A story in the New York Times yesterday questions the sustainability of the law firm associate/partner business model and describes a new law firm hiring structure that sounds a lot like the classic tenure track vs. lecturer academic model. Here's how the story describes the status quo model:
Every year, armies of new associates are hired. Many are assigned to so-called high-volume projects, known as “scut work,” which could include the multimillion-page document reviews that define scorched-earth litigation; deal-related due diligence; or the drafting of routine documents. This sort of work can often be handled, for a small fraction of the cost, by contract lawyers, or, in some cases, by nonlawyers. But instead of farming this work out, many firms have historically kept it in-house, assigning teams of highly educated but untrained young lawyers to log thousands of hours a year at hourly rates that can be well in excess of $300.
The story also has a fancy way of saying what we have heard many new associates -- those lucky enough to have a job -- say about their life as a law firm associate -- the "life" style can be brutal:
To afford rich associate salaries, maintain profitability and keep rainmaking partners happy, large firms, like some of the Wall Street institutions they service, have historically relied on heavily leveraged business models. The difference is that, in law, the leverage is not financial but human.
All in all, a story well worth reading.
