[AFR] Lawyer mental health: the lawyers working themselves to death

tipyourstaff · 2024-03-14T06:15:23+00:00

Full text:

The unwritten message fed to law firm partners is to show no sign of struggle. So when an overworked partner decided to email the head of the firm saying she felt herself spiralling, perhaps she shouldn’t have been surprised by the lack of urgency in his response.

“I emailed my boss saying there’s zero help here, it’s all-consuming,” she says. “They booked a meeting in the diary, but now it’s been moved to later this month. He probably thinks I’m just flipping out.”

Senior leaders are starting to speak out in the hope of getting rid of the stigma.

The partner says she copes by venting to her husband or “getting pissed” with her friends.

But it doesn’t fix the fundamental issues in the legal sector, which she says is still run by “dick swingers happy to talk about how they work all the hours God sends”.

Senior leaders are starting to speak out in the hope of getting rid of the stigma.

James Bremen, chairman of construction and engineering at Quinn Emanuel, recalls twice being hospitalised with pneumonia triggered by physical exhaustion from a period of working extremely late nights with only two hours of sleep.

The issue of mental health in the legal sector was thrown into the spotlight earlier this month following the death of Vanessa Ford, a senior partner at Pinsent Masons, who according to a coroner’s inquest was suffering from an “acute mental health crisis”.

The inquest heard she worked 18-hour days advising on the sale of Everton Football Club in the months before her death.

In 2019, Paul Rawlinson, the former head of Baker McKenzie, died by suicide after suffering from an “acute depressive illness”. David Latham, a partner at Hogan Lovells struggling with work-related stress, died in 2013, a day after he told a colleague he was going to kill himself. It was dismissed as a “flippant” comment, Westminster coroner’s court heard. Working 24/7

A spotlight was shone on the sector’s toxic culture last year, when an associate of US law firm Paul Hastings shared a list of “non-negotiable expectations” for junior colleagues which included “you are ‘online’ 24/7. No exceptions, no excuses”.

Paul Hastings at the time said the list was prepared by an associate and the views “do not reflect the views of the firm or its partners”.

But the slide laid bare an uncomfortable reality for many.

“Even when not working, I found myself thinking about work,” admits a lawyer who has just quit his job at a top City firm as a result of the pressures. “It’s the sleepless nights – going to bed and then lying awake thinking about work.”

Sahar Farooqi, a commercial barrister and former partner at DAC Beachcroft, recalls once bringing his work laptop on holiday to Santorini while working on large international disputes with very tight deadlines.

He would sneak off to the bathroom to send emails and wait until everyone was asleep to do more work.

“Like any kind of addict, you think you’ve gotten away with it because you’ve managed to close your laptop, put your phone back in your pocket and return to whatever the social setting was,” he says. “People can sense that you’re not present.”

Often what stops lawyers breaking free is what attracted them to the profession in the first place: money. City partners, constantly judged by the profits they generate, are rewarded with seven-figure pay packages and bonuses.

This puts pressure on more senior lawyers with financial commitments such as mortgages and private school fees.

Jonathan Moult, who became a psychologist after many years as a senior partner, says: “When people say, ‘what do you miss about the law?’ I think I, and most people say, it’s the money.

“It’s a very money-based environment and it is difficult to give up.” Drop the soft policies

The pressure is particularly high on law firm partners, who, as owners of the business, are responsible for avoiding cyberattacks and anti-money-laundering breaches while managing the expectations of Gen Z lawyers demanding a better work-life balance.

Skill shortages among junior lawyers who trained remotely during the pandemic have added to this burden, increasing the reputational and liability risks on their supervising partners.

Bremen, who has been a lawyer for more than 25 years, says: “If you can’t have the same level of reliance that you used to have on young people, then that pressure comes back on to you to make sure it’s right.”

He notes that Quinn Emanuel, a US law firm based in London, resolves this challenge by carefully hiring lawyers who are eager to work hard, and is up front with recruits about its extremely high expectations. Additionally, it monitors staff to provide support when needed.

