4:42: But the solution to that problem is to get more law students to reject large law firm jobs. Nobody is forcing students to rush like lemmings to the S&Cs of the world.

You can pay off student loans very nicely on what an NYC boutique pays. You don't need to make as much as Eirc Krautheimer.

Change the students, not the firms.

Hi David.

I think (as you might expect) that anonymous has it right. I responded to a bunch of these points over at the WSJ law blog earlier today so let me copy those thoughts here to head off some of those objections--or at least inform them. Interested people should feel free to email at refirmation@gmail.com: one of our goals is to at least start a conversation about where we're all headed. As someone who gleefully reports on "Skaddenfreude", I'd hope you'd be open to thinking about the consequences as well.

1. Despite what some posters have suggested, I’m not at Stanford on scholarship or a trust fund. I’m at Stanford with 150,000 or so of debt. Most of our members are in similar situations.

2. We’re aware that the idea of law students as an oppressed class of any kind is jarring and more than a little ironic. There are, obviously, far more serious labor issues out there. But because lawyers–and particularly biglaw lawyers–are so important to the functioning of the courts and the economy, we should pay attention to what their experiences are and have been. This is particularly true when the current situation strongly disfavors gender equity in partnership, ensuring that the officers of the court do not look particularly like the society they serve.

3. Quite a few posters have made the classic libertarian response: law students and associates choose this path and they’re being compensated. Why worry?

We worry because the costs created by the billable hours escalation extend further than the firms themselves. Within the firms, there are still issuess, as noted above–they are far less diverse and humane than they might be, which has implications for how law is practiced on the highest levels. But beyond the core of NY firms with the highest hours and salaries is the upward ratchet that they operate on the rest of the profession. Witness the way the most recent round of paycheck hikes has spread.

The escalation is a relatively new phenomenon, dating back to the mid 80s. It has come with a steadily-increasing chorus of criticism, much of which we’ve summarized in our documents. Although few of the people who study the profession (and not all that many lawyers) love what has happened to their lives with the corporatization of biglaw, few have been able to break the vicious cycle of paycheck increases and hours escalation. It seems worth trying now, as hours demands work upwards of 2500+ per year.

4. Why law students and not associates? Certainly, it’s true that we do not have direct experience. It would be wonderful if associates demanded better working conditions. But that isn’t that likely. Young associates have very little market power and, due to the lousy conditions they work in, many plan to leave after a few years. Attrition is a core assumption of the system.

Law students–particularly students at tier 1 schools–do have market power, though. For better or worse (probably worse), they are aggressively courted by firms. They have a chance, then, to buck expectations and focus more on quality of life and work than upon paychecks. I think it strange that an effort to demand less money is greeted as elitist. There are other values to serve here.

5. Among these broader social values are legal diversity–billable hours escalation is a major factor behind the fact that law firm leadership remains largely white and male–and social service. Although it sounds, I’m sure, quaint to say it, lawyers are officers of the court and do carry social obligations with them.

Shamefully few lawyers meet their pro bono expectations and the hours cultures at big firms are a major reason. If we believe in lawyers as community servants–and as students, that’s a model worth hoping for–then we should see that as a crisis.

6. Finally, these principles are not particularly radical. They mirror a proposal (linked on our website) by former ABA President Michael Greco and Justice Breyer. The problems are broadly recognized. It seems worth addressing them.

We are not so naive as to think that the situation will change overnight. Law students are hard to organize and this is a problem that’s been developing for decades. But as young lawyers, we do think that something must be said.

4:42 - So why blame big law for the absent parenting. Sounds like those who choose to work at Big Law and choose to sacrifice their family life to do it are responsible for their own actions.

The problem is that law students at top schools are all prestige whores. If they could break their pathological addiction to brass rings, and go work for - the horror! the horror! - some firm that none of their classmates has heard of, they would end up happier.

Craig-

no whining.

to 4:50--yes, those who sacrifice family life for biglaw are responsible for their own actions, but their families didn't make that choice, but still suffer for it. Big law firms set the work environment, and should have some responsibility to the society they're creating. Plus, they set the tone for the entire rest of the profession.

I was a Tier 1 grad, and my school funneled people toward biglaw, without really explaining what people were in for or what the other options were. You had to really try hard to go against that tide. I don't know ANYONE who graduated from my school who works in a private firm with sane hours.

"It would be wonderful if associates demanded better working conditions. But that isn’t that likely. Young associates have very little market power and, due to the lousy conditions they work in, many plan to leave after a few years. Attrition is a core assumption of the system."

We have nothing to lose but our chains!

"Finally, these principles are not particularly radical. They mirror a proposal (linked on our website) by former ABA President Michael Greco and Justice Breyer."

Both of these people are clearly experts on the subject. Justice Breyer has been a life-tenured federal judge since 1980, and thus clearly an expert on the legal market. Before he became a judge, he was smart enough to work in academia and government, and apparently never spent a minute on the law firm treadmill. Heed his example rather than his advice, I'd say. As for Greco, it's nice to see the ABA addressing an issue relevant to the legal profession as such rather than acting as adjunct to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but asking a bunch of businesses to voluntarily ignore the market is reminiscent of King Canute.

