I suspect this is not going to be most people's reaction to the article in today's New York Times, about law firms creating a "career associate track." These jobs pay a modest but adequate salary -- say, $65,000 -- in exchange for a reasonable billable hours requirement and no expectation of ever making partner. The firms described in the article have created these positions in branch offices in small cities with low cost of living, like Wheeling, W. Va., and Dayton, Ohio. The associates do real lawyer work, like "writing briefs, visiting client sites, prepping witnesses for hearings."
I've been saying for a long time that I don't understand why law firms don't create a second, non-gunner track for lawyers who want to do challenging work but not sacrifice the other aspects of their lives in exchange for the potential financial and prestige upside of making partner. Firms complain all the time about their attrition rates, but have seemingly been unable to appreciate that many of the lawyers they lost were unwilling to give up a life in which they could spend meaningful time with their families or do other things that gave them lasting satisfaction. That is, people aren't motivated solely by the possibility of making seven-figure salaries. Instead, most firms stigmatized "lifestyle jobs" as suitable only for people who lack the work ethic and commitment of "real" associates who are gunning for partner.
Since when is it a bad thing to want to have some balance in one's life? I fully understand that it's unrealistic to expect pre-2007 starting associate salaries of $140,000 or whatever they were, and also to expect to be able to sail out of the office at 5:00 to spend time with your kids. As I used tell my students (pre-crash), you don't get those salaries by being smart or good-looking, but by working your ass off for clients. You can't very well complain about having to bill 2,400 hours a year if you're getting paid those salaries. What I've never understood, though, is why the firms were so resistant to accepting a hypothetical offer like this: "I'd be happy to take a salary of $75,000 in exchange for working a reasonable, sustainable number of hours. I'd like to participate meaningfully in my children's lives. I'd like to see my partner more than once a week. I'd like to have time for a few hobbies, and to have some friends. I'd like to get some exercise. I'd like to read for pleasure every once in a while. I get that if I'm interested in having a balanced life, I'm not going to get paid like those who are willing to chuck all of those things out the window in order to make as much money as possible. And I understand that you have overhead and benefits to pay for. Which is why I'll take a non-partner-track job at a modest pay rate." Yet firms have historically not only rejected creating jobs like this, but have stigmatized lawyers who would ask for them as somehow unworthy of serving the clients of these firms. They were seen as lazy and less dedicated to providing high-quality legal service.
I don't put much stock in half-baked generalizations about an entire generation of people (I'm a Gen X'er, but not a slacker), but there's been a lot of talk about the so-called millennial generation being coddled by their parents, raised with a deep sense of entitlement, and going out into the workforce and demanding that employers create meaningful, fun career tracks that cater to their expectations. Just to be clear, I have no problem with law firms expecting junior associates to do some grunt work. Document production and due diligence are part of life at big firms. Not every task will be pleasant or intellectually stimulating. What makes a job a job, not a hobby, is the presence of drudgery. I'm not applauding these firms for creating jobs suitable for spoiled children. I do think, however, that lawyers entering the workforce now are less willing to sacrifice other aspects of a well-lived life just so they can make partner and get rich. All I'm saying is that there should be options. If someone wants to single-mindedly pursue brass rings, that's great, but there are a lot of people out there who want to be lawyers, live comfortably but not extravagantly, and retain some work-life balance. Firms would be wise to make a career track available to them.
And yes, I'm aware that law schools have to consider their pricing models. If we price legal education on the assumption that most of our graduates are going to become partners at big firms, then we're depriving our graduates of the choice I'm advocating for here. I think whatever the "permanent associate" career track looks like, it has to include compensation that's sufficient to allow lawyers to amortize the cost of their education. If this component gets too large and salaries for permanent associates get too high, then firms will be entitled to demand more billable hours from these lawyers and the benefits of this separate track will be lost.
Finally, I'm also aware that there's a whole world out there beyond BigLaw, and graduates have always been able to opt for reasonable salaries and sustainable work demands. You can have a pretty good life in Syracuse, Rochester, or Buffalo at a high-quality small to medium-sized law firm, doing interesting work, occasionally working really hard in preparation for a trial or a closing, but generally being able to have a life outside the office. The same is true in many jobs with government, non-profits, and in-house counsel positions. In fact, these are the sorts of jobs that lawyers take after leaving big firms because the demands are unsustainable in view of other life commitments. It just seems like common sense that large firms would want to retain this human capital.