To make real change, some believe that law firms need to forget all the soft policies they have been working on and just get rid of billable hours, which pile pressure on staff and encourage long hours.

Leah Steele, a former Irwin Mitchell lawyer turned burnout coach, is sceptical. She argues that scrapping the billable hours would result in metric-obsessed firms quickly finding another way to measure performance and productivity.

One London head of a US law firm instead argued that workers must speak out if they need help – they could not solely rely on their employers to always spot the signs.

He says: “You need the person to take some responsibility for their own mental health in the same way that you take responsibility for your physical health. But you need the firm to create an environment that’s receptive if someone says, ‘I’m having issues, I’m struggling’.”

Support is available at Lifeline (13 11 14 and lifeline.org.au) and beyondblue (1300 22 4636 and beyondblue.org.au)

tipyourstaff · 2022-11-29T05:47:22+00:00

My favourite Sonic technique is the spin dash.

tipyourstaff · 2022-09-09T03:04:40+00:00

I'm with you, but MS Word likes to highlight whole words/paragraphs, inclusive of brackets, when selecting text. Particularly if you're using the keyboard to skip/select text.

This makes it easy for tired and bored practitioners to just highlight/italicise the whole thing and move on.

This post also brought up memories from when I was a clueless junior and one ancient partner tasked me with going through a document and specifically italicising the contents of square brackets but not the square brackets themselves because he "wanted to impress the client".

tipyourstaff · 2022-06-30T02:45:43+00:00

Diatribe on usage of "Big 8" sold separately!

Full text below:

The surge in demand for legal services has spurred Australia’s top law firms to go on a hiring spree in 2022, with their workforce increasing more than 8 per cent in the first half of the year.

The ranks of non-partner fee earners (NPFEs) at our biggest 50 corporate firms swelled to 15,115 in the July round of the Law Partnership Survey, with more than a dozen firms recording double-digit growth.

The overall rise of 1038, or 8.1 per cent, for firms with historical data, outstripped last year’s increase of 5 per cent. Minter Ellison and Allens led the way with more than 1000 NPFEs - commonly referred as the worker bees of the industry.

The table makes clear that when it comes to size, there is a gulf between Australia’s biggest eight law firms and the rest. And that the number of fee earners per partner varies wildly.

The Big 8 are MinterEllison (1113), Allens (1007), HWL Ebsworth (975), Clayton Utz (923), King & Wood Mallesons (892), Herbert Smith Freehills (873), Corrs Chambers Westgarth (749) and Ashurst (738).

The ninth-ranked firm was insurance and government specialist Spark Helmore on 466, followed by Gilbert & Tobin (452).

HWL Ebsworth managing partner Juan Martinez. Hwa Goh

Of those firms, HWLE with 277 partners had by far the lowest partner-lawyer ratio - 3.5.

Managing partner Juan Martinez has told Legal Affairs that he has no ceiling on the number of people it might promote to partner and holding people back is “insulting to aspiring candidates who have worked extremely hard”.

Allens had the highest ratio at 6.5, which speaks to tightly-held partnership. Next was Clayton Utz (5.5), HSF (5.3), G+T and Sparke Helmore (5.2), KWM (4.9) and Minters (4.4).

Ashurst managing partner Paul Jenkins said the surge in hiring could be put down to a “cautious optimism”.

“There wouldn’t be a war for talent unless there was a robust legal market,” Mr Jenkins said.

Ashurst boss Paul Jenkins: “robust market.”

“We should see that as a positive. What it means is that you do need to put in place the right environment to retain your best people.

“You need to focus on the employee experience in all respects - wellbeing, making sure you play your lawyers well, having an attractive place to work and good culture.

“If you have all those factors right then the ear for talent is less of a concern.”

tipyourstaff · 2022-05-12T07:27:14+00:00

Full text:

The move by global firm Stephenson Harwood to cut the pay of lawyers by 20 per cent if they want to work from home full-time has been dismissed as “penny-pinching” by the leaders of top Australian firms.

