Editor's note: This is a follow up to a piece the author wrote urging firms to cancel summer programs. That piece has also generated opposing views, captured here.

In a piece last week, I made the case for firms to cancel their summer programs. In brief, I argued to cancel the program and offer would-have-been summer associates full-time positions for when they graduate. The piece struck a chord, garnering an unusual number of responses (for which, many thanks, and please keep them coming). I believe two particular ideas from the responses are worth sharing: one on helping students financially, the second on running a shortened program.

I heard from a Fordham 2L bound for a top-tier firm in New York. He observed that the program's cancellation would be a financial hit (no surprise) but went on to offer a practical solution (yes, this guy has good lawyerly instincts). He suggested firms offer a salary advance to those would-have-been summers who accept their full-time positions.

I don't believe law schools would see this as an inappropriate inducement. James Leipold, Executive Director at the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), informed me that NALP doesn't have a position on this particular idea, adding "This situation is unprecedented, and it will have a disparate impact on different firms. NALP does not believe there is one solution that will serve all firms."

There is precedent for salary advances to delayed new associates. It was offered by firms who pushed off the arrival of the Class of 2010 to January 2011. Back then, the common structure was $10,000, offset from salary over the first year at the firm. This time, one could see offering something like one-third to a half of what the summers would have earned if the program had operated as normal.

The second idea I heard quite a bit was running a shortened program, with some suggesting halving its duration, and even more suggesting curtailing it to just two weeks. As mentioned in the original piece, it's hard for me to imagine how having associates around during what portends to be a difficult summer will be of benefit to anyone.

My sense is that the shortened program suggestions are born of a desire to project stability and of not wanting to appear to overreact. I believe canceling is simply prudent. These are strange times. As a Roger Federer fan, I was saddened to see Wimbledon canceled. If in response to the virus the All England Lawn Tennis Club can cancel this centerpiece of the summer sporting calendar for the first time since the second world war, then Big Law can forego its signature summer programs.

Hugh A. Simons Ph.D. is formerly a senior partner and executive committee member at The Boston Consulting Group and chief operating officer and policy committee member at Ropes & Gray. Early retired, he now researches and writes about the business side of law firms and does some consulting for old friends. He encourages reader reactions at [email protected].