The next largest group-- 27.8%--would settle for a 10% cut in hours.  Did you get that?  Associates would prefer to give up proportionally more money for incrementally less work.

So are we paying these high salaries--surprise!--for the clients? To show them that our firm can attract the best players?  

"When I saw the announcement about the raises, I said ‘Oh God,” says Michael Roster, executive vice president of World Savings, a subsidiary of Wachovia Corp.  But maybe not for the reasons you would expect.  Salary raises mean law firms will put more pressure on associates to bill, but paying more for legal services, Roster says, is less bothersome to him than associate turnover.  He says he and other general counsel prefer to work with associates with whom he has a history and who know his business well.  "It hurts when firms can’t keep qualified people.”

“From my standpoint, I would view [lowering billable hour requirements] as a creative and enlightened way to reduce associate turnover and keep the best and brightest young lawyers,” says Barry Nagler, who chaired in 2006 the Association of Corporate Counsel’s board of directors.

Susan C. Robinson, associate dean for career services at Stanford Law School, also thinks that lowering billable-hour requirements could be a great recruiting tool, particularly for attracting lateral associates.

There is no question that firms are struggling with the phenomenon of associates not wanting to work as hard as generations past.  Many studies indicate, in fact, that partners often bill more hours than their associates, turning the law firm pyramid model topsy-turvy. 

And attracting and retaining associates over the next decade may be even harder. The standard characterization of “millennials”—those who graduated from high school after 2000 and will be graduating from law school starting in 2008--is that they are unwilling to compromise life and family for work.

The obvious hit from reducing billable hour requirements would be to partners' bottom lines.  See our upcoming entry "The End of Profitability as We Know It?"  But there are some countervailing tactics that can help improve profitability.  Ida O. Abbott, former partner at Heller Ehrman White and McAuliffe, contends that billable-hour requirements could be lowered without cutting partner profits if the change involved more planning and better management.  And law firms have not yet even begun to explore the types of management strategies that have produced the super-sized profits recounted in the newly released Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose by Rajendra Sisodia, David Wolfe and Jagdish N. Sheth.  See our January 31, 2007 entry "Firms of Endearment."

Steve Susman, whose 85-lawyer Houston/New York litigation firm Susman Godfrey gave 2006 associate bonuses of up to $125,000, contends that "Any lawyer who is unhappy with their compensation should check into a mental institution."

Based on the adage about the mental state of people who keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result, there may be a few managing partners who should be joining those associates there.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The 100 Best Employers

From over 400 organizations surveyed, five law firms, down one from last year and with most of the survivors heading down the list, made Fortune magazine’s 2007 list of the best 100 employers to work for: Alston & Bird, Arnold & Porter, Nixon Peabody, Perkins Coie and Bingham McCutchen, with Morrison & Foerster having dropped off.

The list is based on two criteria: an evaluation of the policies and culture of each organization, and the opinions of the employees, which is given more weight. Two-thirds of the total score comes from responses to a 57-question survey, on attitudes towards management, job satisfaction, and camaraderie, sent to at least 400 employees from each company. The remaining one-third of the score is based on demographic makeup, pay and benefits programs, and culture.

It's a tough competition, with No. 1-rated Google providing employees free gourmet meals, a swimming spa and free doctors on site.

But apart from offering outsized bennies, there are some lessons Google may be able to offer us legals.

Hiring for the Right Reasons

Google has doubled the number of employees in each of the last three years, and now with 10,000 employees, expects to double in size again this year, resulting in about 200 hires a week. It also enjoys an attrition rate of 4%, low by Silicon Valley standards. Historically, much like law firms, Google has relied on grade requirements and interviews to make hiring decisions. The challenge is to continue to find valuable employees at such an astounding rate of growth.

A recent review of over 2 million data points made it clear that Google's hiring criteria were not necessarily correlated with success at the company. So Google has revamped its hiring process, using assessments of existing personnel to produce a more quantitative measurement of success in terms of skills, intelligence, personality and integrity. All incoming applicants will now take a personal survey, which Google is already finding produces better matches for its work and culture.

Lessons for Law Firms

Law firms with spiraling growth requirements are competing to hire from the same number of law graduates with good grades from the same number of top-rung law schools as 20 years ago. The lesson from Google, the best company to work for and possibly the hiringest company as well, is that grades and an interview don't do it anymore. Now is the time to identify your real indicators of success and hire candidates with those.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks