What Makes Lawyers Happy? Money, Honey
It seems the more money lawyers make, the happier they are and the less they care about what normal folks call quality-of-life issues, a new study finds.
January 31, 2019 at 05:12 PM
4 minute read
Why all the hand-wringing about the low morale of lawyers?
It turns out lawyers aren't so miserable, particularly if they're sitting pretty as equity partners raking in the dough.
Partners are a surprisingly content lot, according to Major Lindsey & Africa's partner compensation survey: Among respondents, 78 percent classified themselves as very satisfied, moderately satisfied or slightly satisfied when their compensation is taken into consideration. Only 15 percent put themselves in the dissatisfied category, and 7 percent were neutral. (What's with the neutral thing? Are they numb?)
And you know all that talk about how lawyers are overworked and depressed and how they would gladly sacrifice their worldly riches for more freedom? Hah! Fewer of them are expressing that longing: Only 50 percent say they'd trade money for other benefits such as more time off, greater flexibility or cut in billable hours—a 12 percent drop since 2016.
I hate to say lawyers are driven by filthy lucre, but you have to wonder. It seems the more they're making, the happier they are and the less they care about what normal folks call quality-of-life issues. (Yes, I do recognize the contingent of lawyers who struggle with mental health and substance abuse problems made worse by Big Law demands.)
But as for what the MLA study shows, here's the takeaway:
- Lawyers making the most money ($1.5 million+) show the highest satisfaction (46 percent are very satisfied, and 40 percent moderately to slightly satisfied), while those making the least (under $300,000) are the most glum (45 percent dissatisfaction rate).
- Lawyers with the highest billable hours (2,401+ hours) showed the highest satisfaction rate (35 percent in the very satisfied group).
- Lawyers with more seniority—who presumably earned more—were less inclined to trade compensation for nonmonetary benefits (53 percent in the 20+ years group had no desire to forfeit money for other things).
- A majority of equity partners (52 percent) were unwilling to trade compensation for nonmonetary benefits.
- Among major cities, New York had the highest percentage of partners (61 percent) who would not make the trade-off.
That lawyers making lots of moolah are happier is a no-brainer, but what's crazy is that those billing insane hours (more than 2,400!) tend to be the most satisfied. And why would the legal sweatshop capital of the world—New York—boast the highest percentage of partners who wouldn't trade money for a more sane lifestyle?
Jeff Lowe, the author of the study, says he was surprised by the results, too. “I would have thought that the higher-paid partners would want to make the trade-off because they've attain success and can afford to.” I know I'm oversimplifying, but this study does make me think money is addictive, and that the more you have, the more you want.
But Lowe thinks I'm being way too cynical. “I think they really like what they do.” He adds that the overall rate of satisfaction, both factoring in compensation and taking it out, is not that far apart—78 percent versus 70 percent, respectively. “It's largely positive news,” Lowe sums up.
So here's the recap: Lawyers who've attained partnership are largely content, but the most content among them are ones who make big bucks and put in insane hours.
In my book, that makes them both weird and greedy.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
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 AllHSF's American Dream: What Will a U.S. Merger Mean For its Asia Practice?
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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