Things cost money. Staying at home doesn’t buy things. Going out there and making as much money as possible is the best thing to do. Everyone wants to live the good life. But the good life costs. So what if you can’t make it to the softball game or the ballet recital! If you are bringing home big bucks, you are doing more for your family than any amount of time will.

A parent that doesn’t make a ton of money is shameful. Kids want iPhones, computers, jeans, sneakers, and other cool stuff. How can a kid be cool if mom or dad only works 40 hours a week but brings home diddley squat? I would rather work a ton of hours and make a ton of money than come home at the same time and sit in the house with a nagging wife and bratty children. A family has to understand that having things is more important than being together. Working less is not an option!

Likewise many thanks for your detailed response.

I agree with your final paragraph in particular and wonder whether, at BigLaw in particular, it has been exacerbated by the pyramid career structure and consequent need to “divest” associates as they rise in seniority – “if you need to “divest” then why bother keeping them happy to stay?”. I am also reminded again of when I was appointing a BigLaw practice and suggested limiting associates from working too long hours on the deal – an idea that was very politely “parked” by the law firm!

Indeed, I suspect our views our very much in the same place on this one, save, whilst acknowledging the realities, that I would regret seeing the back of WLB for the reasons I have stated.

I would also make the following follow-on comment-

You note that your posting on reducing PPP to save jobs didn’t elicit much support. In the meantime, to maintain quality and inflow of associates, firms have engaged in a pricing war to attract associates that has escalated salaries to levels many are now, post-credit crunch, viewing as unnecessary and unsustainable.

Put another way, partners have effectively taken the PPP cut to keep attracting associates but are less willing to do so to retain associates who don’t “fit” the required template.

I have not done the maths, but I wonder whether it is the costs of the former or the latter approach that result in the larger PPA cut?

It’s not an easy one I admit – not least as associates expect to be paid more as they get more senior/experienced and as “this is the way everyone does it”. On that though I am reminded of Prince at Citigroup saying “as long as the music’s playing you’ve got to get up and dance” (see my blog on that one – http://geotrupes.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-you-still-dancing.html ) in defence of why the banks followed each other over the cliff.

James

“it is not necessarily only “the brightest and the best” that make partner and earn the considerable salaries. Some are for sure, but not all. Instead, and I do not in any way mean this critically, it is those that are of an acceptable quality, typically “fit in” and who are willing to tolerate the workload who make partner”

No question. Just as an IQ test measures how well you do on IQ tests and little else, your rise to the top of a large law firm indicates that you possess qualities that engender success in a large-firm environment but doesn’t otherwise infer anything much about your talent.

“So if it is correct to say that WLB is solely for the individual, you are also stating that (1) individualism must always come second to the firm (regardless the impact of losing individualism on creativity and innovation) (b) that firms view “excellent” lawyers walking out the door is a pretty much wholly acceptable reality of “doing business” (c) no means ever exist to retain that “excellence” (assuming they are leaving for WLB reasons) and (d) that the firms that continue to focus on WLB are putting themselves at a disadvantage by doing so. At a high level, you are also saying that firms that ignore WLB get just as much out of their retained people as firms that respect WLB. That cannot be right can it?”"

I’d much prefer that it wasn’t this way, but I haven’t seen much evidence that the private bar operates differently from this. In terms of (a), vanishingly few lawyers seem prepared to put the firm’s interests before their own and equally few firms seem to value either creativity or innovation; I wondered in an earlier post how many law firm partners would be willing to voluntarily reduce their annual draw to save jobs within the firm, and the crickets are still chirping on that one. In terms of (b), many firms seem to view associates as fungible and regard the loss of partners as problematic only to the extent that she might take clients with her or otherwise damage the firm’s image or financial interests (and for most firms, “excellence” is measured in financial terms anyway, so by their logic, no “excellent” lawyer would leave because of overwork issues). In terms of (c), I think the means do exist to retain a lawyer whose WLB concerns are driving him away, but few firms seem inclined to do the kind of internal productivity calculus that would give them a means beyond hours billed or rain made by which lawyers could then be appreciated for a wider range of skills. In terms of (d), “disadvantage” would depend on what the firm’s goal is; if it’s to maximize PPP within a traditional law firm structure, absolutely, it’s disadvantageous to do anything that will reduce your stock in trade (hours billed), whereas if your goal is to have a firm that aims to be a holistic net benefit to both clients and lawyers, then you would tilt your model and incentives differently. Most firms of more than modest size, in my experience, fall into the former category; their primary interest in lawyers is in their one-dimensional ability to generate work that can be billed to clients, a purpose to which WLB issues are largely irrelevant (since even if some lawyers give up, burned out or bereft, others have always been willing to take their place).

