• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Quitting junior lawyers find a voice (1 Viewer)

hYperTrOphY

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
762
Location
Mount Druitt
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Quitting junior lawyers find a voice
By Kate Gibbs

UNABLE TO speak honestly to their colleagues in law firms, a small group of junior lawyers has started a legal blog that they hope will encourage suffering young things in other firms to seek help and support.


The anonymous group of lawyers has started the Junior Lawyers Union blogspot in the hope that they can encourage Australian law firms to help the floundering young professionals they have working for them.

In an interview with Lawyers Weekly, one member of the online union, who said he has a couple of years’ experience under his belt, claimed many young lawyers are facing depression and other stress related illnesses thanks to being overworked in firms of varying sizes across the country.

But the lawyers feel unable to speak out to partners and others within their firms, and are therefore unable to address concerns they have, the young lawyer claimed.

“It’s a very difficult industry to sort of stand up and have your identity known and complain about the conditions of work,” he told Lawyers Weekly.

Speaking to leaders within firms about concerns you have about bullying, inappropriate senior associate behaviour and workload makes a career in law all very difficult, the junior lawyer said.

“It’s a very conservative place. And I don’t want to put all law firms in the same boat, but they’re run generally by an older generation of people whose values are often far more conservative than the junior lawyers that populate the firms. It’s never in your best interests to be a whistle blower inside a law firm, and to have your identity known,” he said.

The consensus among the union members is that HR departments within firms are not useful for those suffering depression, stress, and as a result of bullying. HR, they argued, are powerless under the constraints placed upon them by others within the firm.

“I’ve had experiences in the firm that I work for where I have, for instance, gone to human resources to complain about something, and generally nothing changes. It’s not the fault of HR people; they’re there to put the best spin on the firm. But they’re often quite powerless to do anything about it.”

Arguing that many young lawyers leave firms because their problems and issues are not solved, the bloggers say law firms, which are facing an increasing talent shortage, have a vested interest in paying attention to their concerns.

Despite the efforts firms do make to retain talent, the Junior Lawyers Union believes it is not enough. “I don’t think they’ve changed for a very, very long time. Law firms are in the position that there are so many law graduates they can cull down to what they think are the best students, but they are keeping larger numbers than they’re ever going to need.

“I think what law firms are doing, especially the bigger ones, is recruit a hell of a lot of articled clerks, expect half of them to burn out, and then it’s sort of like survival of the fittest really. So the people that remain are often those that are willing, I guess, to put up with those conditions for the rest of their lives,” he said.

The authors of the blog have now started a campaign to address depression and stress related illness suffered by junior lawyers working in law firms. They have emailed top-tier firms across the country asking that they take action to address what they term an epidemic of depression.

The union is encouraging firms to consider in-house training with specialists in treating and preventing depression for junior lawyers, who they say are particularly prone to the illness because of the pressures and strains they are placed under.

Within the walls of Australian firms lawyers at all levels face “lawyers that will yell, lawyers that will set very unrealistic deadlines, lawyers that will give you work at six o’clock on a Friday night, a serious amount of work that they expect to be done and on their desk first thing Monday morning”, Lawyers Weekly’s source said.

He said he has personally suffered from harassment and bullying since he has been working in the law.

The new expectations of the incoming generation of lawyers also cause some issues and stress, he said. “Many lawyers … just won’t respect the fact that you would like to have a life outside of work, and like to be able to structure your life around work and to be able to make plans with friends that you can stick to.”

He argued that his generation is less willing to put up with certain conditions in the work place and is more willing to move jobs if one is not satisfactory.

“We’re far more willing just to move on and find something that we like. I don’t want to make huge generalisations about baby boomer generations, but people from my parents’ generation had the one job for life. I think we are far more aware of the possibilities of finding happiness in another job. So, we’re more willing to move on, and far more willing to complain if we’re not happy.”

Source
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. It's not like there's a shortage of hih calibre law students.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
wheredanton said:
Wouldn't the law firms trace the IP?
It's hosted on blogspots site so wouldn't do them any good. Plus I don't think they'd really give a shit.
 

