If lockstep compensation isn’t on life support than it must be a death row inmate who’s been served its last meal and is waiting on a reprieve from the governor. And news today makes it sound like up-or-out promotion (not the same thing) might be next. Biglaw firm Orrick has announced that what once was one partner track might become two.
The firm announced today it will no longer promote associates in lockstep fashion, according to their start date. Instead, junior lawyers will now be fitted into one of three slots: the “partner” track for gunners; the “custom” track for lifestyle-minded associates who plan to make partner in their own sweet time, or not at all, and finally the “career attorney” track for those who will focus on more mundane work, such as document review.
That’s a good start. But there’s a couple huge holes between this idea and a real revolution in how associates move through their legal career and how law firms manage the delivery of their services. One, there’s the little issue of starting on these tracks:
The way it would work is this: Most law grads will begin in the “partner” track, where they will toil for some period of time. Later, some percentage will either choose or be encouraged by the firm to move to the “custom” track. Many “career attorney” track lawyers will be hired into that role.
This is still a form of up-or-out promotion. Except “out” in this case means just out of the fast lane. It could be years before we find out if the custom track actually leads anywhere near partnership. Not to mention the potential for minorities, women, and older starting attorneys (who were recent nontraditional law students) to get shuffled onto the shoulder, while the firm argues that they’re still on the road.
Why not hire people into the custom track (or even staff attorney track) straight out of law school? That puts the onus on the firm to make the custom track a real, viable career option, not just a pretend partner track. It also allows the firm to attract a wider range of personalities (and skills) rather than just adding “people who might burn out” to the candidate pool?
Two, Orrick might seem like its innovating, but in reality these changes are more in degree rather than kind. Firms have always shuffled unproductive associates and partners to staff attorney or Of Counsel positions. This just claims to give them a choice that still leads to partnership (if you trust the firm that it does).
Instead, how about thinking hard about what partners do and what associates do and split people up based on that? How about two partner tracks: one emphasizing productivity, lawyering skills, and sheer legal talent, and one emphasizing rainmaking, client relations, and case management? Some partners bring in business, some partners churn through it.
Or if that’s too radical for you, how about setting clearer goals for partner, where partner means more about getting a slice of the equity pie (like earning profit sharing or stock options with a company) and less about management. What if a firm made everyone who billed 13,000 hours a partner of some form? Doesn’t matter if it takes you six years or 15, you’ll get the slice of the pie you earn. The politics and subjective factors mean more about who manages and brings in business rather than who gets paid.
Orrick’s move is a good idea. The cargo ship that is the legal industry is not going to stop and change course on a dime. Changes like these are course corrections that need to be planned, thought out in advance, and executed smoothy and steadily. But hopefully a system like Orrick’s is a transitionary measure rather than “The New and Improved Biglaw.” Because if that’s what Biglaw calls radical change, a lot of people will be really shocked at the changes that get imposed on Biglaw.
Tagged as:
BigLaw,
economy
Wait till next year...
Maybe some people out there were still suffering under the delusion that there were not enough lawyers. If so, please pull your head out of the sand and look around. If the rising tide of lawyer layoffs and associate deferrals wasn’t enough to convince you, this should. Above the Law is reporting that the University of Miami Law School is offering deferment to 1Ls.
An unprecedented percentage of applicants admitted to the University of Miami Law School have accepted our offer. This will give us a larger than optimal first-year class. Accordingly we are offering an incentive to defer admission until Fall 2010. If you wish to take advantage of this offer you must notify us by e-mail [Redacted] or facsimile [Redacted] by July 10, 2009.
The bigger takeaway is further down in email, where Dean Patricia White muses about the possible reasons for the extremely high yields:
While I would like to believe that this year’s elevated acceptance rate reflects the great sense of excitement about the Law School and its future that led me to become its new Dean, I fear that some of it may be related to the shortage of jobs in the current economy. Perhaps many of you are looking to law school as a safe harbor in which you can wait out the current economic storm.