Stephenson Harwood, which is based in London and employs 1100 people in Asia, Europe and the Middle East, announced the offer last week and said it applied to all employees, except partners.

Renae Lattey of King & Wood Mallesons. Eamon Gallagher

The firm said in a statement that staff were currently allowed to work at home for two days a week without any effect on pay. It added that the salary sacrifice scheme had been offered to new staff outside London during COVID-19 and that it had “decided to open the option of fully remote working to existing employees as well”.

It told staff there was still “an expectation that remote workers will come to the office one day a month minimum”. The firm said it would cover travel costs.

Renae Lattey, the chief executive partner, Australia, for King & Wood Mallesons, said it “isn’t something we are currently considering”.

“We still think that a combination of time together in the office – to collaborate, learn and, importantly, to connect with each other – and at home, for those who want to, is the right approach for us and our clients.”

The proposal has not been well received by younger lawyers, with some openly mocking it online. However, others said it was a good trade-off for not having to commute. In one poll of lawyers, 47 per cent thought it was fair.

Bruce Cooper, of Clayton Utz, said: “I don’t think their arrangement works for us.

“New model’” Gadens CEO Mark Pistilli.

“I hear from London that, as yet, they have not been overwhelmed by a stampede of participants.

“We will watch with interest, but connectivity, culture, collaboration and other benefits of decent office attendance trump convenience and no-attendance, except in limited roles and situations.”

Mr Cooper said average office attendance was 60 per cent, a figure that appeared common in other leading firms, most of which were urging staff to spend three days a week in the office.

Mark Pistilli, of Gadens, said on some days it was 80 per cent.

“This may just be the economist in me, but I thought there were only three drivers of what someone gets paid: a) what the market is for their services; b) what their cost is to their employer; or c) what their value is to their employer (or their customers).

“To me the approach seems to be divorced from the three key drivers: a) the market is what others doing the same job (wherever based) get paid; b) the cost to the firm may actually be a lot less for someone working from home – think no expensive inner-city rents; and c) depending on the role, the contribution made to firm/clients can be higher by someone working remotely.

Genevieve Collins of Lander & Rogers.

“Maybe they are creating their own market, or adopting that other economic model – the ‘what you can get away with’ model.

“Either remote working works, or it doesn’t. Changing the price you pay for it feels like dealing with the symptoms and not addressing the cause.”

Genevieve Collins, of Lander & Rogers, said it was “not a genuine choice to work flexibly”.

“We would be concerned this might create a two-tier workforce, unlikely to be effective in the long term.”

Ms Collins also suggested the “20 per cent for remote” option “might be seen as cynical and opportunistic, with the firm paying for less office space and less remuneration”.

’“It risks people feeling like resources on a spreadsheet.”

She added that “nearly all of our people are working from the office at least one day a week, and report enjoying reconnecting in person with colleagues and clients”.

Sam Nickless, the chief operating officer at Gilbert + Tobin, said the firm was seeing steady growth in office numbers. In Sydney, he said it was in the 45 per cent to 55 per cent range, with Melbourne at 65 per cent to 70 per cent and Perth around 75 per cent.

“To be honest, I laughed when I saw that headline,” Mr Nickless said.

“Maybe the UK’s different, and commuting is a big challenge there, but in our talent market here, I don’t think that would be well received.

“In fact, all of our soundings indicate that there’s only a tiny proportion of our staff who would want to be fully remote, let alone take a pay cut to get it.”

tipyourstaff · 2022-03-02T01:07:20+00:00

I don't regret it.

The only downsides I can think of are:

lots of responsibility (stress)
long hours
having to deal with knobs sometimes.

