Note to BigLaw: Please Explain
Two things captured my attention today. They fit so nicely together because I can't understand either of them. First, I read an Above The Law post about DLA Piper abandoning lockstep compensation for its associates. But it was this quote from co-CEO Lee Miller that struck me so hard:
"I don't think the model is broken, but people want to rethink what they're doing and why they're doing it."
So let me try to understand. DLA is abandoning lockstep, laying off lawyers, cutting associate salaries, deferring associate start dates, expanding its contract lawyer (non-partnership track) program, and so forth. Sounds like things are just hunky-dory. If things get any more "not broken," DLA will be the legal profession's version of the Chicago Cubs.
But that was this morning. This afternoon, Above The Law posted that Buchanan Ingersoll had cut the compensation of its associates by 10%. ATL includes this statement.
Buchanan Ingersoll CEO Jack Barbour furnished Above the Law with this statement. Barbour suggests that the cuts are in part to due to Buchanan's attempts to keep its billing rates competitive in this recession economy.
So let me try to understand this one. There is no indication that Buchanan is cutting its rates, only the compensation. That money not paid to associates goes to ....[drum roll]... that's right, the partners. And while I do not know for sure, I would be terribly surprised if Buchanan did not raise its rates at the end of last year, as it and virtually all firms do every year.
In fairness to Buchanan, they are not the only firm that has cut associate salaries, and perhaps others have tried to justify it in the same way. But it seems to me if your goal was to keep rates competitive or do something for your clients, actually lowering the billing rates would be a starting point.
It's been 18 months since we launched Valorem. We clearly don't speak BigLaw-ese anymore. Can someone translate these statements so they make sense to regular stiffs?
