You’re one of the lucky few. Fresh out of law school and employed. Not just employed, but employed and getting a decent salary. You’re happy. Your parents are thrilled, hoping you will someday move out of the basement. The world is your oyster. Then two weeks in, not having been given that corner office you felt certain you deserved, your magical world comes tumbling down around you.
And you must ask yourself the hard question: Are you exploited?
At Above the Law, Shannon Achimalbe* explains what that means.
But for some of you, things will not turn out the way you expected. You’re not given the raises and bonuses you were promised. You go to meaningless court hearings. Your boss angered a judge so he sent you to court to endure the judge’s wrath. Your assignments seem like glorified document review looking for obscure keywords in 15-sentence paragraphs. In sum, you feel overworked and underappreciated.
You tolerate it for a little while. But eventually, you come to the conclusion that you will need to be assertive about what you want.
Overworked and underappreciated is a terrible way to feel. Why won’t the guy who pays your salary do all the work you don’t feel like doing? Doesn’t he realize your value, your importance to the firm?
Every night, you leave work feeling tired, frustrated, and angry. During the long subway ride home, you ask yourself, “Am I being exploited?”
And a subway ride to boot? Where’s the private car service? Do you look like a subway sort of person, being pushed and jostled by the riff raff rather than sinking into rich Corinthian leather?
A common misconception is that a job is exploitative if the pay is unconscionably low. But most lawyers know at least one person who is paid well but still feels like like a small cog in a large machine. In general, people feel exploited at work when they are underappreciated, lied to by their bosses (particularly about raises and promotions), and are pessimistic about career advancement.
There is no shortage of ways for a new lawyer to feel exploited. Surely, an “unconscionably” low salary is one, no matter that you knew what you would be paid when you took the job, calculated out the number of bags of Cheetos you would be able to buy, and launched into your happy dance. But you were just a kid then. Now you know more, with that week and a half of experience under your belt. Now you know you’ve been cheated!
But lack of money isn’t the only root of all evil. Money without the respect you absolutely deserve, you are entitled to, is just as evil.
When someone feels exploited, it negatively affects everyone. The employee is depressed or angry because he feels like his career is stagnating. His unhappiness may affect others in the office. His work productivity decreases because he feels that there is no point in doing more than the minimum required. He secretly goes to job interviews while giving creative excuses for disappearing — like wanting to have late lunches during happy hour.
Because no one would ever notice your wanting to have late lunches during happy hour. But I digress. There is no question but that the happiness of the newest, youngest, least competent, least experienced, person in a law firm dictates how a firm should function. Every firm should reinvent itself for this new lawyer’s happiness, lest others in the office be affected.
Aside: I was going to make a Speaker of the House joke here, but somebody will feel that opened the door to a million word diatribe about tea party politics, whether for or against, and make me sad. So I won’t, but it would have been hysterically funny. No really, it would have.
Being the swell guy I am, and deeply concerned about the happiness of new lawyers and their not being exploited by having a paying job, I feel obliged to offer a better solution that will relieve this poor soul from the misery of their exploitation.
First, send an email explaining to those monsters who hired you, pay your salary, give you a place to go every morning and the opportunity to learn how to be the lawyer you already think you are, telling them what scum-sucking bastards they are for not appreciating the fact that you are the best thing that ever happened to that firm, and they can kiss your fat ass (not fat in the fat-shaming way, but fat in the Sir Mix-A-Lot way).
Second, rush home and explain to your mother that they weren’t going to give you a red balloon, but be careful to tell mom not to call them up and yell at them for not appreciating your fabulosity. That’s just embarrassing once you’re a lawyer.
Third, plop that fat ass (same as before, but remember what it did for the multi-talented Kim Kardashian) down on the couch and grab that half-eaten bag of Cheetos.
Fourth, wait for that phone to ring (okay, that text message) begging you to return, or better yet, asking whether you would be willing to serve on the Supreme Court because Obama needs someone whom no one in the Senate could reasonably reject.