Skittled

What did the crab do?
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
991
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Not to turn this into a purely political thing; this issue has been long-coming, way earlier than the more-recent political happenings... but... Under current laws, I'm sure we'll see more of these stories develop from other industries, especially when the business cycle turns down... Good of example of how purely rational "choices" (said entirley in the context of workchoices) just don't work when there's the power imbalance that exists: What percentage of the population could truly make the hard-but-rational decision to leave their job, for the alternative of having no work, and no income, at least for a period of time?

(I could... and for the record I'm typically a little to the right of the centre) , but there're a lot of people (including budding lawyers, hence this blog!) out there who can't...

banco55 said:
Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. It's not like there's a shortage of hih calibre law students.
The "stand the heat get out of the kitchen" line appears terribly efficacious at an economy-wide level (and also to the benefit of those not-yet burnt out or otherwise exploited) but when it comes to the welfare of the populous, on average, I'm yet to be convinced...

banco55 said:
It's hosted on blogspots site so wouldn't do them any good. Plus I don't think they'd really give a shit.
Also, I imagine as long as the content's not unfounded, it'd fall under freedom of speech/press/similar laws. Then again, the lawyers would know the defamation laws better than I.. :)
 
Last edited:

Frigid

LLB (Hons)
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
6,208
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
banco55 said:
Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. It's not like there's a shortage of hih calibre law students.
i found two posts highly relevant to your dismissive response:
it would be fair, then, to ask the obvious question: If you resent working in a law firm so much, and feel it amounts to virtual slavery, why would you remain in private practice?

After all, one might add, there are a myriad of other options open to the junior lawyer: Go in-house. Go work in the public sector and enjoy flexi-time. Go live on a commune. Go do something - anything - that doesn't involve the rigours of private practice you seem to despise.

The response to this is two-fold.

Firstly, working at a law firm is not all doom and gloom. Much of it may well be - but it also obviously has many benefits. But two of these benefits are:

(i) the occasional mental challenge posed by legal work; and
(ii) being paid above the average wage of someone with the equivalent experience in another field.

Occasionally, and depending on one's employer, a feeling of doing good for someone or society generally may also arise. (This is rare.)

Despite these benefits, the JLU would serve no purpose if it acted primarily as a cheer squad for the legal industry. (What, with a range of awards and self-aggrandising hype, the industry performs this role well enough itself without the assistance of the JLU.)

Secondly, the "take it or leave it" argument doesn't wash. Employment laws generally would be redundant if this constituted a valid argument against unsatisfactory working conditions or environments. Consider some logical extrapolations - both in the legal industry and elsewhere:

- "This is our unsafe workplace. If you don't like it, you can find a job elsewhere."

- "We've decided to reduce annual leave to two weeks per year. Other employers have done the same. Take it or leave it."

If you argue that working obscenely long hours is just the industry norm and, if you don't like it, you should do something else, you're telling lawyers to shut up and accept what stonemasons, coal miners and manufacturing workers rejected over a hundred years ago.

The 8 hour day, which generations before us fought so hard to enshrine as a basic standard - and which has been respected for 150 years - goes out the window, as well as minimum wages, sick/annual/long service leave and other basic rights that have accrued over time.

Simple supply and demand is not the solution to labour issues generally, nor should it be in the legal industry. Rather, certain lines need to be drawn in the sand and, in the case of the plight of junior lawyers, the JLU exists to agitate on the issues that are relevant to its members.
The big firms proudly make a practice of hiring graduates they consider to be well-rounded and interesting. Sure, they must have a solid academic record. But, it is stressed, they must also have a breadth of life experiences, a variety of community or extra-curricular hobbies and they must be personable and perform well in an interview.

Then they arrive and are put in a small room with no windows and thousands of documents and are expected to spend 14 hours a day answering two questions: Privileged? Relevant?

