DF Thread Forum

[Desert Fox]

[wolfie_m.]

.

[Desert Fox]

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

This is retarded. He makes it sound like a firm that is "lifestyle" will go out of business due to malpractice.

[Abbie Doobie]

http://www.bcgsearch.com/m/article/9000 ... Law-Firms/

fuck that - the reason there are no lifestyle firms is because Partner needs that 2016 Tesla Model S P90D and it isn't going to pay for itself

[rpupkin]

This is retarded. He makes it sound like a firm that is "lifestyle" will go out of business due to malpractice.

I agree that part of his piece was dumb. But his other point--that purported "lifestyle" firms do not stay that way due to market pressures--is depressingly accurate.

[los blancos]

I've thought about this, but I also wonder if some aspects of it are just endemic to the law firm model. There are always going to be shittier tasks and better tasks, and there's going to be more shitty boring legwork to be done than enjoyable "lawyerly" work

it's why firms need more associates than partners generally, and, unless a firm were to discount partners' hourly rates (or do everything flat fee/contingency) there's going to be economic reasons to have associates do some of the work

Yes generally, but infinitely moreso because of the billable hour's terrible incentives.

[FSK]

In line adds make my eyes bleed.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I've thought about this, but I also wonder if some aspects of it are just endemic to the law firm model. There are always going to be shittier tasks and better tasks, and there's going to be more shitty boring legwork to be done than enjoyable "lawyerly" work

it's why firms need more associates than partners generally, and, unless a firm were to discount partners' hourly rates (or do everything flat fee/contingency) there's going to be economic reasons to have associates do some of the work

Yes generally, but infinitely moreso because of the billable hour's terrible incentives.

Exactly. For instance, government lawyers have a better lifestyle but still (at least some of them) do excellent work. Why can't private firms do the same? Some of it is client demands and the simple fact that doing good work takes time and effort, but plenty of it is inefficient big law bullshit -- which happens to help line partners pockets.

[Anonymous User]

Idk... This just seems like one guy's completely unsubstantiated opinion. I worked in Shitlaw for a year or so, firm has been going strong for a couple decades now. The attorneys worked hard but it DEFINITELY wasn't the stressful BigLaw life. Partners worked probably 30 hours on average, associates probably about 50 average, never more than 60. Associates were always able to take long vacations twice per year, days off when wanted.

Secondary market. Associate pay was something like $40k + 25% of your revenue. Not a bad paycheck in a metro area of 1 million or so people. Well above average for sure.'

Seems relatively lifestyle to me

[smaug]

I've thought about this, but I also wonder if some aspects of it are just endemic to the law firm model. There are always going to be shittier tasks and better tasks, and there's going to be more shitty boring legwork to be done than enjoyable "lawyerly" work

it's why firms need more associates than partners generally, and, unless a firm were to discount partners' hourly rates (or do everything flat fee/contingency) there's going to be economic reasons to have associates do some of the work

Yes generally, but infinitely moreso because of the billable hour's terrible incentives.

But again, unless you do everything flat fee or by contingency there's no way around that. Flat fee seems difficult for a small firm, and contingency brings out eat what you kill incentives.

Turns out that being in a service industry has its drawbacks.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I've thought about this, but I also wonder if some aspects of it are just endemic to the law firm model. There are always going to be shittier tasks and better tasks, and there's going to be more shitty boring legwork to be done than enjoyable "lawyerly" work

it's why firms need more associates than partners generally, and, unless a firm were to discount partners' hourly rates (or do everything flat fee/contingency) there's going to be economic reasons to have associates do some of the work

Yes generally, but infinitely moreso because of the billable hour's terrible incentives.

Exactly. For instance, government lawyers have a better lifestyle but still (at least some of them) do excellent work. Why can't private firms do the same? Some of it is client demands and the simple fact that doing good work takes time and effort, but plenty of it is inefficient big law bullshit -- which happens to help line partners pockets.

I love working for the government and I think my colleagues do excellent work (and we work longer hours than some government employees), but it's probably a good thing we're a non-profit entity. I can't imagine we'd be remotely profitable in any way.

[los blancos]

I've thought about this, but I also wonder if some aspects of it are just endemic to the law firm model. There are always going to be shittier tasks and better tasks, and there's going to be more shitty boring legwork to be done than enjoyable "lawyerly" work

it's why firms need more associates than partners generally, and, unless a firm were to discount partners' hourly rates (or do everything flat fee/contingency) there's going to be economic reasons to have associates do some of the work

Yes generally, but infinitely moreso because of the billable hour's terrible incentives.

But again, unless you do everything flat fee or by contingency there's no way around that. Flat fee seems difficult for a small firm, and contingency brings out eat what you kill incentives.

Turns out that being in a service industry has its drawbacks.

Sometimes there isn't a way around the inefficiency. Other times, there is - simple question of a partner asking her/himself: would we be managing this matter the same way if we weren't getting paid by the hour?

Just because shitty incentives exist w/ the billable hour doesn't mean firms actually have to give in to them and/or go out of their way to line partners' pockets at every turn.

[smaug]

I agree, but I'm saying you're missing the cost concerned client side. Yes you could staff things reasonably and not turn over ever stone looking for the smallest thing that could help your case. I'm not saying that's the root problem, though.

I'm saying that some of that work will need to be done by associates, partially because partners are expensive. They could charge less, but that's something that you'd have to think about. You don't really want partners doing the shit work. Given the billable hour model and the assumption that partners want to have a productive day themselves, you're going to need associates churning through things.

Maybe the "solution" is just hiring more people so nobody is swamped, but even then I don't know that you'd really solve the problems of an adversarial system coupled with demanding clients.

Put succinctly: even if you're doing your best to eliminate unnecessary discovery and you outsource it or whatever, you still can't get rid of the hierarchical nature of legal work. A partner only law firm is about the only way you could preserve a lifestyle firm, and that can't exist due to client expectations.

[jrf12886]

As a recruiter, this is a pretty shitty way to get associates excited to lateral. "Even the less shitty job I'll place you in is going to suck"

[Dafaq]

As a recruiter, this is a pretty shitty way to get associates excited to lateral. "Even the less shitty job I'll place you in is going to suck"

As a recruiter, how are things going in getting firms to accept laterals these days? Isn't the market already flooded with recently displaced attorneys?

[DELG]

This is retarded. He makes it sound like a firm that is "lifestyle" will go out of business due to malpractice.

I agree that part of his piece was dumb. But his other point--that purported "lifestyle" firms do not stay that way due to market pressures--is depressingly accurate.

Yeah. When you're talking about firms that do the same kind of work as biglaw, I think it's pretty spot on.