And if none of this works, maybe then you should consider doing your job, learning how to be a lawyer, suffering the indignity of employment and presuming those unappreciative assholes who are paying you know something you don’t know. It could happen.
Epilogue: I would be remiss for not thanking Above the Law for bringing this critical issue to the fore. Without content like this, exploitation might never be recognized and remedied. You rock, ATL.
*From ATL: Shannon Achimalbe was a former solo practitioner for five years before deciding to sell out and get back on the corporate ladder. Carolyn Elefant offers a more detailed background.
Oh, give the poor woman a break. She wrote this:
“Exploitation is subjective. What one person thinks of as slave labor is another person’s chance at gaining valuable experience or putting food on the table.”
So, clearly, her thesis is that… Actually, I can’t figure out what her thesis is. But as I said, give her a break, she spent five years as a former solo practitioner. That sounds like it would be hard. Or maybe she is just bad at writing.
Enabler.
Anyone who admits that opinions are like arseholes must also recognize the corollary that theses are like feces; issuing from that source everyone owns, unending, indistinguishable and more revealing of the digested inputs than a guidepost to any sunny new tomorrow. But Forward, anyhow.
I’ve read and reread your comment, trying desperately to figure out what you’re trying to say. After much deliberation, I thank you for keeping it brief.
I find it helpful to ask such folks a question:
Assuming there no real promise of advancement, how much is the minimum pay for a new grad, to be non-exploitative? What work level/skill should match that pay?
The answer tends to reveal a lot.
I think your question tends to reveal as much as the answer. When did doing the work needed by an employer for a lawful salary become exploitive at all?
It isn’t exploitative in most cases, absent odd circumstances. I am of the large group who would pay a skilled assistant more than a typical new law grad, for example.
But asking for specifics tends to open the conversation, and allow for a bit of a reality check. If they say “minimum wage,” we agree. If they say “$30/hour” then you at least have a specific to attack.
But personally I think this argument is usually a proxy for problems relating to advancement.
Many folks seem to think that a employer should provide for time spent on improvement , allowing them to “progress meaningfully” in their career. Then, they find out that their employer just wants someone to fill out probate forms, and cares only about “level of form output for a given wage.” Which is pretty common in life. Then, they feel exploited.
It isn’t clear why such folks think I’m obliged to train a new lawyer rather than hiring an already-trained one if I so choose. Nor is it clear that they think of the other side of the equation, i.e. “if Bob is doing trials and you want to do trials, then who the hell will do the forms?”
These days, everyone expects to be treated like a potential star, and if they don’t get it they feel pissed.
Well. Okay then.
Glad you agreed. I was feeling a bit exploited for a moment .
Oh come on, Greenfield’s practically shamefaced. Get him to give you store credit.
I showed this to a friend who just took the LSAT and am trying to convince him “gigolo” would be a better job.
The appreciation for the important work being done is so much more tangible and immediate.
I’ll leave out the link to Seeking Arrangement.
Gigolo is a hard job to get. Don’t get his hopes up. That would just be cruel.
I’m generally confused by these complaints no matter the profession of the person from whom they come. Okay, they don’t like their job, don’t think they’re paid enough, and they should be paid a lot more, because it just isn’t fair. If that’s the case, they can start their own show or hit the pavement to find someone who will give them what they want.
Where’s the confusion?
See? That’s your problem. You’re just not a card-carrying Slackoisie. You just don’t get it.
Doing the unpleasant jobs and the grunt work is what we 20th century people called “paying your dues”, as in Ringo Starr’s biggest solo hit. Apparently this concept has been lost in the decades since I was low man in the pecking order.
It’s not that they mind starting at the bottom, but that they aren’t at least halfway up the ladder by the end of their first month. And they never sing the blues. Oh no.
“Oh, you don’t like your job? There’s a support group for that. It’s called everyone and they meet at the bar.”