If this describes your motivation for going to law school I urge you to think hard about your plans and to consider deferring enrollment. Law school requires an enormous investment of work, energy, time, and money. It is very demanding intellectually and emotionally. Beyond this, in these uncertain and challenging times the nature of the legal profession is in great flux. It is very difficult to predict what the employment landscape for young lawyers will be in May 2012 and thereafter.
Translation: Don’t come to law school thinking it’s a free ride to big bucks and job security. It’s unlikely that there’s any sort of “safe harbor” anymore, and if there is, it isn’t in a law firm.
If the things taught in law school interest you, go. If the work that lawyers do interests you, go. If you feel like you need the skills and knowledge that law school teaches you and you believe you can pay back that investment, go.
But if you’re just looking for a place to hide from the economy for a few years, buy a shack in Montana and start hording Spam. Because you’ll inevitably find yourself in a world of hurt either in law school when you hate what you’re doing, or after law school when it doesn’t turn out the way you expected.
As far as the plan itself, expect to see more of this in the short term. Those of us in law school or who watch the legal industry know how nuts it would be to pay six figures for what amounts to a lottery ticket. But if you’ve just been laid off or feel like the vultures are circling, a 10% pay cut from a starting salary of $160K might sound fantastic. Law schools can’t absorb all these people, but now there’s a lot more qualified applicants, so you can’t simply deny admission.
If this trend continues long term, expect to see law schools start to ask for more proof that you want to be there. If you’re getting plenty of solid LSATs and GPAs, you can start looking at more essays and maybe even start doing interviews if you’re an elite school. Again, expect the model to move a little closer to medical school, and hopefully away from “How many tuition checks can we get?”
Photo by: heather0714
Tagged as:
admissions,
economy
One meme you’ll see on this blog is that I love certain writers and their theories on management. One is Joel Spolskey, owner of Fog Creek Software and the man behind Joel on Software. Another is Rands, the psudeonym of an engineering manager at a software company in the Bay Area. Rands writes Rands in Repose, a fantastic blog on management, writing, technology, and other related topics.
Rands’ newest post is on toxic people. The basic premise is that toxic people don’t just fail to get along with other people, they fail to fit into the culture of the organization.
This is not high school. I’m not talking about cliques here, I’m talking about culture. Cliques are inevitable micro-collections of people who like the look and sound of each other. Culture is the foundational broad strokes of beliefs, values, and goals in a group of people, and a healthy culture is inclusive. It seeks out new members who evolve the culture into something new and better. It’s constantly growing in interesting ways because of the people it’s built on.
A rejection by the culture, while not pleasant for anyone involved, is not a rejection based on individual taste, it’s not because someone doesn’t like someone else. It’s a rejection because of a lack of shared core beliefs. Vastly different personalities get along famously when they share a common goal.
Rands’ point is that toxic people present a paradox. On the one hand, relationships between people who buy into the culture of the organization and people who don’t fundamentally don’t work. On the other hand, it’s often useful to have someone who, out of disagreement with the culture of the organization, refuses to accept its basic assumptions.
So What Does This Mean for Law Students?
You will not get along with everyone in law school. Law school is not “a little” like high school. It’s exactly like high school. If your law school doesn’t seem cliquish, it’s because either your clique is large enough that it seems like you know everyone, or you are a member of a number of cliques of different people.
But as Rands points out, that’s not the problem. The problem is people who don’t buy into the culture. And this is a problem that law schools are very prone to, and one that’s going to get worse. Law schools claim to have a culture, and I believe most are sincere in building that culture. There are law schools that have a focus on public interest, there are law schools that have a focus on corporate law, and law schools that have a focus on litigation. Some are young and seem like a giant frat house while others are more professional.
