I do like the law, the problem for me is that I don’t do that much of the hard interesting stuff, and instead I get to deal with piles of dull paperwork with the occasional interesting issue, and as an added bonus the internal politics of working with other lawyers. Technically I’m fairly decent (Legal 500/Chambers ranked, for what that’s worth) and I can get away with a charge out rate in the region of £300 + VAT, but I know that to make it to partnership I’d have to turn into the sort of person I don’t want to be. I’d need to prioritise arse licking and spending time outside office hours with people who would benefit my career rather than people I like spending time with. I don’t want to be told that I have to check my blackberry when I’m on holiday. I’ve seen the crap the salaried partners have to put up with from the equity partners. I don’t want to be consumed by the job – I want to be able to do a good job but leave it behind when I leave the office.

At one point I was probably considered to be on the partnership track, but I’ve made it pretty clear that I don’t want it. I’m quite happy to forego the job title in favour of it being slightly less all consuming, particularly as it would have no impact on the quality of the legal work I get to do (and indeed given that I like the legal work rather than the management side of it, that’s another reason for staying where I am). Except… having reached the limits of where I can get to on a non-partnership track I’m depressed by the prospect of just doing this forever, or being forced out as younger blood comes through the system. At the moment that’s unlikely to happen because of some of the fairly specialised and valuable to the board stuff I do but never say never.

In house would almost certainly be an improvement, but I have been trying to wait for the right in house job rather than applying for anything and everything. As time goes by I may rethink my strategy. I do have another idea but that would require me to be braver and actually sit down and make proper plans (I really quite enjoy data protection advisory work and I can see that in theory I could head down the route of non-regulated data protection consultancy work. No real need to be SRA regulated for that, and its a growing area. But the marketing side of it and actually finding enough clients to keep my head above water are what scare me. Which is probably why I became a lawyer in the first place ;-))

the more they work, the lower their per hour cost to the employer is

Utilisation is king!

You’d expect that when you’ve got a high hours target, hitting 100% utilisation would be looked on favourably by the firm…but when your colleagues are all sitting on 120% utilisation, you’re not only the back marker, you’re also dragging down the whole department utilisation. So even meeting your target is viewed as sub par performance.

The whole model encourages quantity over quality. Ever got towards the end of a financial year and found yourself in an unexpected quiet period? That three week quiet period can mean the difference between hitting bonus or not even hitting your target. I know more than one person who has time dumped to avoid situations like that.

It’s odd isn’t it? Even though you can see the statistics for yourself, no one fully accepts them. An equity partner at my last shop was taking home over £1m on average…yet a new salaried partner would be taking home under £150-175k. The reality is…for most… you’ll never see equity if you stick with a big firm

Very good point here – law firms seem totally pre-occupied with profit per equity partner. A lot of firms have been really struggling and hence very few people now make equity. The title of partner at many firms is now equivalent to senior manager at the big accountancy firms, where I think there is much more balance on working expectations.

It is going to be an interesting few years in law, as many now go into work, not to work 100+ hours for future partnership, but to achieve some kind of balance. How law firms achieve that culturally is going to be interesting. Certainly in the big 4 there is that understanding that many don’t want to shoot the lights out, but still want an interesting role that pays well.

A bit of a cliche, but I still think of this a lot. Especially when it comes to evaluating what’s important.

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “only a little while. The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.” The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15 – 20 years.”

“But what then?” Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!”

“Millions – then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

The whole model encourages quantity over quality.

This is the other reason why lawyers work so much: when you bill by the hour, there’s no point in being efficient. Most law firms don’t understand what goes into what they do: a consultancy or investment bank that charges a fixed (or percentage) fee will have a reasonable idea of what inputs go into a commoditized transaction like an IPO or something. Lawyers often don’t have the slightest FING idea how much needs to go into it, which is why their cost estimation is abysmal.

Interesting this. I’m the owner of a technology start-up, pre-revenue with no guarantee of success! Investment and corporate support now arriving and things are generally ‘on the up’. At some stage in the next few months I will be looking to ‘bring in some help’. Firstly through a funded interim programme but with the intention of full-time should it work out for both parties.

Legal / commercial background is what I need with experience of working with start ups. Someone to help structure the business and plan its growth – an MD type role while I sort the tech and customers.

Geography needn’t be a constraint at this point. Seems to be a lot of disillusioned people out there that might fancy a challenge? My email is in my profile if anyone is remotely interested in a chat.