Editors' Blog
« There is a process for partner hiring. It just doesn’t work all that often | In constructive defence of ‘nonsense and spin’ | To Russia with love »
In constructive defence of ‘nonsense and spin’
Posted 20/06/2008 by Alex Novarese
It’s great to have a debate but the challenge when someone criticises your position, especially if you’re a journalist, is to respond constructively without being petty, defensive or just sounding like a big baby. That’s tricky but I’ll give it a go.
The debate I’m referring to concerns a recent news article and commentary in the latest Legal Week based on an annual report produced by our research arm.
The story received a number of critical posts from sceptical readers. The gist was that we were being naive, that rises in job satisfaction had more to do with the slump in work levels than proactive efforts of law firms and that the positive findings were “standard deviation”. Some said we were wrong because they hate their jobs and are miserable, with one poster feeling that “law is dull and boring and we would all leave if we could”. Some accused us of “spin”.
In addressing those points, first a little background. The report is a substantial piece of work now in its fourth year and is produced independently of Legal Week’s editorial team. It breaks down the attitudes, priorities and frustrations of associates across a range of criteria, ranking more than 50 law firms on the basis of nearly 3,200 responses. This is a research product, not a supplement. So the value in it for law firms is seeing how they rank against their peers to inform their decision-making.
Since the rankings are not published, there’s very little motive to try to talk up or manipulate their individual rankings. As such, I would argue that claims of law firm “spin” are wide of the mark, not least because no firm has seen the report yet.
The previous three editions have all produced a clear picture of low morale, cynicism and lack of engagement, especially among women. Not only was that picture established in the first report in 2005, but trends in the subsequent two editions strongly indicated that the situation was getting worse. And Legal Week prominently reported this gloomy picture each time, which seemed highly relevant to the state of the modern profession.
But the 2008 report found, at least in comparison, a different set of trends. On a range of criteria (respondents are canvassed on no less than 36), there was a clear pattern of rising satisfaction, both with hard factors such as pay and bonuses and softer issues related to quality of life. Since that flies in the face of the prevailing wisdom about life in big law firms - and since we have reported the negative stuff - it seemed news-worthy. But as a news magazine we have no stake in painting a rosy picture, since bad news typically makes good copy and attracts readers.
Now, it may well be that previous research was also wide of the mark - but that means everyone will have to throw out the widely-held views about junior lawyers being unhappy with City life, because you can’t credibly accept research when it goes one way and then reject it when it goes the other.
Several posters pointed out that the slowdown, which has given over-worked associates a respite, has been a major factor. I would absolutely agree but I think that the news article and commentary made that clear. Of course the state of the job market and levels of job security affects how people view their jobs – how could it not? – but weren’t associates arguing they wanted more money and less work? In many cases, they got their wish.
As to “standard deviation” regarding the number of people wanting to be partners as it only moved upwards by 3%, I would agree if that picture hadn’t been backed up by a host of other metrics supporting the general theme that fewer people are looking to get out of law.
Are there plenty of cynical, miserable junior lawyers still out there? No doubt, but a series of substantive pay rises, larger partnership rounds over the last two years, the spread and popularity of partner alternatives and the current slowdown suggests that there are a few less than there used to be. Rest assured, if the next annual report shows a reassertion of the gloom and resentment we’ve all become familiar with, we’ll report that too; we’re neutral at Legal Week.
But one final point; having spent a fair few years reporting on law firms, I’m as cynical as the next guy. I’ve worked on stories about corruption, theft of client money and serious sexual assault in the profession, so I’ve had the chance to see law firms in their least flattering light. Yet one thing still strikes me: for better or worse, law firm managers do care more about the welfare and morale of their junior ranks than they used to. They talk about it more, they think about it more and they worry about it more (even if they are sometimes pretty cack-handed about communicating that to the troops).
Of course, the real test of these self-heralded progressive credentials will be in a tougher commercial market, which will finally separate the firms that are really committed to investing in staff from the cut-and-run merchants. Will they be more long-term this time? That I wouldn’t like to say.