"Among these broader social values are legal diversity–billable hours escalation is a major factor behind the fact that law firm leadership remains largely white and male–and social service."

Is the implication of this that only white males are able to handle lotsa meaningless work? I'm confused.

The whole thing as self-involved and ridiculous.

The whole thing strikes me as self-involved and ridiculous. I agree with 4:53.

Amen, Lat!

Law students and summer associates have no clue what it is like to work at any law firm.

4:42/5:00 - Fair enough,

But really, no one explained what what we were in for? really? At the very least, we do hear that life at big law will be very different than our summers there. with ATL and the internet, nowadays it's difficult to hear positive portrayals of biglaw life. we all know biglaw propoganda about respecting family life is a joke.

and also - once you arrive at big law and find out that it's brutal - then you can choose to leave. Get a job at a smaller firm. There are people at big law firms that have fine family lives. There are people at smaller firms that have poor family lives. It seems more about the individual than big law.

"I was a Tier 1 grad, and my school funneled people toward biglaw, without really explaining what people were in for or what the other options were. You had to really try hard to go against that tide. I don't know ANYONE who graduated from my school who works in a private firm with sane hours."

I find it unbelievable that you were forced or compelled to take a biglaw job. Don't like the job? Don't take it, or if you take without knowing, quit it. You graduated from a Tier 1 school. I think that a private firm with sane hours will probably be interested in you.

The S&Cs of the world are full of smart people who I imagine feel comfortable that their firm leadership decisions and business models profit them more than any other. If some law student doesn't want to work within that business model, it's their choice to go somewhere else. I live in Santa Monica, California - I can't afford the house I'd like at this point because a few other people with more money have also realized the weather can't be beat. However, I'm not putting together a petition with other 20 somethings asking all those people selling their homes for high prices to just take some pity, sell to me for less than the market commands and thus let me have my cake and eat it too. This law student BS is just as ridiculous.

If you don't want the hours and you don't mind a pay cut, you've revealed that you're just another prestige whore. I'm sure you'd be the first to tell me you hung out with Paris last weekend as well. Get off it - go work at a small firm or in-house; I did, for almost as much money, 8:30 - 6 hours, no weekends, no interrupted vacations, all my holidays, etc. Guess what? I have a great life, but I didn't ask my former white shoe NY law firm to give it to me.

"I find it unbelievable that you were forced or compelled to take a biglaw job. Don't like the job? Don't take it, or if you take without knowing, quit it"

Nope, I work in the public sector and love my job. I'm just saying, there didn't seem to be a good private sector option.

Craig--

Who forced you to go to Stanford and incur $150k of debt? If you were good enough to get into Stanford, you certainly could have gotten funded at a lower T14 school. I did it. Lots of people do.

Don't make value-laden choices and expect the world to change to accommodate them.

Lat's right on this one. There are alternative routes for people to take if they want fewer hours and are willing to take pay cuts. And if others are willing to take on BigLaw for whatever reason they have, let them do so.

5:11 you are right, but if you are implying that it is not a bad as they think, you are wrong -- in actuality, it is FAR FAR WORSE THEN THEY CAN EVER IMAGINE.

4:53 you are exactly right as well, even though people will kill themselves before admit it. I watched 200 classmates talk about how they wanted to work somewhere interesting and humane, and then one by one by one take a job at the highest ranked firm that made them an offer. Go ahead protesters, tell us how it aint so. But we all know it IS so.

Gallion, as per usual, OUT!

These students from top law schools are pretty dumb. Those of us who attend 2nd tier schools have known the secret to fewer hours and lower salaries for a long time. I'll give you a hint... government, state court clerkships and smaller firms.

LOVE the picture accompanying the post!

These law students have to be kidding. As mentioned several times before, there are hundreds of thousands of legal jobs outside of biglaw. The overwhelming majority of american lawyers work outside of biglaw.

"But because lawyers–and particularly biglaw lawyers–are so important to the functioning of the courts and the economy, we should pay attention to what their experiences are and have been"

Please, please, get over yourselves. biglaw work isn't rocket science.

And the clear implication of their rhetoric is that only white guys can handle the biglaw grind. How patronizing to minorities and women.

Anyone else rollin' at the inflated sense of importance that these younguns have?

5:11, you said, "I'm just saying, there didn't seem to be a good private sector option."

How does that make any sense? Are you saying that if you wanted to work in the private sector, the only options available to you were biglaw jobs, that you couldn't find any private sector jobs that weren't biglaw? That's absurd.

Sorry, I meant my post for 4:52/5:26, not 5:11.

Maybe we need fake names.

law students are stupid

so immature.

I'd bet alot of money that most of the people involved in this "movement" will be working at BigLaw in a few years, looking back and laughing at the stupid shit like this they did to pass the time.....

