<p>Interersting article in today's NY Times(1/24/08)ThursdayStyles Section p. G1
by Lisa Belkin.</p>
<p>...law firms have been forced to rethink long standing ways of doing business, if they are to remain fully competitive.
...So far the change- which includes taking fresh looks at billable hour, schedules and partnership tracks--is mostly at smaller firms. But even some of the larger, more hidebound employers are taking notice...</p>
<p>if someone can link this article up- it may be of interest to you guys</p>
<p>Lets see if this link works. I've heard about this "trend" for many years and don't really believe it, especially now when the economy is not great; you need associates committed 24/7 to the big law firms.</p>
<p>Who knows -maybe this economy may force another mindset. If client's could save money, by using "Track 2" lawyers, (geez- those that don't want to work more than 50 to 60 hours a week and will remain salaried employees making only $175,000 (or so). They may never make partner, but they can certainly have a nice lifestyle.</p>
<p>Maybe we can develop a Win-Win situation for all.</p>
<p>I know way too many moms (it just happens to be the moms) who think they're getting flex time/reduced hours at a law firm in exchange for giving up a great big salary, but those hours have a way of creeping up without the salary doing the same. And I think those women eventually just go out on their own or leave lawyering; they don't become the people who set the standards for the rest of the profession. Grouchy today.</p>
<p>We used to call it the "mommy track." It rarely works. The women, or whoever tries to work reduced hours, get pressured to work harder and are often made to feel that they have selfishly chosen their lifestyle over the clients. The days in the office become very stressful so they the hours start creeping up, but the money stays the same. Other firms have tried the two tiered system with mixed success. The associates who choose the second tier track often feel like second class citizens at the firm and they miss out on the interesting cases - and those can be few and far between. The hours mentioned in that article are out of date. I was in a large law firm in the 80s and was expected to bill 2000 hours. Successful associates these days often bill 2300 hours.</p>
<p>Yeah, if I have kids, I'm sending them away to boarding school in England because they take 8 year olds and American boarding schools don't. So why not occupy that time with work...? I figure I could spend time with the kids and make less money or send them away and work to make their boarding school tuitions.</p>
<p>I really don't foresee a time when law firms will ever be warm, fuzzy kinds of places to work. At the end of the day, law is the ultimate client service industry, because without the clients, there is no work, no career and no paycheck. When clients are paying $350/hour for a fifth-year associate's time, those clients are going to be demanding. When a client says jump, the attorneys at a law form simply ask "how high?". When a client gets sued or a client has a brilliant idea for a new financial product on a Friday afternoon, you don't get to wait until Monday morning before getting to work on your client's concern.</p>
<p>Any law firm that doesn't that does not serve its clients' every whim well and consistently simply wouldn't be as successful financially. Without financial success, ultimately, attorney salaries at that firm will fall (and if the firm develops a reputation for poor client service, who knows whether there would be a firm at all). There are smaller firms that exist today where you can generally make less money and work less hours (though the hours are still sometimes unpredictable -- again, the client service industry thing), but I don't see BIGLAW going down that path anytime soon.</p>
<p>If you want (or need) to make biglaw bucks, I wouldn't count on working a predictable, moderate number of hours. You get what you get paid for.</p>
<p>Many law school grads do make career decisions based on the lifestyle they want to lead.</p>
<p>I know many attorneys (male and female) who decide to work for gov't, insurance companies, banks and other type of businesses.<br>
Rarely does anyone work more than a ten hour day or an occasional week-end. Of course the salary is much more modest than what "Biglaw" pays- but at least it gives you the time to have a real life outside of work.</p>
<p>It's a decision that each person has to make based on what one wants out of life!!</p>
<p>I think the article overstates the change that has happened in the profession. A couple of big firms have made modest changes to their policies. We don't know if this is even going to bring about genuine change at that handful of firms, much less the 99% of big firms not mentioned.</p>
<p>"you get what you get paid for" might be my new mantra, as I start to figure out the fellowship/clerkship/firm/other options for post-graduation over the next couple months!</p>
<p>I truly hope more law firms go down the path indicated in the article--there's a lot of cool work in my area of interest that's primarily done by big firms, but I'd like to balance that out with having (and participating in!) a family. And from what I've heard, the current "mommy track" jobs work out to about 3/4 the hours, 1/2 the salary, and 1/4 the respect. there has to be a better way.</p>
<p>You are absolutely right: I tried the "mommy track" at a big firm and finally gave up when I was pregnant with my second. I never thought I would (or could) stay home...but the practice was too difficult to confine to a certain number of hours.....I think you'd need to be in-house or work for a public agency to make it work. At least I would...I didn't want to be away from my kids on a lawyer-full-time-basis, which is usually much more than 40 hours per week.</p>
<p>or, your husband needs to have a more flexible career....there are a couple female partners in my H's firm who have stay-at-home or part time working husbands...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I pity your future kids (and their mother).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>samonite,</p>
<p>Would you like to adopt them?</p>
<p>The purpose of sending to boarding school at such a young age, I think, is to teach them to be independent, so that by the time they're 18, and entering college, the only thing I have to provide is financial support. I can't be tutoring kids until they graduate from college.</p>