Drew Carey
Their constituents, similar to the law firms customers, want the Tea Party’s agenda to be advanced. The Establishment wants to sit on their high horse and run the party in contrast to the desires of the Base. Yes, Law firms should always work in stark contract to their customers needs. You’re right. Great Joke!
Maybe if you wrote this comment in your native language, someone could translate it into a comprehensible thought? Though comparing the tea party to law firm clients is a stroke of genius.
I would have commented earlier, but the 8+x=17 stumped me until my mom got home. Harvard 2024.
With a little work (we are dealing with the self-absorbed who need to be slapped until they recognize they are the subject here) this piece should be required reading for all 3Ls.
At my former firm I was generally tasked with recruiting and training new lawyers. I was VERY clear in our ads (we have about a 20% unemployment for lawyers in our area so never had a problem with volume of responses) about pay and responsibilities. I didn’t hide the ball – I wrote things like “If you believe your brilliance will dazzle us and we will pay you more, disabuse yourself of that notion. This is the pay for the first year. If it is too insulting, this is not the position for you.” During the interview process, I again was very clear – these are the grunt jobs you will be assigned, this is the pay. This advertised salary is not a test to see how much you want the job. If you show up at 6 AM and work until 10 PM we won’t be impressed (someone will always be there before and after you anyway). Don’t take the job and then come to me in two weeks feeling you are underappreciated because the pay is so low.
I would explain the pay was low in part because we were looking for freshly licensed lawyers and knew from experience that it would take much of my time, billed at a much higher rate, to train them. We would also have to not bill much of their time, and what we billed would be at a significantly lower rate. And in spite of their freshly-minted law degree, there was a great deal they had to learn about practicing law.
My pledge to those we hired was that I would teach them everything they would need to know to set up their own practice should they choose to do so. I would give them exposure to a wide variety of areas of law, and train them in the nuts and bolts of civil procedure and local rules that law school can’t. I would do my best to make up for the low pay by turning them into competent practicing attorneys.
Some got it and blossomed. Some became resentful and quit in spite of my warnings and their pledges. Periodically I run into the quitter types as opposing counsel – young lawyers who have never “apprenticed” who are shockingly ignorant of practical law and procedure, who cost both sides’ clients unnecessarily because of their lack of knowledge (in my field of law I have to educate opposing counsel, a tricky thing, to make any progress).
I spent years in an apprenticeship, poorly paid, underappreciated, resentful. But I learned everything I could, complained to my wife and lawyer friends, made tons of money for the firm (on average I brought in 10-20 times what I was paid) and am a much better lawyer for that education. Remembering that, I try to remove some of the resentment by providing at least the appreciation and recognition to the underpaid noobs I employ. And I understand what a “bonus” is – my first employer would only stare and blink at the word.
Perhaps half of those I hired stayed and learned; half, even after my full disclosure and in spite of their earnest assurances that they understood everything, grew resentful (often because their friends told them that they were being “exploited” or, as one female attorney said, “raped”) and quit.
Those that stayed on, in spite of the low pay and drudge assignments, often commented that the main thing that kept them going was the encouragement and support I provided. I also provided a path to development keyed to their comfort where possible, pushing them but not throwing them without support into novel situations (bad for the young lawyer, bad for the client). It was more time intensive for me but better management and better for clients.
Praise and words of support are free, and much cheaper than having to recruit and train again…
The definition of a job is “doing something that no one in their right mind would do for free”. By that very definition, a job will — either at times or always — be unpleasant. The idea of doing something you love to do and being paid for it — following your bliss — is deranged and totally unrealistic. I have no problem with newbie lawyers or newbie anything else’s washing out and living decades in their parent’s basement, or even on the street. It’s the price of being stupid, paid in a Darwinian way. Evidently those who choose an easier path of dope dealing and prostitution aren’t very much better at *those* careers either, judging by the clunky cars and raggedy clothes so many of those practitioners have.
Clunky cars of drug dealers? You need to meet a better class of drug dealer. And I know some whores who dress exceptionally well. Not to detract from your point, just your examples.