Craig - son't you see what a huge waste of time this is? If you wanted to waste your time outside of class, why wouldn't you just start a fantasy football league like any other rational bored law student? Isn't fantasy football good enough for you?

Maybe I'm slow but...

1. How is it "having your cake and eating it too" to want smaller salaries in exchange for less hours?

2. Isn't harder to get hired by smaller firms as a new graduate? Even from a top school?

I am a 6th year associate at biglaw and work very long hours. I would love a more "humane" lifestyle, but I chose this one. Yes, that is true.

However, Lat, you should recognize that money and prestige are not the only reasons that people work at biglaw. It is a fact that for the most part (and yes, I know I am generalizing) the work that is done at biglaw is much more challenging, cutting edge and intellectually interesting than the more mundane work done by "lifestyle" firms. The reason for this divide is that clients will only pay our rates for the really hard stuff, which leaves the boring work for the cheaper firms (and yes, the lifestyle firms often do fall into this category).

So, it seems to me that the choice for some of us is between working a ton of hours to do interesting work, or working less hours to do more mundane work. I have chosen the former, but I would love to have a third choice - interesting work with manageable hours. This is the choice that is not out there right now.

I applaud the student group in the post heading up this campaign.

The big thing that's missed here is the level of legal work being performed. In terms of quality, in terms of interest, and in terms of significance. It used to be you could do the most interesting cases in the country at a DC firm and bill 1600, 1700, 1800 hours a year. (WHICH IS STILL A FRICKIN LOT OF WORK!!!)

Now, to get access to the people doing the best work on the most interesting things, you have to be willing to sacrifice everything to stay in the ballgame. And that's an enormous loss. And does *not* seem like something that is a necessary corollary of doing the most interesting work. Certainly didn't use to be.

That's the real bite for me. It's not prestige whring. It's a quesation of the concrete work you do day to day. The sacrifice at a smaller firm isn't less money -- i'd take that in a HEART beat. It's less interesting work. And less access to the most important cases. That's the tradeoff with the real bite, at least to me. Money? Who needs it. Interesting work? That's . . . pretty damn important.

anon 6:14 -- whoah. that was weird.

Chris,
I want to be very clear abou my take on this. I will take any biglaw job you turn down, in a heartbeat. I can do the job better than you, and without the needless whining.
So next time you get an offer, if you get one after this, tell them to call me.
Whiny tierists.
Loyola 2L

The idea that biglaw work is somehow inherently more interesting is also BS. I have plenty of law school friends who are now mid-levels at big firms and (Aaron Charney aside, who was both a classmate, and is now involved in some pretty interesting litigation) are bored to tears with the securitization work they do, day in and day out. On the other hand, I have other friends who work at small firms doing insurance defense litigation, work that is often derided, but are going head to head with some of the most skillful, experience plaintiff's attorneys in the business and feel both challenged and excited every day. The point of the story is that except for the actual name, and to a lesser extent, the salary, there is nothing that is exclusive to biglaw practice. So take your biglaw job and learn to love going home to your empty apartment and drinking alone while listening to all the music that reminds you of the great times you used to have hanging out with your friends in law school and college.

The "interesting" work at biglaw firms is simply one's with more zeros or one's with a ridiculous amount of documents that need to be reviewed and the client needs to have access to a LOT of associates. The mid size and smaller firms are not doing less challenging work just because the work does not need the manpower of a biglaw firm. I work in biglaw and have worked on the disposition of a portfolio of assets worth a few billion dollars and deals which are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the big deal had a lot more work, it was not necessarily more challenging or interesting. Those that say they have to go to a biglaw firm to get interesting and challenging work are sadly mistaken. It all comes back to work they want to brag about working on because everyone has heard of the deal. Representations and warranties are representations and warranties. . .

The "interesting" work at biglaw firms is simply one's with more zeros or one's with a ridiculous amount of documents that need to be reviewed and the client needs to have access to a LOT of associates. The mid size and smaller firms are not doing less challenging work just because the work does not need the manpower of a biglaw firm. I work in biglaw and have worked on the disposition of a portfolio of assets worth a few billion dollars and deals which are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the big deal had a lot more work, it was not necessarily more challenging or interesting. Those that say they have to go to a biglaw firm to get interesting and challenging work are sadly mistaken. It all comes back to work they want to brag about working on because everyone has heard of the deal. Representations and warranties are representations and warranties. . .

"The point of the story is that except for the actual name, and to a lesser extent, the salary, there is nothing that is exclusive to biglaw practice."

Here's a reality check for you Anon2 http://nycinsurancelaw.googlepages.com/salarychart

Loyola 2L - great, but these law students want lower salaries, remember?

you're right that there's good work at smaller firms, anon2. also right that biglaw work isn't *inherently* more interesting. and, to some extent there's just competing definitions of "best work" goig on here. for example, i won't get a chance to argue in court or take a witness (except on a pro bono case) for a while to come, and even then only if i really push for that kind of work. and that kind of kills me -- so in that sense, there's better work at any number of places around the coutnry, not just at smaller firms.