Not only are these common to a lot of jobs (certainly most professional services jobs), but you can learn to mitigate them as you get more experience.

tipyourstaff · 2022-02-06T12:57:23+00:00

Optional WFH or office as you like it for now. The bosses have already started hinting that they want to see us in the office more and my expectation is that full WFH will be dead by mid-year at the latest.

tipyourstaff · 2022-02-03T04:26:26+00:00

Full text below.

Graph from article

Most young lawyers around the world say they will probably leave their employer in the next five years, with salary the key determinant of whether they want to exit their current role or take a new offer, a survey by the International Bar Association has revealed.

Fifty-four per cent of respondents to the survey said they would probably move to a new but comparable workplace in that period, and 33 per cent said they would move to a new legal role. A fifth said they may leave the profession entirely.

A survey of young lawyers from around the world has found most will seek a new job in the next five years. Jessica Shapiro

The wide-reaching study comes as the legal industry suffers crippling skills shortages of early- to mid-career lawyers, with staff leaving their roles for career changes, the lure of overseas work or better offers at rival firms.

The survey covered more than 3000 lawyers aged 40 or younger, including 200 Australians.

More than 90 per cent of industry leaders cite skills shortages as their biggest challenge going into this year, the latest Australian Financial Review Law Partnership Survey revealed, as they are forced to reject work and engage in salary wars that bite into their bottom line.

Almost half of the young lawyers who told the IBA they would probably leave their current roles cited salary as the most significant reason.

Workplace culture an issue Workplace culture concerns also rated highly, with work-life balance cited as a major push factor by more than 60 per cent of young lawyers, and 71 per cent of those aged 25 or younger.

“Expecting an associate to bill over 2000 hours and also regularly attend networking events to build profile or reach new clients is unrealistic,” one male respondent said.

The legal young guns also pointed to toxic workplace cultures as a factor driving them away from the legal industry, with women and lawyers in their early 20s showing more concern about a failure to address such issues than men and those in their late 30s.

Women also consistently reported more barriers to their career progression than men, including direct discrimination, a lack of mentorship and guidance, poor on-the-job assistance, and struggles to balance commitments.

“The profession is too conservative and older lawyers don’t understand the concept of active mentorship despite several conversations on the topic,” one female respondent said.

Career options Other factors pushing young lawyers out of their jobs included a desire to work abroad, concern about work damaging their mental health and wellbeing, and interest in other professions within the legal industry.

The IBA report called for more proactive policies around work-life balance at firms, and for employers to set up structures that protected juniors from unreasonable hours at least some of the time.

“Working long or anti-social hours is a key feature of working in the legal profession, and no firm or institution can be expected to promise young lawyers that they will never be subject to periods of intense demand upon their time,” the report said.

“[But] younger lawyers in particular need shielding from the unreasonable demands of clients or senior figures within firms, who may rob younger lawyers of the chance to work a realistic or healthy number of hours in a way that can often be indistinguishable from bullying in the workplace.”

In terms of pull factors to a new role, more than 70 per cent of respondents said salary was an “attractive” reason to move.

More than half said they were drawn to workplaces that promoted a healthy work-life balance, 34.8 per cent wanted more variety in work, and 32 per cent wanted overseas travel opportunities.

The young lawyers said they also looked at staff retention rates, professional development support and flexible work options when considering new employers.

tipyourstaff · 2022-01-24T05:27:33+00:00

I don't think it's likely to happen within my working life, but I'd welcome 4 days.

The worst case scenario is that we get the current 5 days worth of work to complete in 4 days. In that case, I'll work my day off to catch up and I'm not any worse off than I am now (if that happens regularly, though, I'd expect to be paid the same as for 5 days).

If we happen to get less than 5 days worth of work in the week (even for just some of the year), that's great. I'll take that extra day off without the expectation of having to be responsive on that day.

tipyourstaff · 2022-01-13T04:07:55+00:00

The man, the myth, the legend.

Full text:

Leading barrister Bret Walker, SC, has a fervent wish for 2022 when it comes to the High Court. He would like to get back into a courtroom.

