The Law Firm Disrupted: Partners and Associates Disagree on (Almost) Everything
Associates and partners are in agreement when it comes to whether the Big Law business model needs fixing. When it comes to how much associates are working and getting paid? Not so much.
April 04, 2019 at 09:00 PM
6 minute read
In this week's Law Firm Disrupted, we take a look at the differences—and unfortunate similarities—between Big Law associates and partners.
I'm Roy Strom, the author of this weekly briefing on the changing legal market, and you can reach me here or sign up to receive this newsletter here.
Partners and Associates Disagree on (Almost) Everything
I have written before that law firm leaders have seriously different views about their places of work than the hordes of millennial associates they employ. This should be no big surprise. Older people have different views than younger people.
Nevertheless, it can be exciting and potentially useful to see those differences quantified. That happened this week with the release of a survey from Major Lindsey & Africa and Above The Law, which showed that partners and associates disagree on almost everything. (The 1,200-plus survey respondents were overwhelmingly associates, but the partners' answers represent the views of more than 120 people.)
Surprisingly, partners and associates are pretty much in agreement on the existential issues: The law firm business model is broken. But outside investors won't help!
Among associates, 54 percent believe the law firm business model is “fundamentally broken.” Forty-two percent of partners agreed, which is actually among the smallest discrepancies between the two groups. Yes, that is vague. But I think that makes those numbers even scarier.
What would happen if 42 percent of a publicly traded company's executives (who, like law firm partners, own meaningful portions of the businesses where they work) would admit their company's business model was “fundamentally broken?”
Survey: Is your business fundamentally broken? Public Company Executive: *Scratches forehead* Yes!
That may be cathartic if you hate your CEO. But it seems tremendously unlikely that 42 percent of many public boardrooms think their company is being driven into the ground. If they did, I would imagine it might create infighting and inaction. Or, perhaps, ideas for a solution.
On the solution front, non-lawyer ownership is not welcome. Asked whether some form of non-lawyer ownership would benefit the legal profession, associates and partners were also fairly aligned: 22 percent of associates think it would be a good thing, while a mere 13 percent of partners are in favor of it.
I personally feel these two beliefs—law firm business models are bad and so are outside investors—are contradictory. Capital infusions could help law firms transition to a business model that incentivizes creating long-term value (in other words, one that is not “fundamentally broken”). But I also understand lawyers' protectionist instincts. Most Big Law lawyers have a good thing going.
Anyway, I promised to write about differences between partners and associates. Those are more fun. Perhaps the biggest disagreements between associates and partners in the survey can be grouped under the category of “partners resenting perceived associate entitlement.”
For instance, 53 percent of partners think that associates should have bigger workloads as a result of their recent compensation increases. Only about 20 percent of associates agree.
There is disagreement as to whether associates in fact are working more in light of the recent salary bump. A mere 16 percent of associates think work levels have been the same; 34 percent of partners think the associates are getting more pay for the same or less amount of work.
Partners and associates also don't have the same views about associates' contributions to a firm's bottom line. A full 50 percent of partners disagree that the recent salary increases are a fair reflection of associates' contribution to firm profitability. Less than a quarter of associates share that dim view of their profit margins.
Then there are the differences driven by varying cultural beliefs among generations. For instance, 45 percent of partners think law firms have made strides to address workplace gender issues since the advent of the #MeToo movement. A quarter of associates agree.
And while partners are less likely to “strongly agree” that law firm culture is “inherently sexist,” they are broadly in agreement with associates that law firms are indeed sexist organizations. Sixty-five percent of associates and 66 percent of partners agreed with that characterization. (Those are sad and astonishing numbers.)
Lawyers' overall take on the millennial impact on law firms is positive. Sixty-six percent of associates believe that millennials are transforming law firm culture and policies for the better, while—perhaps surprisingly—a near-majority of partners agree (exactly 50 percent).
|
Roy's Reading Corner
On Big Law Partnerships: The Major Lindsey survey also said that 40 percent of associates want to become a Big Law partner—even if only about a quarter of associates want to be partner at their current firm. That may be difficult if Baby Boomers never retire, which a story by Elizabeth Olson for Bloomberg Big Law Business says might be happening.
From the story: “Clients tell me all the time—65 is the new 45,” said Thomas Clay, a principal at Altman Weil, a management consulting service for legal organizations. “People do not want to retire.”
On Big Law Competitors: Ernst & Young made a lot of headlines when it purchased UK-based legal managed services firm Riverview Law last year. The Big Four accounting giant just made another big play in the alternative legal services field by purchasing Thomson Reuters' Pangea3 Legal Managed Services business. A competitor of UnitedLex and Elevate, Thomson Reuters last year said the market for alternative service providers like its “LMS” offering was $700 million in annual revenue. The business has 1,000 legal professionals in eight locations on three continents, EY said in a news release.
“This new enhanced offering will make EY one of the leading professional services organizations for global legal advisory services and legal operations services, including legal function advisory, managed services and technology,” Mark Weinberger, EY Global Chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “The acquisition is an example of how EY is working to provide clients with holistic solutions, which are enabled by technology.”
That's it for this week! Thanks again for reading, and please feel free to reach out to me at [email protected]. Sign up here to receive The Law Firm Disrupted as a weekly email.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
The Law Firm Disrupted: Quality Partner Training—The Exception or the Rule?
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250