But there are fascinating and crucial cases happening at the top firms that just don't exist at smaller firms. Particularly in certain cutting edge areas of litigation, and particularly particularly in big ticket, policy-changing litigation. That's why the tradeoff isn't as simple as "less work for less money already exists." That was my point.

I absolutely have a hard time understanding why people who are stuck in the drone projects that exist in biglaw (of which there are indeed plenty) stay. But to suggest that this is just a question of money vs. hours is shortsighted, and David knows this. Whether you and I agree on which kinds of "good" work we personally prioritize at the moment (and I actually don't disagree with your definition on its own terms), there without a shadow of a doubt a whole category of "good work" happening at big firms that is not being (and cannot be) replicated at smaller places.

i'm a 2l working at biglaw this summer. These guys are morons. What they left out of their manifesto is that they don't want to work at a midzize or small law firms becuase of prestige - they dont want to feel like second class citizens. They want eeeeeveryone to know that they can make it at biglaw and get the best jobs out there but still have their cake and eat it too.

Apty titled, lat.

You have 150K loans because you chose to go to private school. I am at a top 100 public university law school. My classmates are going to the big firms just like the whiners...Jones Day, King & Spalding, Alston and Bird, Finnegan, Troutman, etc... but the difference is our tuition was only $6K each year. The big firms seek out the private schools because they KNOW you aquired ridiculous debt so know that you'll stick around for a while.

David, come on now.

You could be a little more sensitive.

YOU had a veritable nervous breakdown in a high-stress high-powered position (yes, calling the New Yorker and telling them about your blog counts as a nervous breakdown, fyi, just like Britney shaving her head). You should be sensitive to the concept of being unfulfilled in the law, of all people.

Doesn't this group go by another name: Law School Democrats?

Try googling "associate attrition." Attrition is completely out of control.

"The rate of associate attrition we're seeing today at big firms is the highest level we've ever seen," says Paula A. Patton, chief executive of the NALP Foundation, a nonprofit group in Overland Park, Kan., that examines law-firm hiring trends and practices … According to an NALP Foundation study unveiled last year that looked at law firms for the three years from 2002 through 2004, nearly 60% of all entry-level associates at firms with more than 500 lawyers had left their firms by the end of their fourth years. For firms of all sizes, it was 62%, a record since NALP began tracking it nearly 10 years ago. "

I really don't think the attrition problem is about associates wanting "better, more interesting work." Even if pay was slashed to a fraction of what it is now, most people I know would happily shovel piles of elephant shit for a steady 8 hrs every day, as long as they could take lunch, leave at 6:00 and get their weekends and vacation days. "More interesting work" usually just means more stress and more problems for associates.

I think it's more about associates wanting A DECENT SHOT AT A DECENT LIFE. I mean, junior associates look at senior associates and partners and don't envy them. What good is money when you are a slave to preschool tuitions, your billz, your blackberry, and your clients? And your husband, wife, or partner thinks you're a total douchebag? And even when the work's interesting, it's not as interesting, as say, dinner and a few laughs with your loved ones every night. You know your lifestyle is messed up when you deeply envy your secretary when you watch her walk out door every night when your evening is just beginning. Money is completely meaningless without the ability to live a healthy, happy, satisfying life.

I'm a top 10 law grad, law review, clerkship -- and I can't find a biglaw firm willing to pay me $100K for 9-5? That to me is odd. What is going on in the marketplace?

Missing ... (...) point - perhaps surprisingly, I concede that perhaps there is a small fraction of work out there, unavailable anywhere but the biggest firms. Luckily for many people who thrive on these cutting edge cases, they so thoroughly enjoy them that the hours between 12 and 3 am spent drafting pleadings fly by just as quickly and unnoticed as the ones between 12 and 3 pm (my old roommate is one of them and, touching on an earlier post, I and the rest of his friends miss his presence, but he made his own choice). I just worry more for people who can't find the perspective to realize that the name of a firm, in and of itself and apart from any other factor, is the overriding concern. A friend of mine who went to UVA falls into that category - works all hours, does tremendously boring work, saw an engagement fall apart and is just generally unhappy, but just can't see leaving the "prestigious practice." It's sad and it just bothers me that I see in the attitude of this new law student group, some of the same mentality. That is, they can't see working anywhere else because of the name factor, so now it's a last ditch effort to coerce the firms into making a promise to try and be nicer. But again, I concede that a few might be in your position.

Look, the elitism is folding in on itself.

Now firms want the TOP students from the TOP schools.

But guess what? A lot of those people come from comfy upper-middle class backgrounds. They've had everything handed to them on a silver platter in life. They've never felt poor, and the money isn't that valuable to them. Daddy's money is always there in the background.

They want better lifestyles. And are willing to trim salaries to get it.

6:55 - why does your work have to be in a law firm? My in-house job has all the attributes you speak of with envy and my day to day work is full of variety to boot. Sure, I may not make millions as a partner at S&C, but I also got out before the golden handcuffs got too tight. At worst, be one of those junior associates for a few years and then take your "shot at a decent life" and leave the firm carousel for something else - all those recruiters that call? Talk to them. You could still be under 30 and I doubt you'll feel as though you wasted your best years.

