Help me understand the biglaw business model please Forum

[BigRob]

My understanding of big law firms is that they grind up associates by making them work long hours. Perennially fatigued workers produce lower-quality work and are more likely to quit.

Why don't the firms hire more associates? If a firm hired, say, twenty percent more associates, the remaining associates' twelve hour workdays would turn into under ten hours. The firm would be known for a high quality of life and would be able to attract top talent -- and therefore top clients. I'm not sure what percentage of revenue from a law firm goes to associates (incl. office space, benefits, support staff, etc.), but I'd imagine it's not very high considering that many partners make millions each.

There must be a reason firms don't do this, but I can't figure it out. Let me know.

[patogordo]

higher leverage doesn't really attract better talent, probably the opposite because of diminished partnership prospects and competition for interesting work.

probably doesn't improve QOL that much either. you work a lot of hours because the firm is selling your time, not because there aren't enough people to do the work.

[changedname]

1) Partners (the decision makers) are too greedy to let go of their bonuses so that associates enjoy a comfortable life. More associates means less bonuses for the partners.

2) Even if the partners realize that better work product would subsequently lead to better clients, they would not necessitate the changes because it would take around 10 yrs for these changes to be significant enough to be noticed, and by that time the senior partners (read as the real decision makers) would retire or be close to retirement. So essentially, these changes will not help them personally.

Coming from a 2L with no Big Law experience yet, but has a big law SA lined up for the next summer. Opinion based on some research and mostly common sense.

[patogordo]

1) Partners (the decision makers) are too greedy to let go of their bonuses so that associates enjoy a comfortable life. More associates means less bonuses for the partners.

2) Even if the partners realize that better work product would subsequently lead to better clients, they would not necessitate the changes because it would take around 10 yrs for these changes to be significant enough to be noticed, and by that time the senior partners (read as the real decision makers) would retire or be close to retirement. So essentially, these changes will not help them personally.

Coming from a 2L with no Big Law experience yet, but has a big law SA lined up for the next summer. Opinion based on some research and mostly common sense.

[Anonymous User]

My understanding of big law firms is that they grind up associates by making them work long hours. Perennially fatigued workers produce lower-quality work and are more likely to quit.

Why don't the firms hire more associates? If a firm hired, say, twenty percent more associates, the remaining associates' twelve hour workdays would turn into under ten hours. The firm would be known for a high quality of life and would be able to attract top talent -- and therefore top clients. I'm not sure what percentage of revenue from a law firm goes to associates (incl. office space, benefits, support staff, etc.), but I'd imagine it's not very high considering that many partners make millions each.

There must be a reason firms don't do this, but I can't figure it out. Let me know.

A lot of reasons this wouldn't work (or least anytime in the near future), but a couple bad assumptions:

You're assuming that if a biglaw firm hired 20 percent more associates and offered to pay first-years a base salary of, say $130k, with the promise that they'll only put in 10-hour workdays, that top candidates would take that offer.

You're assuming that top clients would be swayed by top talent at the junior levels (they're definitely not).

[KidStuddi]

My understanding of big law firms is that they grind up associates by making them work long hours. Perennially fatigued workers produce lower-quality work and are more likely to quit.

Why don't the firms hire more associates? If a firm hired, say, twenty percent more associates, the remaining associates' twelve hour workdays would turn into under ten hours. The firm would be known for a high quality of life and would be able to attract top talent -- and therefore top clients. I'm not sure what percentage of revenue from a law firm goes to associates (incl. office space, benefits, support staff, etc.), but I'd imagine it's not very high considering that many partners make millions each.

There must be a reason firms don't do this, but I can't figure it out. Let me know.

Just a really poor premise presuming an inverse correlation between quantity of work and quality of work when the opposite is what's most likely true. Putting in an absurd amount of time is arguably the best way to learn how to produce consistently high-level work we know of, short of being born a savant. See, e.g., medical residency, professional athletes, professional singers and musicians, professional artists, professional writers, professional chess players, professional anything really. See generally, Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers (discussing the "10,000 hour rule" for success). Gladwell argues the only real constant across geniuses in various disciplines is willingness to put in insane amounts of practice and good luck w/r/t timing and circumstances. While he isn't the most rigorous researcher out there, everyday experience seems to support his point here. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to goto the surgeon who did his residency at a "lifestyle hospital." I don't know why everyone just assumes clients who have killed themselves to reach the top of the business world would pick a "lifestyle firm" for bet-the-company litigation / deal work.

