Associates Want a Break on Billable Hours as Pay Cuts Roil Law Firms
A new survey released by Major, Lindsey & Africa and Above the Law found that while law firms are getting high marks for communicating in the coronavirus crisis, many associates want lower billable hour targets in light of broad pay cuts and unusual working conditions.
May 14, 2020 at 01:54 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Despite the global coronavirus pandemic shuttering offices and shifting law firms remote, the majority of law firm associates feel that their firms are communicating well and providing adequate mental health resources, according to a newly released survey conducted by Major, Lindsey & Africa and Above the Law.
But a drop in work across several practice areas combined with increased stress and family responsibilities at home has associates clamoring for firms to lower their billable hour target.
The survey, which polled more than 1,300 associates between April 13 and April 21, found that around 39% of associates have seen a decrease in their workload. And the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic has had an inconsistent effect: 57.8% of real estate associates, 42.8% of intellectual property associates, 41.7% of tax associates and 39.8% of corporate associates reported less work.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, bankruptcy and health care associates reported a 52.6% and 43.8% increase in work respectively. Around 61% of respondents said their work load has stayed consistent or increased.
Many respondents reported that the pandemic has affected their productivity as they deal with complicated family situations, the specter of unemployment and the isolation that has become a hallmark of the pandemic—as well as the constant news about death and sickness in their communities.
Around 11% of associates said their mental health was their primary concern. Nearly 75% of respondents said job security or cost-cutting measures were their top concerns amid the pandemic.
In spite of these challenges, the majority of associates commended their firms in how they're handling communication and mental health resources in response. Around 69% said they were satisfied with how often firm management was communicating. Nearly 58% of respondents were satisfied with the wellness resources their firms have created during the pandemic.
"What is really great to see is that firms have shifted dramatically from the way that they were communicating in the last recession in 2008," said Ru Bhatt, a partner in Major Lindsey's associate practice group. "Associates value transparency, and firms have acknowledged that, so communications have spiked."
Bhatt said many law firm managing partners are sending out clear, candid updates to their employees weekly. And many firms that had mental health programming before the pandemic hit have maintained their initiatives—some have even expanded access and bolstered those offerings.
Despite these resources, many associates are finding that law firms need to reduce billable hours given the broad pay cuts at many firms and the increased stress and turmoil caused by the pandemic.
Nearly a quarter of respondents said that they've received more work, even as many firms cut pay for associates by as much as 25%. An overwhelming majority of firms, 93.5%, have not adjusted billable hour targets, according to the respondents.
"At the end of the survey, we asked 'what would you like to be changed,' said Bhatt. "Billable hour changes were the top concern."
It is worth noting, though, that associates have advocated for reduced billable hour requirements even before the pandemic. In a 2019 associate survey, Major Lindsey found that 75% of associates would take a pay cut in exchange for reduced hours.
|Gender and Tech
Gender also played a role in how a respondent thought about billable hour changes. Women were twice as likely to be concerned about billable hours compared with men—a trend Bhatt said could not be explained from the collected data.
Familiar gender lines also came through in the survey: Women were three times more likely to worry about child care amid the pandemic, while men were four times more likely to say their biggest concern was its effect on the partnership track.
"Unfortunately, the differences we found tend to fall around traditional gender norms," Bhatt said.
Looking toward the future, a vast majority of respondents believe the pandemic will forever change the business of law. Around 60% of the respondents believe that the crisis will lead to permanent changes in the legal industry with 30% saying they are unsure and just 10% saying that nothing will change.
Nearly 95% of the respondents who said the pandemic will lead to long-term change said that law firms will alter their remote work policies. Around 82% said that the crisis will change how law firms use technology. And 57% said that the amount or configuration of physical office space will see change as well.
|Read More
Amid the Pandemic, These Law Firms Are Sticking With Their Mental Health Programs
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Path in the Multiverse: Rethinking Client Engagement Through Gamification
6 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read‘What’s Up With Morgan & Morgan?’ Law, Advertising and a Calculated Rise
10 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 2The Definition of Special Employment
- 3People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 4Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
- 5Divided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250