"Law students–particularly students at tier 1 schools–do have market power, though."

This "market power" is a delusion brought on by hubris. This statement demonstrates you know nothing about the business of law firms (big or small) and thereby undermines your entire argument. When you make partner at a big firm your youthful exuberance will make you blush.

6:50: Lat's experience supports his argument. He wasn't loving life at Wachtell, so he left for the U.S. Attorney's Office. Then he found he liked blogging more than prosecuting, so he left the legal profession altogether.

Lat charted his own course. He didn't try to "reform" Wachtell and make it a kinder and gentler place (which would be a waste of time).

Lat has every right to snark on law students who want to "have their cake and eat it too." He gave up the cake of Wachtell for the crumbs of blogging. He has earned the authority to make fun of those who don't have the guts to reject Biglaw, but instead want to make Biglaw conform to their every wish and desire.

this whiney group had their poster boy in Charney -

Anon2 -- I agree with basically everything you say in your 7:01 post. The most interesting work in the world won't compensate for miserable hours in the long run (though it is tremendous fun in any given specific instance to work extremely hard with good people on something really cool. The issue is the aggregate experience over time, where those "work extremely hard" periods just run into each other in a state of permanence.)

Which is really all I meant to say. For at least some subset of the biglaw population (we can disagree on how large, perhaps), the difficulty of the tradeoff isn't money vs. hours, or even prestige vs. hours. It's interesting work vs. hours. And as someone who is more focused on work quality than prestige (i think sincerely, though who knows -- fwiw my firm isn't considered truly prestigious by nyc biglawyers), I can only say that I sympathize pretty deeply with the law students' concerns. I wish biglaw didn't require the sacrifice.

But, I also think that the law students' effort is totally, utterly hopeless.

anon90210, you left out the part about getting called on the carpet by his bewildered bosses at the AUSAs!

6:14: "The reason for this divide is that clients will only pay our rates for the really hard stuff, which leaves the boring work for the cheaper firms (and yes, the lifestyle firms often do fall into this category)."

Here's a ridiculous idea, biglaw firms get more interesting work because they charge higher rates.... What? Am I reading this wrong?

To the extent that biglaw firms get more interesting (harder) work, it is because they employ smarter, harder working people. They employ smarter, harder working people because they pay them more. So, ultimately, it is the smarter, harder working people who decide to work at biglaw firms who keep biglaw going.

And note that "harder working" is a necessary part of that. Try putting together a firm of really smart people and then market yourself as the firm that doesn't work hard... and see how much interesting work you get.

There may be place for a firm of smart people who don't work hard, but that firm would not be in a major market since it is unlikely that those smart people would be so much smarter than the other side that they wouldn't have to work hard.

also, didn't say, but it's worth saying so specifically -- i agree that many at large firms are doing it mostly because of the name of the firm, and many more because of a combination of prestige and money. and i agree that that's incredibly unfortunate.

After spending all summer working with a girl from Cornell who couldn't stop crying because she couldn't handle writing a simple, one-issue memo for a senior partner, I am anxiously awaiting the day when everyone at BigLaw realizes that these law students like Craig are not as interested in working as they are in developing strategies for securing the spotlight. I invite everyone to consider, as many hiring partners already have, that an order of the coif type from a top-50 school WANTS to work hard. I have my doubts about the mediocre types from the top-15.

I think these law students have totally missed the fact that associates don't work around the clock or on weekends because of billing pressure from partners. The late hours are almost totally a product of the work. Partners might be able to imporvie the situation by taking on less work for the firm, but I don't think anyone sees that as realistic.

How you morons can nay-say this effort is beyond me.

What, you WANT to work long hours unnecessarily?

You're a bunch of idiots.

I disagree about the "small firm" thing.

You can't go home again. If you are Ivy League all the way, and try to go work in a firm peopled with chip-on-their-shoulder Seton Hall law school grads, you aren't going to fit in, and you aren't going to be happy.

Legal Times article:

"There was a story that said [Lat] was forced out. That absolutely isn’t true,” says Michael Drewniak, communications director for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. “We weren’t totally pleased to learn he was the author of the blog, but that didn’t change our view of David being a very gifted lawyer. He contributed a lot to his division.”

In fact, the office made it clear that as long as Christie holds his position, there’s a spot for Lat.

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1161162315435

Stop whining.

You all chose to go to law school.
If you had debt, you could have paid it off in three years if you had lived frugally.
Each of you in law school could choose to do the same now.

I went to London and paid my debt off within two years. Now I have a great non-law firm job, paid in pounds, and I'm home (or out on the town) by 7 every night.

This city is fantastic. Expensive, but if you are a guy, there are hot Russian chicks, and if you are a girl, there are rich Russian guys. Or, if you are desperate, Prince Harry.