There's also the more subtle mistake of assuming what we BigLaw firms sell is the quality work and not quality service. Clients paying $1k an hour aren't paying that ridiculous rate to make sure their filings are 110% typo free; they're paying for the comfort of knowing when shit hits the fan at 2am, because it will, they'll be able to get someone on the phone who's had the 2am phone call 100 times before and dealt with it.

[5ky]

Not to be a total biglaw apologist, but I understand why deals are staffed as leanly as possible (corp). It is just so much easier to have a three person team where everybody works 12+ hours a day than to have 5 people. Every additional person added to a deal just makes it that much more complicated and more likely something is going to fall through the cracks.

One of the deals I am on now started with like 7-8 people but is down to 3 now.

That being said, more associates to reduce total number of matters you have to be on would be more than welcome.

[patogordo]

Tls has a special ability to make me hate both sides of an argument.

[Anonymous User]

People who are tired and overworked are unproductive, leading to higher bills and more revenue for the firm. That's the entire premise.

In transactional, quality of work does not even matter. No client can tell if you wrote a good contract or not.

You also seem to think that working insane hours leads to turnover but it actually does the opposite. Biglaw hours are designed to be very long so that your personal life eventually degrades to nothing. Once you have your social life, family and friends and other relationships degraded, you become afraid to leave because while the job is awful, it's all you have left.

[fourtyacslaw]

People who are tired and overworked are unproductive, leading to higher bills and more revenue for the firm. That's the entire premise.

In transactional, quality of work does not even matter. No client can tell if you wrote a good contract or not.

You also seem to think that working insane hours leads to turnover but it actually does the opposite. Biglaw hours are designed to be very long so that your personal life eventually degrades to nothing. Once you have your social life, family and friends and other relationships degraded, you become afraid to leave because while the job is awful, it's all you have left.

Wow, way to paint a bleak picture.

edit: accidental anon.

[2014]

1) Partners (the decision makers) are too greedy to let go of their bonuses so that associates enjoy a comfortable life. More associates means less bonuses for the partners.

2) Even if the partners realize that better work product would subsequently lead to better clients, they would not necessitate the changes because it would take around 10 yrs for these changes to be significant enough to be noticed, and by that time the senior partners (read as the real decision makers) would retire or be close to retirement. So essentially, these changes will not help them personally.

Coming from a 2L with no Big Law experience yet, but has a big law SA lined up for the next summer. Opinion based on some research and mostly common sense.

Please ask partners about their bonuses and report results here.

[haus]

See generally, Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers (discussing the "10,000 hour rule" for success). Gladwell argues the only real constant across geniuses in various disciplines is willingness to put in insane amounts of practice and good luck w/r/t timing and circumstances. While he isn't the most rigorous researcher out there, everyday experience seems to support his point here.

Gladwell's 10,000 hours is almost entirely hokum.

[baal hadad]

The product of a firm is billable hours

Firms literally sell time

Don't act supposed when they want each associate to contribute a lot of product (time)

[dixiecupdrinking]

The product of a firm is billable hours

Firms literally sell time

Don't act supposed when they want each associate to contribute a lot of product (time)

Also there is literally no incentive for them to make people work less. They are already getting good people, and the associate burnout factor is overrated. Associates probably start leaving on average about when the firm wants them to.

[Johann]

The product of a firm is billable hours

Firms literally sell time

Don't act supposed when they want each associate to contribute a lot of product (time)

Also there is literally no incentive for them to make people work less. They are already getting good people, and the associate burnout factor is overrated. Associates probably start leaving on average about when the firm wants them to.

Yep. op's business model would implode because everyone would stay until they got fired. Nobody would self select out. There's more grunt work to go around then managerial work so you need the burnouts to drop after a couple years. The current self selection does a pretty good job of creating a tiered structure without a ton of layoffs.

[Desert Fox]

DF Thread