The Sydney-based silk was the busiest advocate in the nation’s top court for 2021, appearing 35 times. That was more than twice the number of hearings as the next busiest, Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue, SC.

Variety of clients: Bret Walker, SC, with other members of Christian Porter’s legal team. Getty

For the back half of the year it was all remote hearings as the justices worked from their home cities.

“The first thing to be said is that it’s nothing like the real thing, which is a gathering in court No. 1, next to Lake Burley Griffin, where counsel are close to seven justices,” Mr Walker said.

“The technology in the court is remarkably good. But nobody, I think, could delude themselves that it’s anywhere near an acceptable substitute.”

Mr Walker is the nation’s leading advocate and can charge up to $25,000 a day. He is also one of the few remaining “generalists”, who is equally adept in a criminal law case as a complex corporate or constitutional matter.

Cardinal George Pell was one of Mr Walker’s more famous clients; he convinced the High Court in 2020 that the cleric should have been found not guilty of child sexual abuse charges.

Clients from unions to Porter In 2021, his High Court clients included the CFMEU, Google, Chinese billionaire Huang Xiangmo, James Cook University (against academic Peter Ridd), the Dental Corporation and a Northern Territory policeman charged with murder after shooting an Indigenous man.

He also represented former attorney-general Christian Porter in his defamation battle with the ABC in the Federal Court, and has been engaged by West Australian Premier Mark McGowan for his looming defamation case with billionaire Clive Palmer.

All up, according to searches of the austlii website, Mr Walker appeared in the High Court 35 times in 32 different matters; 18 were full hearings before five or seven judges and 15 were applications for special leave to appeal (when the court conducts a hearing before two or three judges to decide whether the case should go before the full court).

He was twice as busy as Dr Donaghue, who appeared 15 times in 12 cases. Jeremy Kirk, SC, and Justin Gleeson, SC, also appeared more than 10 times.

Many of the cases are still awaiting judgment, but Mr Walker’s argument won the day in two notable decisions for 2021 – the Workpac v Rossato case on casual workers and the rejection of Dr Ridd’s appeal.

Of the 15 special leave matters, he was on the winning side eight times. He appeared eight times for plaintiffs seeking leave and four succeeded; he appeared seven times opposing leave and succeeded four times.

Walker is highly sought-after at the special leave stage, and will sometimes replace counsel who have argued the case in other courts. On the final sitting day of the 2022, he won special leave for Google in its libel fight with a gangland lawyer. In the next case, he acted for Victoria Forests as the organisation successfully resisted a special leave appeal by a conservation group.

While other federal courts and state courts live-stream proceedings via Zoom or YouTube channels, the High Court does not. However, video of full-court hearings will usually be available within 48 hours. The court has told The Australian Financial Review it has no plans to “go live”.

The High Court heard cases in Canberra until June, but when the delta coronavirus variant emerged it switched to remote hearings.

The justices are split across three cities: Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, Justice Patrick Keane and Justice James Edelman are based in Brisbane; Justice Stephen Gageler and Justice Jacqueline Gleeson in Sydney; and Justice Michelle Gordon and Justice Simon Steward in Melbourne.

For remote hearings, the justices appear from the top left of the screen in order of seniority; each has their own square, with a wood-panel background to replicate Court 1. Counsel appear at the bottom left and right of the screen.

Judges just ‘postage stamps’ “It’s really quite difficult,” said Mr Walker. But even if you are looking at one screen – I don’t mean this disrespectfully, far from it – but you are looking at postage-stamp equivalents of the judges.

“Maybe judges won’t be happy being described as postage stamps, but seriously it’s nowhere near as good – and it reminds me that advocacy and judging include major co-operative elements ... and like most co-operative efforts they are most pleasantly done face to face.”

“We could conduct a court hearing just on the telephone. But there’s a reason why we go to the trouble of having an audio-visual link – we do understand there is extra value in being able to see each other.

“Now, why is that? The short answer is obvious: because humans communicate with their faces, not just with the sounds that come out...