To the poster at 7:27, I would argue that in reality, it's not the smartest, hardest working people that you find being mid-level and above associates at biglaw firms, but rather the above-average, hard working folks. The smartest people I've met at big firms tended to be the first out the door behind the least capable, who just couldn't cut it period. The smartest ones found that the billable hour wasn't rewarding them - they could do work in 1/2 the time, say, of the average attorney, but that just resulted in them having to do twice the work for the same credit. The smartest also tended to be the ones who were big picture thinkers and creative enough to find a more satisfying career path outside of the firm drudgery. So don't kid yourself into thinking that because you're a 6th year biglaw associate, you and your colleagues are the best and the brightest - more likely, you're the ones just smart enough that the long hours and routine work don't leave enough room in your mind to contemplate something better.

6:55 is right. This isn't about whiny elite law school grads seeking their cake and their frosting. It's about a basic market failure that is going to up-end Big Law in the next 2-7 years: Quite simply, smart mid-year associates are sick of the bullshit, they're leaving in droves, and the impact is quickly going to (if it isn't already) affect the bottom line of these firms, in terms of the costs of recruiting, retraining, staffing disruption, loss of institutional knowledge, redoing case staffing patterns -- not to mention a dwindling pool of potential employees in an ever-growing market.

The firms can throw money at the problem (which will only exacerbate it), or they can listen to what students and young associates are saying.

I also think its ridiculous to say "'harder working' is a necessary part of that. Try putting together a firm of really smart people and then market yourself as the firm that doesn't work hard... and see how much interesting work you get." No one is talking about "not working hard." I work plenty hard now. I'm happy to keep working hard. But here's an idea: let me work "really hard" on 3 cases (9-7, occasional weekends and nights) instead of "killing my soul hard" on 4 cases, and dock my pay accordingly. Or are you saing I'm not going to get interesting work because I'm willing to work only really, really hard on 3 cases instead of 4? Is the quality of my work suffering? How? Why?

No, the only thing suffering is the billables. But as I said, dock my pay. I'm cool with it.

The fact is, there are lots of smart people from top law schools offering quality legal work for a little less money and a little more time. The inability of Big Law to find any way to accomodate them is a basic market failure -- valuable goods on the market and no way to use them. And, given the costs of attrition, its soon going to lead to market losses.

So Big Law and Lat and others can keep railing on the students and associate, or they can wake up and solve their own fucking problem.

"In fact, the office made it clear that as long as Christie holds his position, there’s a spot for Lat."

Maybe so -- but that's also what Barbara said about Star Jones. And was that true?

Market-wise, it doesn't make sense that there is no room for the $100K, 9-5 LAWYER, but there IS room for the $100K, 9-5 (plus lots of overtime) PARALEGAL.

I mean, throw them on lexis 8 hrs a day. Or have them review documents. How much is that worth to a firm? A top law school grad for 40 hrs a week. It's gotta be worth SOMETHING.

Ok, let's assume david lat was unhappy at Wachtell because of the hours.

Hypothetically, what if he went to the bosses at Wachtell and said "Pay me less and let me work less." Why would Wachtell say no to that?

I see this as law students trying to solve a classic collective action problem. Individually, law students from top 5 or top 8 schools want to spend their first few years after school at a prestige firm, for the money, yes, but perhaps even more importantly because of the future opportunities that come from having the firm on the resume. (I attend a top five school, and prestige and "keeping options open" seems more important than the money; most people realize they'd make more in business, anyway). Individually, law students are willing to put in a few years at one of the top firms--despite the costs--to get the perceived benefits future because they don't want to lose those benefits to a classmate, by, say, working at a small firm. Collectively, however, many of the students would be willing to take less money in exchange for fewer hours--as long as they didn't have to give up working for the "top," e.g., most prestigious, firms. Hence, this push to solve the collective action problem by cajoling a few of the top firms to either cut hours or at least offer a two-tier structure where people can take less money in exchange for fewer hours while still getting the firm name on the resume.

I get so tired of hearing about "important cases" at big law firms. Who really cares how many zeros are on the end of the damages request? I've work on a couple of cases that regularly made the headlines, but, being a junior associate, spent most of the time doing doc review. Sure, there were interesting research projects on complicated issues, but when that is 5% of your time, the fun is tempered by an awful lot of boredom.

A college friend and I both graduated from fairly competitive law schools the in 2005 (I think they were tied for 7th place at the time - something like that). I work at a major international firm with around 1000 attorneys. She spent a year clerking for a state court judge, and now works for a very small firm (10 attorneys, maybe). I do mostly document review for 2200 hours, for which I am very well paid. She bills around 1800 hours, working on cases for which she is primarily responsible, and goes to court on a regular bases, on her own, something I would not do for at least five more years.

Now, who is gaining more skills as a lawyer, and who is having more challenge and more fun? Biglaw is not the place to go, if you want to learn how to try cases.

And if it is really about intellectual challenge and cutting edge issues for you, I submit that you can spend a lot more time working over truly complex and cutting edge legal issues without the pressure of the billable hour, or the reality of spending most of your time on doc review, but going academic.

