I'm not so sure it is a conflict as it is a missed communication. The only places where "firm first" is still prevalent among the younger generation are the big cities, NYC, SF, Chicago, LA, etc. Everywhere else firms are having to deal with the revelation that no matter how much they push salaries and billables, there is a different ethos among the younger generation. I'm in between the generations but I've suggested things like giving billable hour credit for continuing legal education because it ultimately provides value to the firm, giving billable credit for attorneys who take vacation, perhaps at a half rate. Otherwise you can take all the vacation you want but still have to meet the monstrous mountain of billables. We'll see how it shakes out - one of two ways, either firms will inculcate their values (bill, bill, bill, and family be damned) into the next generation as I suspect has happened as firms replicate themselves OR young associates will defect in massive numbers and start firms that aren't predicated on a 24/7 commitment to legal practice and place emphasis on family values and actual pro bono work. One paradox is that the bigger the firm, the better their pro bono program is and the more it actually takes on high profile cases where you feel like you are making a difference. Mid-size firms on the other hand are struggling with the concept of pro bono even though their partners are well compensated (sure, not in comparison to NYC and the million dollar babies but certainly in comparison to the rest of the population [doctors excepted]). As I've said before, if you can't get by on $200,000 per year then your value system is likely out of whack. I see both sides since I am in between generations but something has to give. Partners need to be willing to take home a little less money and give their associates a little more time with their families. Without that flexibility, the wholesale defections to government work and in-house counsel will be continue and firms will be caught in a continuous training cycle. Firms need to give some serious thought to law as big business rather than honorable profession - the change may destroy what is good and honorable about practice!

Writing to Fulfill a Goal

I'm sure many blawggers start the way I do, seeing if they enjoy non-legal writing enough to become the next Scott Turow or Greg Iles (if you haven't read him, you don't know what you are missing!). I'm new enough not to have developed any specialties apart from "general litigation" the death knell of any attorney looking to change firms. I know that skills at this level are largely transferable and I'm learning at a highly regarded firm so taking next steps in my legal career, whether within the firm or with another firm or governmental agency should be fairly easy, what with the constant headhunter calls etc. I'm just not sure about practicing law with people who, when they make mistakes, use that as an excuse to monopolize other attorney's time trying to fix those mistakes. And unfortunately, when the laws change (which is often) unless one is keeping current, those mistakes are bound to happen. The hope of course is that they are minor and don't hurt our clients - it's our job, after all, to provide the best service we can to those clients. Resting on one's laurels, as some senior attorneys seem to do, just isn't good enough.

I would encourage attorneys, now that they are out of law school or "Training for Hierarchy" to really consider what they want out of their career. If you aren't doing something that you love (and no junior associates really are) then it's time to reassess and see what you can do with your degree that dovetails with something you love. I'm just not sure how the law dovetails with that, for me, right now, although in time perhaps something will be revealed. The city's legal community is small but growing and the half-ass measures of the past just aren't cutting it these days now that the "big boys" have shown up in town to try and do business. If I were a business, apart from lower rates, why wouldn't I want a firm with the power and expertise of 1,000+ lawyers behind me? The flipside of course is that a local firm is likely to know more about local economic conditions, power players, and which levers to push. And of course, more likely to return your calls, charge you less money, and actually have your best interests in mind...

I'm still in that early 3 year or so stage where life consists of a lot of legal research and writing coupled with the occasional hand-off from a partner that leaves you scratching your head and thinking, I'm qualified to do this? I don't know.

Then there is the whole balance issue - technology can be a friend or foe depending on whether you control it or it controls you. I vote (and practice) the former. There is no reason (unless I'm expecting a client call) to have my pda on during the weekend or after 7 pm at night. That's why phones have answering machines as part of the package!

All right, enough of the rant for a Sunday. I'll just keep doing the best I can for my clients and doing the best I can to hold off the senior attorney who made a mistake and whose work thus seems like an emergency to her but really isn't and get to the other projects with actual deadlines. It's all about balance. But, how does an attorney really maintain such a thing? Is there a way to obtain such a thing? I don't know. Family and health comes first. Then clients. Then firm politics.

The "old guard" doesn't get that. For them it was "Firm first," with everything else a distant second. They may say otherwise but their behavior doesn't point to that dynamic. They are just going to have to figure out how to deal with Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers and those generations realization that they don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past and sacrifice family for a career. They realize that they can have their cake and eat it too.

What that means is that law firms will have to sacrifice some of the "profits per partner" but I'm sorry, if you can't live on an income of 200K+ per year then somewhere, somehow your values are out of whack - sorry boomers. But it's true. A reasonable salary for an attorney is $150K, that should really be sufficient (unless you live in LA, SF, or NYC) to pay the bills, take vacations, save for retirement, and put the kids through college while living in a nice house. I think that's where the gap lies - the younger generation doesn't care about "making partner" or making "a lot of money." They are interested in mental well-being and in being there for their loved ones.

Some good starts would be actually giving attorneys vacations - i.e. say that you have to bill 50 hours a week to make your minimum but take a week of vacation. A real vacation would mean that you get 50 hours of billable credit for that week. In reality, no law firm would buy that (currently anyway) but perhaps a credit of 25 hours for each vacation week would be a reasonable substitute and reduce the anxiety about taking vacations, medical leaves, and other time off for family or personal reasons. It isn't really a vacation if you have to make the time up later!

A wide ranging bit of topics in there - we'll see if anything strikes a nerve, among either the young or old!

Best,
An Anonymous Attorney

Woefully Remiss

I have to apologize to myself and to whatever readers I may or may not have (I think this if pretty much for me at this point) but I've been remiss in at least logging onto my blawg and posting something. I'm sure much of that has to do with being a young lawyer, learning basic skills in the "residency" portion of my legal career. Learning the law is much like medical school but insteand of an official residence period with ongoing teaching etc., legal education relies on more senior lawyers to provide mentoring and teaching to younger associates. Unfortunately, those lawyers who are supposed to oversee this de facto residency period are often so busy that they don't have time to do a good job.

I've been filled with entrepreneurial thoughts about the potential for technology and the practice of law lately. It seems like only the smallest dent has been made in bringing the potential of technology to the practice of law. Certainly legal research is more convenient, firms have programs that track hours, bill clients, etc. but there isn't enough cross-platform integration and the barest beginning has been made bringing that potential to clients and to the courts. Part of it is generational and part of it has to do with the old guard's reluctance to take some measured risks in what could be an extensive reward.

And don't get me started on the potential for e-discovery.