After inflicting this mind-numbing torture on its bright young things, firms have the gall to tell their junior lawyers that the firm must always come first, that it must be the most important thing in their lives. They must abandon any outside interests - and cease being well-rounded.

God knows why the big law firms hire such interesting and creative law graduates - the best, brightest and most talented - if they intend to treat them like document drones. Perhaps it's to make sure their competitors don't get them. ...

Time and time again, they talk about the most important asset of the firm - the clients. They talk about how the clients are to be treated as "God", that clients' needs must always come first.

However, there are two things without which a big firm would not exist, without which it could not function: its clients and its lawyers.

And so, with the constant stream of lawyers leaving big firms turning, in recent times, into a veritable flood, the firms have become increasingly desperate. Not to retain their lawyers, mind you, but rather to poach them from elsewhere.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Frigid said:
i found two posts highly relevant to your dismissive response:
It's no secret that top tier law firms demand long hours. The carrot on the stick is partnership/high pay. As long as they bill by the hour they are always going to demand lon hours for obvious reasons. It's like becoming an investment banker and expecting to work a 40 hour week. If she wanted to work a 40 hour week she should have chosen another professioin, become a government lawyer or joined a suburban law firm.
 

Frigid

LLB (Hons)
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
6,208
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
oh come on. do you think law firms are honest about this?

which law firm actually puts on its marketing material, "working hours are 9 am to 5 pm, monday to friday, except where client needs arise, in which case they will be 9 am to 5am, monday to sunday".

seriously, look at their websites. all of them have generous lavishings of 'we're different', 'a big firm with a personal environment', 'women's employer of the year', 'excellence in human resources' etc etc.

supply-demand only works where people make rational decisions, based on quantifiable costs and benefits. the whole game is warped because some law firms are unwilling to address their human resource problems, and expect you can solve everything with bigger pay increases and higher billable hours.

money can buy (your) happiness indeed.
 

Suvat

part timer
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
645
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Regardless of any discussion about work life balance, in the end, very few (if any) grads are going to turn down an offer from a top tier firm. It's only after they've experienced it themselves are they able to make a rational decision of whether to stay or go.
 

Frigid

LLB (Hons)
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
6,208
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Suvat said:
Regardless of any discussion about work life balance, in the end, very few (if any) grads are going to turn down an offer from a top tier firm. It's only after they've experienced it themselves are they able to make a rational decision of whether to stay or go.
i agree. i wouldn't turn down an offer. depends.

but whether i stay there for the long-haul is a completely open question. i might throw it all in a few years down the track to teach Torts <3 ^_^

edit: article by the chief executive of Stephenson Harwood (UK firm ranked 10-20, i think):
Some perspective needs to be applied to the ongoing debate over work-life balance.

There is clearly a balance to be struck but it has several dimensions. First, the balance between work and play. This is very important. Lawyers do, from time to time, have to work very long hours. But long hours on a regular basis or over a prolonged period of time are not in the interests of the individual, the firm or the client.

Some firms, regardless of what they say, drive their people extremely hard. What is needed is some honesty. Firms should be prepared to say ‘what it means to work here’. At Stephenson Harwood we make it very clear that when there is a client need, long hours by partners and associates will be necessary to get the job done – but we also expect and want you to have a life.

Next, there is a balance to be struck between reward and effort. Lawyers in City firms tend to be ambitious people who like acting for quality clients and are very well paid for it. Indeed, many lawyers relish the pressured, results-driven environment they have chosen to work in. But it is a question of degree.

Then there is the balance to be struck between the short term and the long term. In the short term, it may pay to maximise billable hours from associates. In the long term, however, they will leave if this is not balanced with proper supervision, training and development. In the short term, the latitude available to law firms to significantly reduce the work loads of their staff is extremely limited, especially in the current market. In the long term, however, these pressures are unsustainable.

There is also a balance to be struck between what associates contribute and what partners contribute. On this, there is nothing more demoralising for an associate than watching your partner trot off home as you contemplate another stint into the small hours. In short, partners should lead by example.