Great argument, 8:54. Because "The View" is just like a U.S. Attorney's Office.

9:01, law firms are happy to make such arrangements with individual associates. Sometimes they'll give working moms part-time gigs where they work less and earn less. E.g., four days a week, 80 percent pay.

But the firms are not about to change their entire system to give EVERYONE a deal like that (which is what these students want). It just wouldn't work. It's not sustainable economically.

Two thoughts. First, it is a mistake to look at this solely as a case of law students with an inflated sense of entitlement. Reducing associate pay/hours and increasing retention makes sense for biglaw as a cost-benefit decision. Assuming we can take biglaw seriously when they say losing as associate costs between 200-500k, the spiraling attrition rates are a major problem for firms. According to our friend James Sandman it costs a firm only about 11k/yr to have their associates work 80% of their hours at 80% of their pay while hiring additional associates to soak up the additional work. Cutting hours to decrease attrition is a win-win situation for firms.

Second, criticizing law students for wanting prestigious jobs is foolish. Both the quality of the work and the reputation of the firm are and should be important to students.

In sum, both students and firms would benefit from reduced hours and pay at top firms. Calling the students whiny is too superficial/easy.

8:59: Yes, it is worth something. Contract attorneys have discovered this.

9:31: EXACTLY. But these students want the prestige and pay of partners, with the lifestyle of contract attorneys. That's not the way the world works.

"Great argument, 8:54. Because "The View" is just like a U.S. Attorney's Office."

Explain to me the difference, then? Allowing people to save face happens all the time. It's called "being civilized."

"But these students want the prestige and pay of partners, with the lifestyle of contract attorneys. That's not the way the world works."

No they don't. They want LESS pay. And they do want prestige, but only so if they want to give up law and go do something else, it will open doors.

Prestige has value.

But that factually isn't what happened in Lat's case. He remained in the office for months after the New Yorker article. After he shut down UTR, it was back to business as usual. When he left, there was a nice farewell party for him. It was just like any other AUSA leaving the office.

Lat will never be able to dispel the innuendo that people like you disseminate. I guess that's fine, since Lat disseminates a lot of innuendo himself. Turnabout is fair play.

But for the record, those of us close to the events know the truth.

Whatever dude. Unless you're Christie himself, you are speculating.

Look, there's a difference between "Hand in your resignation now" and "subtly suggesting" [NYT's words, not mine] that someone might be happier doing other work. But in function, are they really that different?

You think they were going to outright can a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE for speaking his mind on a WEBSITE or TO A REPORTER? Ain't there laws against that?

At any rate, my original point was that some of these high-flying jobs can really suck out the soul of brilliant young people [like David Lat]. And the legal community should be in favor of resolving that, and not just calling people who raise the issue a bunch of crybabies.

Doesn't Wiley Rein in DC have a two-track system - an "1800 hours" track, and a "something higher" (I forget the #) track?

I've read most of this board... I think the one observation that is missing is that no one in positions of power at BigLaw firms gives a shit about what a bunch of law students through midlevel associates think... there are market forces at work that are going to keep things the way they are...

Law firms WANT attrition (even if it has costs). They make their profits on leverage. If everyone makes partner, there's less leverage.

If you treat your associates well, and they all stay and make partner, sooner or later you will have to "de-equitize" them. E.g., Mayer Brown.

Also, making partner becomes less prestigious if it no longer has that "I survived ten years of hell" quality.

Everyone says they don't care about prestige, they just want "interesting work."

Here's the thing. Interesting work tends to be the kind of work that keeps you in the office until midnight, or on weekends. It's the most important, high-stakes, fast-moving work around.

E.g., billion-dollar M&A deals; bet-the-company litigation; sexy white-collar stuff (as opposed to boring white-collar stuff, which there is also a lot of).

It is hard to work 9-6 hours on these types of matters. Lawyers at large firms work long hours not because (or just because) the partners are sadists, but because the "interesting" work these firms do calls for round-the-clock devotion.

The first biglaw firm that hires a management consulting firm (McKinsey, natch) to completely revamp its billing structure and work/life balance issues will reap some serious rewards. Naturally, the analysts, associates, managers and partners of said consulting firm have the same work/life balance and billing issues as the aggrieved law students/associates in this situation, thus turning said project into what will possibly be the biggest meta-project this fair country has ever seen.

I'll second 10:28. 9 to 6 is just not possible in the context of a billion dollar M&A deal.

"just not possible"?

that's silly. how do you think these things got done 50 years ago? hell, how do you think these things got done 20 years ago?

none of this will change. but not because it's impossible in the abstract for important cases to be tried or important deals to be concluded without the people involved billing 2200+ (sometimes +++++) per year.

in any event, even accepting stretches of craziness for the billion dollar M&A deal, or the make-or-break SJ motion or the 2-week trial . . . . there's no need to roll from something like that right onto . . . *something else* just like that. if nothing else, decreasing the total number of projects taken on is an obvious and readily available way of ratcheting things back.

it's a *choice* not to do so. the culture at these firms is *changing*. the time billed per associate is *rising*. these are all choices, not fiats of god.

