| |
| 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). | >
> | 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 the firm is also reaping some of the value it adds to a lone associate's work. Even if the cartels never get broken up, the forces that matter to that ratio will be globalization, technology and political pressures.
Our clients will change, their legal questions will change, and our firms may or may not.
could shrink or grow Law firms will lose old economies of scale (scope?) and add news ones:
| | | | |
<
< | 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 | >
> | (1): Shared legal support (including paralegals, associates, subscriptions and management) --> lower overhead per attorney. Creative destruction will 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. Each associate will be paid more, but the rewards will accrue faster to legal creativity than legal support | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | (2): Shared legal knowledge (larger firm size --> more fertile network to cross-pollinate ideas & more giants' shoulders to stand on). 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 (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? | >
> | (3): shared reputation (which, to those clients paying for black-box legal services, is the total value a lawyer's work): 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.)
(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: 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 |
|