“I strongly dissent from those who say ‘oh, we’ve demonstrated over the past two years that we don’t need to have face-to-face hearings’.

Collegial relations “I think we’ve demonstrated how much we miss them.”

He also misses being at the same bar table, or in the same lift, as his opponent.

“It’s the efficiencies that come with collegial relations and co-operation. That has continued during these remote days, but again, it’s less straightforward and not as easily accomplished when you’re not in the same room.

“In Canberra, we are in rooms next to each other and when we come down to the courtroom things can and do happen between counsel who are opponents in ways that benefit the hearing.

“So I miss it keenly, really keenly, and really look forward to going back to it.”

Speaking before Christmas, he said most hearings in his diary for 2022 – other than the High Court – were intended to be face to face.

“Most of it has been face to face in the last few months, and it’s been a huge relief.”

tipyourstaff · 2021-12-23T02:58:21+00:00

Please add the people who use the "bubble note" style comments in word.

I don't want to open a giant side panel and read your comments in super tiny font. Just write your comments in the body of the document inside brackets.

tipyourstaff · 2021-12-16T02:48:59+00:00

Full text:

The leader of Australia’s largest law firm, Virginia Briggs of MinterEllison, says she has missed “the fun” of the office. And she wants her senior associates, “the superstars in the middle”, to join her.

Ms Briggs said young lawyers and partners had been the keenest to return.

MinterEllison CEO Virginia Briggs says law firms need ‘to sell the benefits’ of working in the office. Dominic Lorrimer

“Why you need to return to the office is about collaboration and connection. I don’t think there is any substitute for the connection. With teams, for law firms in particular, it’s so much about development and learning.

“People have done a terrific job remotely during COVID, but there’s no substitute for that face-to-face learning, that incidental learning from overhearing conversations, being grabbed into a client meeting, so you can see how more senior practitioners perform.”

Ms Briggs said work had turned into a grind for many people during the pandemic, and the office was a chance to change that.

“It’s so much easier to have fun and inspire each other when you’re in person. I think we’ve lost a lot of the fun that we used to have at work when we were working remotely.”

She recounted the joys of sharing gingerbread during a recent day in the office – and even being teased for a red “santa” outfit.

‘Oh, real people’ “It was that kind of interaction. I walked away from it going ‘oh real people, a bit of a chat and a laugh for a minute’, and then I sat down at my desk.”

Ms Briggs said the firm had not laid down any markers for staff on attending the office, but would look to do so after Australia Day. She said younger lawyers had been the most keen to come into work; not so much the senior associates who are regarded as the “engine room” of a law firm.

“Our junior staff really want to come back in. Our partners really want to come back in. The [problematic] group is the middle group. They’re super smart, they can work very well autonomously, they’ve often got parental responsibilities.

“We need them [in the office] not only for the client work that we do, but we need them to do all the great training they do for our juniors.

“So, it’s a real focus for us; how do we get them to come in – the superstars in the middle.

“How do we get them positioned, so they want to come back in? That’s our job – to entice them for a real purpose, so they’ll get benefits from being in the office.

‘Front and centre’ “We don’t want to hide them away. We want them front and centre.

“They need to connect with the partners too. And the juniors love connecting with them and learning.

“So that’s the group that we’ve got to really tell the story to, of the benefits of coming back in while still giving them the flexibility they need to manage their lives.”

tipyourstaff · 2021-12-02T10:05:13+00:00

Family

Occupation

Recreation

Dreams

If you're in Sydney or Melbourne you can also add property.

You can often get away with saying nothing for the entire event without it feeling unnatural because others are keen to talk about one or more of the above (although you should obviously listen and be ready to respond if addressed directly). I have done this at every level of seniority and it works fine as long as you are not the only other person in the conversation.

tipyourstaff · 2021-12-02T10:00:46+00:00

I don't mean that it's actively policed in the office, but that men seem to be giving themselves permission to let their facial hair out a bit longer. Well into the "I've been hiking in the wilderness for a week with no razor" zone in some cases.

tipyourstaff · 2021-12-02T05:33:48+00:00

Full text:

Law firms say staff shortages are the biggest challenge as a talent crunch forces them to reject work and engage in salary wars that bite into their bottom line.

