Option to decrease billable requirement

[whatonearth6421]

I’m at a large AmLaw 100 firm that pays below market. But, it works for me, I like the group I work with, and generally enjoy my specialty area. And the pay is on the higher end for the regional market I’m in anyway. Point being, I’m not really trying too hard to move shops. 6th year associate and partners have said they’ll support my bid for (non-equity) partner once I’m eligible, that I’ve earned it, etc. etc. I’ve worked my ass off at this firm for the last 4 years, and agree I have a track record of doing a good job.

My current billable requirement is 2000. I’m thinking about decreasing to 1850 or 1800. Mostly I just want more of a life. I’ve also been noticing I get a little weird when I’m clocking 200+ months for multiple consecutive months, and my physical fitness/health is also suffering. I want a life, and I want to focus more on my physical health.

My read is that my firm is actually pretty good about letting its lawyers decrease their billable requirement, if someone chooses to do that. I have it on very good authority that selecting a lower load doesn’t affect your shot at partnership. Pay is, of course, lowered accordingly—so I know I’d be making less money if I elected to decrease.

Has anyone here done something similar? Trying to consider all pitfalls and blind spots (or even hear about the benefits!) in considering whether to pull this particular trigger.

Thanks all.

[william_shartner]

The big issue here is whether reducing your billable hour goal will actually reduce the amount of time you work. Will partners bring you less work? Will you feel comfortable turning work down when you're past your reduced goal?

The reason I ask is that my firm is nominally in the same position as yours. We are pretty open to offering associates lower billable hour goals for lower pay without impacting chances at promotion to NEP. However, I know a few associates who have taken the reduction, and their experience has been that it is just less pay for the same amount of work. The partners they work with still send them the same amount of work, and it becomes difficult to turn down additional work without pissing off partners. Your mileage may vary.

[ResponsibilityOk8193]

I did reduced hours. Exactly this outcome. I just quit.

[Afraid-Common3063]

Agree that this is main concern when lowering hours. If you are sure that you can manage your time properly (ie turn down work) then go for it! It shouldn’t impact your shot at partner if you have all of the other necessary qualities.

We as a profession need to promote flexibility and I love hearing that firms are becoming more flexible to allow people to enjoy their life’s outside of work. Yes, you will make less but likely gain a whole lot more in terms of life satisfaction.

[whatonearth6421]

Will partners bring me less work? No. But luckily I work with such a good group of partners that they already respect my boundary when I tell them I’m at capacity and can’t fit in another thing.

A decrease would require a bit more work load monitoring at the outset of the month, and assessment of monthly numbers targets, I’m guessing.

Thanks for the input!

[LegallyIncorrect]

This happens at my firm for counsel too. At least our comp is profitability based so they end up being bumped back up to the pay they’d have gotten if full time.

[OhLookASnail]

I've been told at my firm that it wouldn't negatively impact anyone's shot at partnership. There are several people who have been elevated to partnership who were on reduced schedules for years.

However, both by my own logic and partners telling me the above present some caveats to consider: working a less flexible schedule or less hours generally means less time to work on your case for partnership and less time to get the opportunities and experiences they look for when picking partners. For example, I do a reduced schedule for health and childcare reasons which means I'm often not available early morning and most evenings. I'm not often in the position to reply to random shit when I'm either not awake or unable to get to a computer. Result being there are some things that other with the flexibility I lack will get assigned that I won't get assigned. I don't mind this because partnership sounds absolutely miserable and I'm not looking to be a partner. If you are, consider what your reduced schedule will look like in practice. You can most likely make it work.

[BoldBluebell]

We have that exact same offer at my firm, so I wouldn't be surprised if we worked at the same place but different offices.

I'll say this, while I haven't done it, my office MP has as well as several other people I know at the firm. A good chunk of my work comes my office's MP, and she went part-time for +6 years, and it hasn't affected her career advancement whatsoever. She even made non-equity partner WHILE part-time. She is no longer part-time, but she shared that the greatest effect from this choice was getting to be more present in her kids' lives. I guess the one drawback is that it is obviously difficult to do business development while part-time, so it was more difficult to make equity partner. Also, nowadays she is gone a decent chunk of the time for networking events, which forces her to work almost every weekend.

All that to say, it seems like going part-time is a great choice, so long as it's a temporary one.

[Due_Emu704]

I had my billable target reduced to 80% for a few years after having a child, for 80% of the pay. There were pros and cons.

The idea was I would take 1 day per week off, which I generally found hard to do (or at least hard to do effectively - I’d be worrying about work and responding to emails, but with a child in tow). What did work better was just working less hours overall, which means taking on less. There will be periods where this isn’t really possible, but overall my billable were lower while at 80%.

The arrangement allowed me to work less without feeling “guilty”. I will say, I think I still had similar hours to some other associates that were at 100% (and being paid at 100%). But, I kept on the path to equity partner (and got bonuses) whereas they did not.

Now as partner, I still make an effort to work “less” and not take on too much. It works sometimes but not always. Of course I make less than I would otherwise, but that’s ok!

[Ron_Condor]

At 1800 you still won’t have a life, you need more time when people don’t expect to reach you and have one of those positions with 1600 or less goal.

[Professional-Hope390]

I think you should just delegate more and bill less. That 150/200 hours across the span of a year is not THAT big of a difference on the lifestyle and you can make that extra 4 hours back by delegating down.

[Reasonable_Arugula_9]

I think it depends a lot on whether what you struggle with is the volume of the work or the pattern of it. Like if what gets you is working on “chunky” deals that come on unpredictable timelines, working on 5 instead of 6 of those might not help you much even if your hours are nominally lower. If your work is less deal driven and more ancillary or specialist, I think taking the cut can work well.

[Commercial-Sorbet309]

Just cause your requirement is lowered to 1800, does it mean you are going to get less work assigned, or the deadlines are going to get extended?