In their respective articles, both Gialanella and Kane note the positives of this policy:
- happier associates (well, at least the first-years)
- happier clients (at least those clients who think that by assigning a first-year to their case from whom they will not be billed they are getting something "free")
- better training and work experiences for first-year associates because the firm is under no pressure to assign them to billable hour work, which for first-years would usually be massive document productions and/or tedious legal research.
Tom Kane makes a salient observation -- while this progam is innovative and "gutsy," Ford & Harrison still operates under the billable hour system. But, he notes, have they "allowed the camel’s nose to get under the tent? We’ll see."
We'll see, indeed. I hope he is right, but my hunch is that programs like these, even if they proliferate, will not have the effect of ending law firms reliance on the billable hour economic model. These programs may help attract law school 3Ls to firms that adopt this policy, but I do not see how it will lead any law firm to change their fee structures to alternatives to the billable hour. And it may have the unintended consequence of causing more billable hour stress on second-year and more senior associates who may be called upon to make up for the revenue lost by not billing out first-years, particularly when first-year associate base pay at the big law firms on the coasts is approaching the $200,000 a year milestone. More about first-year associate pay and its effect on billing practices in future posts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment