May 2000
Greedy Associates:
An Appetite Suppressant
by Judith Endejan, Guest Editor
The other day I was looking for an appetite suppressant when a colleague at my firm directed me to the greedy associates bulletin board at http://www.infirmation.com/. Like most web surfers, I felt a voyeuristic thrill clicking onto the site. This feeling quickly dissipated into appetite-suppressing dismay at what I saw.
The website allows associates (or alleged associates) to share anonymous salary information about law firms, and opinions about the quality of law practice in the Puget Sound region. The intent seems to be to promote mass exodus from the associate ranks of Seattle law firms unless mass salary increases occur. The thundering herd of exiting associates seems headed toward the law firm that will pay them the highest salary, most likely California-based firms seeking to emulate Silicon Valley successes here in the Northwest. Believing themselves to be woefully abused, greedy associates send messages like the following:
• From: Anonseattle to: Money First Who cares until these cheapskate Seattle firms start showing us the money. Once a firm starts paying the market rate, then QOL, COL and prestige will take care of themselves. Give me almost anyplace at $140,000 over Seattle at $90,000. • Cashslave writes about the goal of raising first-year salaries from $70,000 to $100,000 for all practice areas: Now that the Eastside corporate firms have upped the ante, those of us who are inclined toward litigation need one of two things to happen: 1) full-service firms "really" matching (as opposed to a "Perkins match"), or 2) the Eastside firms expanding and adding litigators to their quivers. According to a GP at one particular Eastside firm, the move to add litigation is imminent. Whether or not that was just pillow talk, I don't know. • Phlyphish writes about associate exploitation in "backwater" Seattle: Gawd, are you ever right, skek4billion. The only place you could get anyone to buy that is in a provincial, second-rate city like this. My friends in major markets laugh riotously about QOL arguments for all the reasons you mention. Plus, the work here stinks. Major market attorneys get the lead role on the sexy deals; we get the local counsel and scut BS.
QOL is the current buzzword that used to be "firm culture" — it's as trite as "you just don't get it." What is the quality of a culture where your "partners" get rich off of your back and won't share the benefits of the Great Economy of the Turn of the Century? They make money off us, not their clients — that's wrong. And its not a culture I want to be a part of.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines a mercenary as "a person who serves or works merely for monetary gain." What dismayed me the most about the exchanges on the website was the display of simple, raw mercenariness among new lawyers just entering the profession. If the newest generation of lawyers cares only for monetary gain, where is the legal profession headed? I don't want to engage in the raging debate over proper associate compensation; the market will have to resolve this issue. Associate salaries will probably rise overall. But I'm concerned about the negative impact this attitude may have on the legal profession.
I may be naïve, but after 20 years of practice, I still believe law is a noble and learned profession with certain higher principles that distinguish it from other commercial enterprises. These principles are reflected in the law we swear to uphold and in the rules of professional conduct to which all lawyers must adhere. Without these principles and our commitment to serve, we would not have our legal justice system, the cornerstone of democracy.
The non-monetary values which go hand-in-hand with these principles are undermined by the greedy associate movement. Take loyalty, for example. If greedy associates march to the highest bidder, how can they ever be loyal to a client, cause or firm? How about trust? If their preeminent value is economic self-interest, how trustworthy is the advice which will be forthcoming at each stage of their careers? Compassion is clearly a value at odds with their approach to the world, because it has no measurable economic value. So is a commitment to fairness, justice and public service.
It is unfortunate that greedy associates don't seek or even discuss firms or places to work which honor these values. They only seek the highest salaries. While a new lawyer should be choosy about where to start a career, that doesn't mean this choice should be dictated solely by money. The factors which go into that decision will ultimately mold the professional he or she becomes. Values, training, firm culture and lifestyle are all non-economic considerations which should not be dismissed so easily and cynically. The bottom-line question should be: Where should I go to gain the skills and adhere to the highest standards of the profession I have chosen? If the burdens of choosing this profession are too great for a young lawyer, he or she should make a different choice.
While greedy associates appear cynical, feckless and value-impaired, they may be only a small sub-set of the new attorney population. I truly hope that the majority of new lawyers do not mirror their views, but have instead chosen the law for reasons other than money.
Unless the majority recognizes that they chose a service profession and not a cash-cow business, and act accordingly, the legal profession will be reduced to a mercenary state which I and other like-minded souls will choose to leave. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said:
"And what a profession it [the law] is! . . . the calling is great when properly pursued."
In my view, these greedy associates "just don't get it," and they will miss this calling in pursuit of the highest bidder.
Back to table of contents >>