RSSRecent Posts
- Welcome to legalweek.com 2.518/07/2008
- US firms in London – time to forget Sonnenschein14/07/2008
- Global 100: Cloning the big four 4/07/2008
- Shaking hands in Dubai 3/07/2008
Comments
You guys are really keeping me on my toes.
Assuming that you’re referring to my use of the word ‘trends’ in paragraph seven of the blog, you’re probably right that ‘findings’ or ‘results’ would be more accurate, though ‘trend’ singular would also work in that context.
I can certainly give you more detail on the methodology, which will be published in full on the website shortly along with an executive summary. The demographics are: 40% of respondents were 0-2 years' post-qualification, 28% were 3-5 and the remaining 32% were 6+. Gender split was 55% female, 45% male. The research was carried out in March and April this year. 3,189 assistants were surveyed.
Personally, I wouldn’t follow the line that a junior bias would create a falsely-upbeat picture, as the most junior lawyers are those the farthest away from partnership and have generally been viewed as the least committed to their firms as employers. That’s certainly been borne out in similar research by others, so I think it would, if anything, produce the reverse result. However, that’s an academic debate because the sample was fairly evenly spread.
As to the substance of the story/research not supporting the headline, what else can I say? I spent several hours going through the findings and they did in the clear majority of the key criteria point in a similar direction gauged against previous reports. That’s my honest opinion so I guess we have to agree to disagree on that one, which is fair enough.
Posted by Alex (responding to R) | 25/06/2008
One report showing a snapshot does not a "trend" make. I think the criticisms of the article were based on the headline failing to be backed by the substance. The article did not include any information on who you asked or when you asked them. I would think a survey heavily weighted towards the NQ end is much more likely to be positive, than one at the senior end, since the former are still the beneficiaries of substantial pay rises and bonuses.
Posted by R | 24/06/2008
Agreed. No matter what the motivation, any desire to improve morale and welfare for anyone (junior, senior, quite frankly it doesn't matter) has quite simply got to be a good thing!
Posted by Dorothy Gale(responding to Alex) | 20/06/2008
My reference to law firm managers being more bothered about their staff doesn’t come from the report, that’s from day-to-day conversations with managing partners (that’s obviously a generalisation, there are a fair number of partners who resent assistants). As to why law firms are more touchy-feely, I don’t mean to suggest that it’s because they’ve suddenly become more moral or a caring bunch of great guys‘n’gals. This is a business and some of them have cottoned on to the fact that an ability to retain, motivate and develop the best staff gives them a competitive advantage over the shop next door, so I largely agree with you on that point. I suspect a related factor in the age of the internet and social networking is that it has also become riskier to trample on the lower-ranks and hope you get away with it. Personally, I doubt that risk of litigation from junior lawyers is a major factor in changing behaviour. The real worry is if partners ever started pursuing claims with any frequently as this group has the resources, inside knowledge and potential motivation to do a law firm far more damage. That’s all still pretty hard-nosed stuff but this is about enlightened self-interest and transparency and I’m not sure that you can ever expect much more than that from your employer in a free-market. On balance, I would still say these are positive developments.
Posted by Alex (replying to Dorothy) | 20/06/2008
Without in any way meaning to question the journalistic integrity (I have nothing but the utmost respect for journalists) I remain ever so slightly cynicical as to what conclusions can be drawn...why might law firm managers talk, think and worry more about the welfare and morale of their junior ranks? Possible reasons (1) increasing numbers of mid to senior lawyers leaving the profession ("who will fill the ranks, do the work and bill the hours"?); (2) greater societal awareness and rejection of bullying, discrimination and harassment ("could we be sued?" - "let's implement a policy to show we will not accept this sort of behaviour...(probably also a good first line of defence in avoiding legal action"); but then again, maybe I'm just being cynical, it might very well be that the law firm managers of today really have come to care more about the welfare and morale of the lawyers under their roof...
Posted by Dorothy Gale | 20/06/2008