Finally, there is the balance to be struck between client needs and individual pressures. Some of the recent debate has accused clients of making unreasonable demands of their private practice lawyers. But this criticism is misguided. Clients pay top dollar and they are entitled to expect fast turnover times and a top-notch service.

None of this is to say, however, that within these confines, law firms cannot improve the working lives of their staff. But this is as much about the quality of development, management and supervision that associates receive as it is about the hours that they work.

In my experience, there are some partners with whom associates work long hours and enjoy doing so because the partners are excellent at developing, engaging and motivating them. There are some partners, however, who are not so good at this.

Perhaps, therefore, when it comes to this whole debate, it's as much about developing and changing the behaviour and expectations of partners as anything else.
 
Last edited:

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Frigid said:
oh come on. do you think law firms are honest about this?

which law firm actually puts on its marketing material, "working hours are 9 am to 5 pm, monday to friday, except where client needs arise, in which case they will be 9 am to 5am, monday to sunday".

seriously, look at their websites. all of them have generous lavishings of 'we're different', 'a big firm with a personal environment', 'women's employer of the year', 'excellence in human resources' etc etc.

supply-demand only works where people make rational decisions, based on quantifiable costs and benefits. the whole game is warped because some law firms are unwilling to address their human resource problems, and expect you can solve everything with bigger pay increases and higher billable hours.

money can buy (your) happiness indeed.
I'm sorry how does someone get through law school without knowing that the top-tier law firms demand long hours? All businesses talk about work/life balance etc. Just like all businesses when recruiting try to show themselves in the best possible light. The overly honest Gadens ad that someone referenced was funny because any semi-conscious law student has heard similar things about working in a big law firm.
 
Last edited:

hYperTrOphY

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
762
Location
Mount Druitt
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
banco55 said:
I'm sorry how does someone get through law school without knowing that the top-tier law firms demand long hours? All businesses talk about work/life balance etc. Just like all businesses when recruiting try to show themselves in the best possible light. The overly honest Gadens ad that someone referenced was funny because any semi-conscious law student has heard similar things about working in a big law firm.
I think there is a difference, however, between having some appreication of the fact that law firms require long hours on the one hand; and the fact that the work culture of many law firms is so bad that 25% of lawyers are now suffering from elevated psychological distress - including depression and anxiety - and that 11% contemplate suicide monthly (Gautam, 2006).
 

Frigid

LLB (Hons)
Joined
Nov 17, 2002
Messages
6,208
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
methinks banco might say next, volenti non fit injuria.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
In response to some of these "you should have known better" comments, I think that simply because the situation is bad does not mean people should refrain from pushing for change. Yes, an aspiring solicitor might expect to have long hours. It might also be expected that "work/life balance" will be a fairly empty promise. But it doesn't mean that they have to be happy about it. There is nothing wrong with advocating a change for the better.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
MoonlightSonata said:
In response to some of these "you should have known better" comments, I think that simply because the situation is bad does not mean people should refrain from pushing for change. Yes, an aspiring solicitor might expect to have long hours. It might also be expected that "work/life balance" will be a fairly empty promise. But it doesn't mean that they have to be happy about it. There is nothing wrong with advocating a change for the better.
What non-trivial changes could they make? Big law firms have billed on an hourly basis for decades. (Assuming they don't raise the hourly fees) every hour not worked is less revenue for the firm. Which means lower salaries and less revenue per partner. That's a sure fire way to have the most hard working/lucrative partners and associates jump ship. If they want shorter hours (and less money) they can always work at a suburban law firm, work in government etc.
 

El Misterio

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
33
Gender
Female
HSC
1998
MoonlightSonata said:
In response to some of these "you should have known better" comments, I think that simply because the situation is bad does not mean people should refrain from pushing for change. Yes, an aspiring solicitor might expect to have long hours. It might also be expected that "work/life balance" will be a fairly empty promise. But it doesn't mean that they have to be happy about it. There is nothing wrong with advocating a change for the better.
Is this best done by complaining anonymously and presenting distorted tales of big firm life on a blog and in the legal media?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top