More on Associates’ Salaries

Earlier this month, I wrote about the increase in associates’ salaries and discussed whether associates would prefer higher salaries or lower billable hours in my post, Associates Would Give Up Higher Salaries for Lower Billable Hours. Yesterday’s New York Lawyer e-Report contained an article, “We Know What You’re Thinking” about a survey conducted by the Daily Report in Georgia of associates at big firms where salaries were recently increased. According to that article, 61% of the associates that responded to the survey said that they would rather have received the raise than a 10% reduction in their firm’s billable hour expectations.

It seems at first glance that the survey results cited in my earlier post and the survey conducted by the Daily Report are in conflict. But are they really? All surveys reflect only the views of those that actually respond, and the Daily Report survey was conducted by email in a little over 24 hours and sent to 780 associates at 9 law firms. The survey received 145 responses, as compared to the over 2300 respondents to the ABA survey discussed in my original post.

Although respondents to the Daily Report survey said that they would rather have the raise than a reduction in billable hour expectations, what were the reasons these responses were given? Is it possible that some of those associates responded the way they did because they think that a reduction in billable hour ‘expectations’ would be a false reduction? In other words, could those associates have been concerned that a stated reduction in billable hour expectations wouldn’t mean any ‘real’ change in the firm’s expectations for purposes of raises, advancement, prestige within the firm or priority assignments?

The article doesn’t indicate the average number of billable hours required of associates that responded to the survey.

One interesting point made by the Daily Report article was that less experienced associates tended to believe that the raises would not result in additional billable hour requirements, but more experienced associates anticipated that with additional rewards would come additional expectations.

One of the problems with discussions of work-life balance and reduction in billable hour requirements is that many firms pay lip service to these concepts, but don’t follow through in practice. Although many firms claim to offer flexible or part time work arrangements, attorneys that take advantage of these programs are seen as less valuable to the firm.

Whether associates would prefer higher salaries or lower billable hour expectations, lawyers and law firms are left with the same problem – there are only so many hours that any lawyer can possibly bill in a day, and the number of hours invested is rarely an indicator of the value of the activity, either to the law firm or to the client.

Rather than asking associates whether they would choose higher salaries or lower billable hours, it’s time to ask how to maximize the skills and talents of associates to help solve clients’ problems, and charge clients based upon the value of the services received, rather than the time expended. That way, lawyers can be compensated for the value they provide to the firm and the client, rather than the number of hours they work.

———

It’s not too late – if you’re interested in learning how to grow your practice and focus on your clients’ needs – without spending an arm and a leg, check out my upcoming teleseminar series beginning on February 27: “How to Grow Your Law Practice on a Shoestring Budget.”