| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="BalancingWork" |
|---|
I started this new topic to reply to EdwardNewton, since I sensed we both wanted to move away from the topic of BalancingWork. EdwardNewton never consented to this appropriation. If it was wrong, let me know and I won't do it again.
-- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008
| | | -- EdwardNewton - 26 Jan 2008 | |
<
< | Cartelization drives up prices a great deal. 5:1 would be unsustainable if firms had to compete harder for clients (lowering the bill), or if they had to compete harder for associates (raising their salaries). But it's in the right ballpark if the firm adds that much value to a lone associate's work. | >
> | Cartelization drives up prices a great deal. 5:1 would be unsustainable if firms had to compete harder for clients (lowering the bill), or if they had to compete harder for associates (raising their salaries). | | | | |
<
< | The bill:salary at firms gets driven up by the economies of scale (or is it scope?) that firms create:
(1) shared legal support (including paralegals, associates, subscriptions and management) --> lower overhead per attorney.
(2) shared legal knowledge (larger firm size --> more fertile network to cross-pollinate ideas & more giants' shoulders to stand on)
(3) shared reputation (which, to those clients paying for black-box legal services, is the total value a lawyer's work)
(4) shared and reliable clients (who consolidate legal services into one firm, and stay for the long term) --> a free client base for associates to pass through | >
> | But the bill:salary also gets driven up by the economies of scale (or is it scope?) that firms add to a lone associate's work:
(1) shared legal support (including paralegals, associates, subscriptions and management) --> lower overhead per attorney.
(2) shared legal knowledge (larger firm size --> more fertile network to cross-pollinate ideas & more giants' shoulders to stand on)
(3) shared reputation (which, to those clients paying for black-box legal services, is the total value a lawyer's work)
(4) shared and reliable clients (who consolidate legal services into one firm, and stay for the long term) --> a free client base for associates to pass through | | | | |
<
< | (A) Technology and globalization will change the nature of our clients.
(B) These forces, and new political pressures, will change their legal questions (our work).
(C) These forces, and their effect on our work, will therefore change the structure of our firms. | >
> | Even if the cartels never get broken up, the next few decades will remove old economies of scale, and add news ones, as:
(A) Technology and globalization change the nature of our clients.
(B) These forces, and new political pressures, change their legal questions (our work).
(C) These forces change the structure of our firms. | | | | |
<
< | RE (1): Legal support will get hardest hit: paralegals, then Wexis, then associates. Associates altogether will add less value per partner. The pyramid will TAPER. But each associate will add more value per partner; and firms, with fewer associates, will need to lower associate attrition to replace the same number of partners. Will each associate be paid more?
RE (2): Will lawyers' knowledge become more freely available, so that other lawyers can benefit from it without compensating them? I assume this cross-pollination is most implicated by Eben's vision for the future of intellectual property.
RE(3): Will the available lawyers' knowledge become more publicly understandable, so that clients can benefit from it without compensating them? Will clients have fewer black-box legal problems, lowering the value of lawyers' reputations? (black-box = not of easily measurable value.)
RE (4): As a result of (2) and (3), will clients become more mobile, preferring less to consolidate, in one place, all their legal problems for all time? | >
> | RE (1): Legal support will get hardest hit: paralegals, then Wexis, then associates. Associates altogether will add less value per partner. The pyramid will TAPER. But each associate will add more value per partner; and firms, with fewer associates, will need to lower associate attrition to replace the same number of partners. Will each associate be paid more?
RE (2): Will lawyers' knowledge become more freely available, so that other lawyers can benefit from it without compensating them? I assume this cross-pollination is most implicated by Eben's vision for the future of intellectual property.
RE(3): Will the lawyers' knowledge become more publicly accessible, so that clients can benefit from it without compensating them? Will clients have fewer black-box legal problems, lowering the value of lawyers' reputations? (black-box = not of easily measurable value.)
RE (4): As a result of (2) and (3), will clients become more mobile, preferring less to consolidate, in one place, all their legal problems for all time? | | | -- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008 | | | -- BarbPitman - 26 Jan 2008 | |
<
< |
I tend to agree with Edward that law firms will be slow to outsource jobs/restructure their businesses – for better or worse the legal profession is slow to alter the way its does anything. Companies in other business areas are quick to lay-off employees during a market downturn. It hardly makes a splash in the news when an investment bank or hospital decides to lay-off a few hundred employees, but when a law firm decides to lay-off a few dozen employees it comes as a more of a shock (as were the recent Cadwalader layoffs).
I think that if legal services are going to be outsourced in any large amount it will come not from the giant law firms, but from smaller firms trying to save money to compete and from American corporations looking to shave costs in their legal departments. It seems more likely that corporations would outsource their legal needs to Indian lawyers (a practice that can be kept relatively quiet if they choose), than would a firm who must protect their reputation as a reliable source of guidance to remain competitive – not to say that the legal services provided in India would be of a lower quality, but if a firm is going to bill at a ridiculous level, image is everything.
-- GideonHart - 26 Jan 2008 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|