I really appreciate this blog and especially this post. I am in my third year of law school, going part time, and I am trying to avoid some of these traps that you write about. I am thinking about focusing on Patent Litigation, do you think it is a unicorn job?
As a BigLaw denizen myself, I agree with most of this.
But there's a core question - is the billable hour model *really* the source of shitwork?
Look at investment banking. They're not paid by the hour - heck, they're the definition of value-based pricing. And yet, the amount of shitwork an IB analyst does is arguably worse than BigLaw's junior.
I think this is where there is such a big difference between litigation and transactional work. Typos matter in contracts. Small nits in briefs don't matter as much. Think of contracts as like computer software. Any coder will tell you that one typo can mean a program doesn't even compile much less run. And one small mistake can drastically affect performance. Contracts are that way and there are a million examples - a misplaced comma, a dropped phrase, a misnumbered reference, etc.
I think you're overthinking the existence of shitwork.
Shitwork exists because someone has to do it. Do we have non-lawyers that can proofread? Of course, but I trust my associates more than I trust those folks and we can't send documents out with broken section references or typos or undefined terms. That's malpractice.
So, now that we know that the work has to be done, who is going to do the work? The partner who bills out at $1,500+ an hour or the first year associate? It's going to be the first year associate.
I'm a junior lawyer from Pakistan and I cannot agree more with all of this especially the section on why associates are miserable. I am presently stuck in a job that offers me no real opportunities to gain valuable skills and am therefore told that I should just be grateful that I get paid at all (even though I get paid basically just minimum wage). It's all quiet frustrating because I thought doing an international degree and getting good grades would equal better opportunities but I've now learned that that is not true at all.
So thank you for this. I really appreciate you putting this phenomenon into words.
In my opinion, it is hard to break this equilibrium without a meaningful change from the consumer. Big law has the clients/work/revenue, and whoever has those things is king. They can to secure the (perceived) best talent since the best talent chases work, and because of that consumers have limited places to go.
If firms ever have a revenue problem, that's when the walls of the fortress will break down and one fortress may become 500+ small shops.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I spent 5 years at a large law firm and have worked in house for 7 or 8 years now. I enthusiastically look forward to the day when I'm a former lawyer.
I think you should take a step back in your analysis and look at what creates this problem, which is law schools in conjunction with the big law billable hours model. The schools are pumping an unnecessary volume of people through a system, who will eventually land somewhere and need something to do. If the supply of lawyer bodies were fewer, the need to create work to fill their idle hands would be less. Does our market actually need more lawyers? I am actually asking.
And I know plenty has been written about this but something I always struggle to wrap my head around is the billable model as a desperate way to recoup for the work that we are doing. We are not billing for time - we are charging for our expertise, education, experience, know how, the time we spent, and ultimately the product that is delivered. If there were a way to package that and charge for it in a way that was separated from time alone, that may chip away at the way at the problems you have identified.
Last, I know everyone's journey is different but one disagreement I would have with your writing is from my own perspective...even though during my 5 years at a firm I was doing plenty of grunt work, some of it has surprisingly come up again in ways that I've found useful as a more experienced in house lawyer.
I really appreciate this blog and especially this post. I am in my third year of law school, going part time, and I am trying to avoid some of these traps that you write about. I am thinking about focusing on Patent Litigation, do you think it is a unicorn job?
This article is such a breath of fresh air.
Hey Alex, this article is a work-of-art. Congrats!
As a BigLaw denizen myself, I agree with most of this.
But there's a core question - is the billable hour model *really* the source of shitwork?
Look at investment banking. They're not paid by the hour - heck, they're the definition of value-based pricing. And yet, the amount of shitwork an IB analyst does is arguably worse than BigLaw's junior.
What gives?
I think this is where there is such a big difference between litigation and transactional work. Typos matter in contracts. Small nits in briefs don't matter as much. Think of contracts as like computer software. Any coder will tell you that one typo can mean a program doesn't even compile much less run. And one small mistake can drastically affect performance. Contracts are that way and there are a million examples - a misplaced comma, a dropped phrase, a misnumbered reference, etc.
I think you're overthinking the existence of shitwork.
Shitwork exists because someone has to do it. Do we have non-lawyers that can proofread? Of course, but I trust my associates more than I trust those folks and we can't send documents out with broken section references or typos or undefined terms. That's malpractice.
So, now that we know that the work has to be done, who is going to do the work? The partner who bills out at $1,500+ an hour or the first year associate? It's going to be the first year associate.
Hey Alex,
I'm a junior lawyer from Pakistan and I cannot agree more with all of this especially the section on why associates are miserable. I am presently stuck in a job that offers me no real opportunities to gain valuable skills and am therefore told that I should just be grateful that I get paid at all (even though I get paid basically just minimum wage). It's all quiet frustrating because I thought doing an international degree and getting good grades would equal better opportunities but I've now learned that that is not true at all.
So thank you for this. I really appreciate you putting this phenomenon into words.
In my opinion, it is hard to break this equilibrium without a meaningful change from the consumer. Big law has the clients/work/revenue, and whoever has those things is king. They can to secure the (perceived) best talent since the best talent chases work, and because of that consumers have limited places to go.
If firms ever have a revenue problem, that's when the walls of the fortress will break down and one fortress may become 500+ small shops.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I spent 5 years at a large law firm and have worked in house for 7 or 8 years now. I enthusiastically look forward to the day when I'm a former lawyer.
I think you should take a step back in your analysis and look at what creates this problem, which is law schools in conjunction with the big law billable hours model. The schools are pumping an unnecessary volume of people through a system, who will eventually land somewhere and need something to do. If the supply of lawyer bodies were fewer, the need to create work to fill their idle hands would be less. Does our market actually need more lawyers? I am actually asking.
And I know plenty has been written about this but something I always struggle to wrap my head around is the billable model as a desperate way to recoup for the work that we are doing. We are not billing for time - we are charging for our expertise, education, experience, know how, the time we spent, and ultimately the product that is delivered. If there were a way to package that and charge for it in a way that was separated from time alone, that may chip away at the way at the problems you have identified.
Last, I know everyone's journey is different but one disagreement I would have with your writing is from my own perspective...even though during my 5 years at a firm I was doing plenty of grunt work, some of it has surprisingly come up again in ways that I've found useful as a more experienced in house lawyer.