The trouble is that this culture is so far down on the list of considerations for selecting a law school that inevitably students will end up in the wrong culture. Rankings, cost, and region tend to be the biggest concerns, and the value, culture, and mission of the law school get pushed down. The result? You have a lot of people working for a number of disparate goals, all crammed together as part of the same organization. This accounts for a large degree of the stress and conflict in law school.
What Do We Do About It?
The ideal goal would be one I’ve preached for a while: more differentiation among law schools. Once there are law schools that are truly focused certain types of law, certain types of lawyers, and attracting certain types of law students, this problem will ease. As long as things like cost and rankings have more to do with selecting a school than whether you fit in with the culture, you’ll have to cope.
Take note of the people you surround yourself with. If someone’s core reasons for being in law school are radically different, a blowup is inevitable. Your inner circle doesn’t have to be people just like you, but they should be people who are at least in law school for a similar reason. Or failing that, at least seek out people who have a reason for being there if you do as well.
Finally, to those who haven’t chosen a school, considering bumping culture and fit up the list of priorities. Yes, ranking, cost, and region still hold a great deal of sway. But to the extent you can, take into account the culture of the school (and this does not mean seeking out a “conservative” or “liberal” law school). You’ll find that it’s a lot easier to be successful when you buy into the mission of the school and when the school is encouraging the people around you to do the same. Even if some of them are going to be lost causes.
Tagged as:
culture
Red Bull, Ramen, and take-out food might get all the press, but coffee is the fuel that runs a law student. There’s probably more than a few Starbucks franchises that are either being kept afloat or raking in the cash because of their proximity to a law school. Yes, they’re great as a study destination, but the coffee itself is important too. But instead of overpaying for someone else to make the coffee for you, every law school should learn to brew their own. Not only is it substantially cheaper, but you can get better coffee and coffee more tailored to your personal tastes. Maybe you won’t buy and learn how to use an espresso machine or a French press, but anyone can get a good drip machine, use good beans, filter their water, keep the machine clean, and make a good cup of coffee.
But you need something to carry it to law school in. Most options involve some sort of insulated metal thermos. The problem with that is the metal will very quickly start absorbing the favors of what you put into the travel mug. Without rigorous painstaking cleanings, you eventually get a slightly metallic hot “beverage,” rather than the very good coffee you brewed.
The solution then is to get a ceramic travel mug, made of roughly the same material as your normal coffee mug. I Am Not A Paper Cup is one of the canonical examples. The IANAPC looks, especially from across a room, like your typical paper coffee cup. But in reality, it’s a double-walled insulating ceramic travel mug.
Because it’s ceramic, it doesn’t add or absorb any flavor. The silicone lid will give a little bit of a rubbery tinge, but the slightly bizarre cleaning instructions are very effective: boil the lid with lemon wedges then scrub it down with toothpaste. Presto, almost no flavor.
The cup is good for travel. I wish it was a little big wider, as it rattles around in my cupholder and I’m tempted to hold it as I drive, but then again if I get a new car with smaller cupholders, it will fit perfectly. The cup did not leak in transit or while drinking.
There are three major beefs you see in reviews of the IANAPC, and I’ll give each some credibility. First, it appears that about 10% of the cups leak. I know from Day 1 if a travel mug is going to leak or not. It’s a total crapshoot. Test it with water and try to send it back for another. Second, some have complained it doesn’t insulate well. It’s not a thermos, but it insulates better than, well, a disposable cup. Third, the cup is fairly small. It appears to be a large or Venti on the outside, but the volume is more like a tall, about 8-10 oz. That’s less than the standard 12-16 you normally see in travel mugs.
But this isn’t an everyday travel mug. It’s for serious coffee drinkers who want to enjoy serious coffee away from their coffee maker. Where the IANAPC excels is in getting coffee from point A to point B without spilling, and then transitioning into a standard coffee mug, sans handle. And if you prefer one cup of very good, very strong coffee to the slow drip of burnt swill, the IANAPC is a good choice.
Photo by Ballistik Coffee Boy
Tagged as:
coffee,
tuesday review