"how do you think these things got done 50 years ago? hell, how do you think these things got done 20 years ago?"

Answer: they didn't, surely not at the scale and with the frequency they do today. And there's money to be made by "roll[ing] from something like that right onto . . . *something else* just like that." Which is why some people will always choose to do it. HTFH

I would be more sympathetic to arguments along the lines of, "no one forces you to work at biglaw" if law schools did not justify their tuition by pointing towards big law salaries.

It is difficult to pay back the heavy debt you incur without accepting these type of jobs. Additionally, may of the good government and public interest jobs want big firm experience, so most law students who want competitive jobs in these fields are expected to do 2+ years in biglaw.

Moreover, hours are one thing. Having a partner belitte you and treat you like crap is another. We have employment law for a reason. Biglaw should not get a pass on it because they are biglaw and can hijack your career if you complain.

Thank you for all the thoughtful comments, both positive and negative. We'll continue to write and post more extensively on our own website, with only brief comments here.

First, this organization isn't some radical, anti-firm protest group with a hard-line petition or threats. The letter to firms is intended to give some notice that many law students do care about their policies/expectations, that we're working to spread reliable information about major issues in the legal profession, and want to hear where they stand. Most of our membership is headed toward a large law firm this summer and after graduation, but we care about our experience there and the impact that law firms have on our lives.

It's obvious that associates make a choice to go to large law firms, but that doesn't mean that they have to give up their aspirations for their firm and the legal profession. We have a positive vision for more efficient, sustainable large law firms and are looking to share it. Large law firms have significant influence on lawyers, other legal organizations, and the larger community, and law students have opinions on what they want that influence to be.

Part of our strategy includes promoting firms that make real progress on key issues in the profession (billables de-escalation, work/life balance, associate satisfaction, clear expectations, etc.) In our limited experience law students in the job process are eager for information on these issues and find current resources lacking. If this organization can provide this to students and allow them to make the most informed choice possible, then those students and the law firms they go to/avoid will all be better off.

Again, thanks for all your thoughtful comments.

Blah blah blah - shut up all of you ignorant law students. Go get a job and come talk to me in a couple of years.

Have fun storming the castle.

I am a socialist at heart, but this strikes me as the most futile, irrational cause. It's the economy, stupid - and we are talking about the highest levels of the economy here, not the shop floor, nobody's ever going to be able to pull off the "Norma Rae" thing in a law firm.

Hogan & Hartson is a 1000-lawyer firm with two associate tracks, and two different pay scales: 1800 hours and 1950 hours. That firm seems to be doing just fine.

8:00pm: Note that the comparison is between firms that get "interesting" work and firms that don't. Whether your point is correct is irrelevant to that comparison.

Anon 12:12 -- that was exactly my point. appreciate the vehement agreement.

the phenomenon of major deals and major litigation didn't suddenly spring up 20 years ago like venus from the surf.

What's the payscale for Hogan's 1800 hours track? That sounds potentially fantastic. Do the associates on that track get stuck with sh#twork?

Biglaw should want to improve QOL so they can keep the smartest people, many of whom don't want to make severe personal sacrifices.

response to 10:14 - they don't just want the smartest people to work for them, they want the people who will deliver the best work product. And like it or not there are two ways of donig that - being smart or working harder.

this group's arguments resonate with me. having been through the meat grinder at top 20 firms for 6 years, i have concluded that i probably should have gotten off the bus much earlier than i did (am now happy in government). my own experience and the experience of those i am close to largely mirrors that described by patrick schiltz in his article about top firms (he left a cushy partnership at the consummate lifestyle firm for academia and then a federal judgeship). alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, and unethical practices are in fact rampant in biglaw. partners (those with souls intact, which i estimate to be around 10 percent) seem confused. the reality is that when the senior partners were coming up, biglaw practice was a very different world. one could work 1500 hours (apparently at some of the prestigious DC firms 1000-1300 was considered normal), afford a nice house in a nice neighborhood, and still have a social life. adjusted for COL and hours, they were paid for more generously than are today's associates. as much as the burkeans might wish otherwise, that world is gone. the trends in biglaw are not going to change - it is only getting started - but the damage is very real. so more power to you guys. at least law students protesting working conditions is far easier to stomach than the snotty, priviliged, take-me-to-sushi sense of entitlement that is prevalent among too many summers these days.

http://seoulover.blogs.com/westlaw/files/being_a_happy_lawyer.pdf

this group's arguments resonate with me. having been through the meat grinder at top 20 firms for 6 years, i have concluded that i probably should have gotten off the bus much earlier than i did (am now happy in government). my own experience and the experience of those i am close to largely mirrors that described by patrick schiltz in his article about top firms (he left a cushy partnership at the consummate lifestyle firm for academia and then a federal judgeship). alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, and unethical practices are in fact rampant in biglaw. partners (those with souls intact, which i estimate to be around 10 percent) seem confused. the reality is that when the