tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36806700.post8337231502116954121..comments2023-10-26T01:39:57.979-07:00Comments on Nancy Rapoport's Blogspot: Countdown to the death of billable hours continuesJim Chenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07826239123270878626noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36806700.post-52563605045441695862007-03-07T13:06:00.000-08:002007-03-07T13:06:00.000-08:00Great questions, Andrea! First off, I actually do...Great questions, Andrea! <BR/><BR/>First off, I actually <I>do</I> think that first-year associates aren't worth anywhere near these starting salaries (which put them in, what, the top 10% of income-earners in the U.S. right off the bat?). It takes years to develop the knowledge and skills to be a decent lawyer, and very good lawyers at smaller firms and firms in less trendy states make nowhere near the salaries at some of the largest firms. <BR/><BR/>Second, I agree with you that associates who are graduated from law school with $100+K in debt have to do whatever it takes to pay down their (non-dischargeable) debt, and it's not <I>their</I> fault that the market is overcompensating them. <BR/><BR/>Third, I believe that there are already way too many law schools and that, over time, something's going to give on that axis as well. <BR/><BR/>Frankly, I think that we all lose in the end by having salaries this high: there's less time to train associates and to mentor them, because clients aren't going to pay for those training costs and firms can't always afford to absorb them; high costs will equal high billable hour requirements, which will equal less free time for lawyers; and the pace of practice will continue to stay frantic, which hurts clients and lawyers alike.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642624069253492561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36806700.post-63595798298694313792007-03-07T11:22:00.000-08:002007-03-07T11:22:00.000-08:00I read in the NLJ this week that a firm--I think i...I read in the NLJ this week that a firm--I think it is DLA Piper--is raising patent associate starting salaries across the country to $160,000 from $145,000. All non-patent associates will continue to make a starting salary of $145,000. The firm justifies the patent associate salary raise because the demand for patent work is high and they can't find enough "qualified" patent attorneys. Also, I have read recently that the big NYC firms continue to up the ante on bonuses and salaries for all associates. So while I don't disagree with you that salaries are getting higher and law firms are going to have to find another way to comp the associates and pay their bills, it doesn't appear that everybody is feeling that same pinch. <BR/><BR/>What would you, as an academic, say to law students who have amassed over $150,000 in law school loans and who need to make that big paycheck just to get some suits and to make the minimum payment on the loans? Should they not make the money even if client demand for legal talent, particularly those from "top 10" or "top tier" schools, is high? Should there be fewer law schools graduating fewer law students (and needing fewer law professors)? The corporate clients --The MBAs at these corporations--just don't want to pay the market rate for legal services. Ironically, though, these MBAs are the same people who get huge bonuses from the money that they "save" by paring down the bill for legal services. The money doesn't go to the shareholders for sure, so why shouldn't the money go to the associates who provide legal services (which appear to be higly valued in the marketplace)? <BR/><BR/>In my opinion it's the corporation's shareholders who lose in the end though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com