“Respecting WLB should be about accommodating and supporting individuality to the benefit of the business as a whole.”

While I agree with this in spirit, I think two things need to happen for this to actually be the case. The first is that the vast majority of lawyers must decide for themselves that certain types and conditions of legal employment are unacceptable to them, so that the nature of the legal talent market itself changes. In other words, before law firms will make fundamental changes to accommodate lawyers’ desire for personal time, they must be convinced that such personal demands are a permanent and inescapable reality of the talent market. So long as there are enough lawyers with one-dimensional interests available to populate the firms, these firms will have no incentive to act differently. Secondly, firms also need to identify what kind of behaviour is in their enlightened self-interest, a challenging task that requires long-term strategic thinking, broad talent and client marketplace analyses, and an understanding of the larger role of a law firm within a given community. Most firms are light-years away from being able to assimilate those factors effectively and come to an understanding of enlightened self-interest, not least because most law firms are not run by professional corporate managers but by lawyers themselves.

Long story short (too late), before firms will seriously consider adapting their practices to accommodate the individual interest of their lawyers, they need (a) to be convinced that the legal talent market has changed permanently, (b) a far more sophisticated grasp of long-term corporate self-interest, and (c) other fundamental changes to the legal services marketplace (from the client and competition sides) that will render the current model unsustainable and make change not just desirable but necessary. We’re coming up on the third, but the first two still seem some distance away.

Having worked in both Biglaw and a major corporate, the differences are striking.

In the corporate sector, whilst the “job for life” approach has long gone, there does nonetheless exist an implicit agreement that employers will support individuals’ personal development in return for their efforts at work. What’s more, that personal development tends towards improving individuals’ ability to work in group contexts, the expectation being that the view/decision of the finest individuals can still be enhanced through consultation.

Building on that, many corporates also acknowledge that individuals are individuals, that they experience a variety of varying circumstances and that taking into account individuality can be to the significant benefit of the business as a whole.

Turning then to the law context, it comes as a surprise to many to learn that it is not necessarily only “the brightest and the best” that make partner and earn the considerable salaries. Some are for sure, but not all. Instead, and I do not in any way mean this critically, it is those that are of an acceptable quality, typically “fit in” and who are willing to tolerate the workload who make partner.

So if it is correct to say that WLB is solely for the individual, you are also stating that (1) individualism must always come second to the firm (regardless the impact of losing individualism on creativity and innovation) (b) that firms view “excellent” lawyers walking out the door is a pretty much wholly acceptable reality of “doing business” (c) no means ever exist to retain that “excellence” (assuming they are leaving for WLB reasons) and (d) that the firms that continue to focus on WLB are putting themselves at a disadvantage by doing so. At a high level, you are also saying that firms that ignore WLB get just as much out of their retained people as firm’s that respect WLB. That cannot be right can it?

Respecting WLB should be about accommodating and supporting individuality to the benefit of the business as a whole. That does not mean working less hard, or not putting in the hours. It might mean though employing a few more associates and/or being innovative/supportive/understanding in the treatment of individuals as individuals.

Of course, that is no easy thing to do. Would that it were! In the same way, however, as firms now benefit from no longer being closed to women, for example, they must surely benefit by being able to retain their brightest and their best and getting the best out of everyone along the way rather than limiting themselves to those that “fit”.

So “yes” WLB is for the individual, but if that really is the end of it then (in my view at least!) (a) associates will have been proved right in having suspicions about their bosses’ commitments to WLB efforts (b) talent will continue to leave and not return and (c) clients will receive a lesser service as a result than might otherwise have been the case.

James

I think one aspect missing from your commentary is how it was the influx of female lawyers (or two-income families) that really started to drive the discussion about work-life balance in the first place. Not to say that dads didn’t want to spend time with their kids, but they face a much different set of expectations when it comes to involvement in their kids’ lives. Culturally, it’s “okay” if Dad misses Janie’s piano recital because he’s working, but if it’s Mom? There’s that perception that she must care more about her career than her kids, never mind the sacrifices for her career that she probably made to have those kids in the first place.

Balance doesn’t mean 50/50, it’s about finding what works best for you. But until things start changing, we shouldn’t be surprised if mothers continue to leave private practice (or BigLaw) in droves.