The Wall Street Journal's Article on Big Law Partner Pay: Will That Unleash PR Disaster for Those Firms?

 Today's The Wall Street Journal article on the big bucks made by law-firm partners - significantly more than investment bankers' compensation - might provide useful guidance for careerists and youth struggling with decisions about professional education. Here is my summary of the coverage.

However, more generally, it could function as a form of expose. That could unleash a public relations disaster for large profitable law firms. Explicitly mentioned are Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss and Wachtell. Partners are earning up to $20 million each year. 

To begin with, clients could be irked. They could have the Ah-Ha Moment: So that's how much they are taking our of my hide. Sure they need the strategies, brilliant minds and resouces of large law firms. But at 4% increase every year in already-hefty fees? Why not approach mid-sized firms to check out the pricing situation. Clients could be especially unglued if they themselves are not grossing $20 million yearly pay.

Next, what about law-firm associates. Now they have it rubbed in their face what the brass is earning. Of course, associates start out with a higher entry-level salary than those in myriad other professional services. Today, those on a sub on Reddit Big Law discuss that. 

But to get to that they had to invest plenty in three years of law school. Bankers can usually join the club with a terminal BA/BS. Also, associates put in the same hours as partners or even more. Add to the list of gripes that when it comes to the culture it is too often the divine right of kings. Associates could decide that putting up with that is not worth what they are earning compared with what's going down among partners. 

Therefore, the WSJ coverage could trigger the dynamic of just hanging around long enough to pay off student loans, then splitting. That would leave law firms short on midlevels. Some firms are already experiencing that. More and more new law graduates are selecting a job based on what it can provide for them in exit options after a few years.

In addition, always ready to pounce on this kind of story are the culture critics. Isn't $20 million annually for lawyers - that is, they are not the leaders operating a whole corporation as CEOs - shameful. Surely that reflects badly on the inequality of wage systems in America. Could this observation harden into a push for more socialism? Meanwhile this could be a 2024 campaign issue. Those advocating caps on compensation could wind up elected to positions of power. In them they could rein in both salaries and bonuses.

So here we are on June 22nd. The WSJ could have created the kind of mainstream censuring of the values and behavior of large law firms which David Enrich's book "Servants of the Damned" intended. That didn't happen. In fact, the wealth, power and influence of large law firms detailed in the book might have brought in new business. Those reading needing legal assistance might have decided: That's exactly thei kind of law firm I need.

Takeaway: There is that line from Shakespeare's play "Julius Casear." At the funeral those who had murdered Caesar contended that they had come to praise Casear, not bury him. In showcasing the amazing compensation for partners did the WSJ bury those law firms and lawyers? 

2023. It’s the year of AI, along with uncertainty, inflation, war and more. Jane Genova provides you with a complimentary check-in for your organization’s communications and your own career. It’s free. Content-creation and coaching provided on a sliding-scale fee basis. (for appointments text 203-468-8570 or janegenova374@gmail.com)