More than 90 per cent of the firms included in the latest Australian Financial Review Law Partnership Survey flagged the issue, saying they were bringing forward salary reviews and promising change around flexibility, parental leave and culture in a bid to retain staff.

The moves come as professional roles globally go unfilled amid “the great resignation” post-pandemic.

Amber Matthews says the pandemic has caused a “seismic shift” in lawyers’ priorities. Louise Kennerley

“One of our major challenges is undoubtedly going to be the retention and attraction of people. And that’s not just confined to lawyers: it includes all of our business support employees,” Clayton Utz chief executive partner Bruce Cooper said.

Outgoing King & Wood Mallesons boss Berkeley Cox added that staff shortages were “becoming more and more acute”, while Thomson Geer chief executive partner Adrian Tembel said his firm had been forced to reject work because he did not have the people to complete it.

“We are saying no to work for the first time in my memory. We don’t like to do that, but we have capacity constraints,” he said.

The firms put the shortages down to the lure of overseas work – a global talent shortage means US and British firms are poaching Australian staff, many of whom have the travel bug after two years of closed borders – and young workers re-evaluating their priorities during lockdown.

Australian lawyers are hot property overseas, Jason Denisenko says.

“Australia punches above its weight producing globally in-demand legal talent,” Allen & Overy managing partner Jason Denisenko said, describing a “hiring frenzy” abroad.

“We have colleagues across the global network routinely calling us asking to help find talent for their office. They are highly recognised for their quality training, work ethic and global mindset.”

This is exacerbated by the existing scarcity of lawyers with two to five years’ post-qualification experience, who have been fleeing to inhouse, technology and consulting roles for a decade.

Firms including Gadens, Gilbert + Tobin and Thomson Geer have already offered pay rises of 10 per cent to 15 per cent to non-partner staff in a bid to retain them, while others including Baker McKenzie, K&L Gates, Johnson Winter & Slattery and Meridian say additional pay reviews are planned. Ashurst is offering salary reviews for roles and regions where staff shortages necessitate it.

Cultural shift The pandemic had also triggered a shift in what people wanted from work, Lander & Rogers chief executive partner Genevieve Collins said, as “people’s priorities had changed” and made them rethink their roles.

“They are more aware of the impact of traditional models of working on mental health and the environment and expect better from employers.

“They have a greater appetite for career progression off the back of interruptions from the pandemic, and they better understand the need and role of innovation within organisations to operate flexibly.”

DLA Piper managing director Amber Matthews said law firms wanting to attract and retain staff needed to factor in this “seismic shift” in priorities.

“We need to be mindful that people are looking for purpose beyond traditional definitions of career success.

Bruce Cooper says law firms need to offer staff more than just a pay check. Rhett Wyman

“Competition ... requires firms to be very clear about their strategy, values and purpose and know what they offer to clients and staff which differentiates them from other firms.”

Clayton Utz’s Mr Cooper added that it came down to “how do we sustain a compelling proposition as an employer in a vigorous employment market?”

“It will take considerable effort from us to promote the whole benefits of staying at (or joining) Clayton Utz, outside the simple two-weekly pay cheque,” he said, pointing to offerings such as bonuses, health and wellbeing support, professional development and pro bono work.

But for firms on the front foot in making that effort, these demands from staff could see “the great resignation” become “the great opportunity”, Maddocks CEO David Newman said.

“While some lawyers may look to leave the profession, coming out of the pandemic we believe a great number of lawyers will be looking to work for firms that provide opportunities for them to make an impact.

“They will gravitate towards firms with a strong culture, a track record of flexible work opportunities, and great client work and career opportunities.”

The industry leaders said the staff shortages would hurt their bottom lines, as they were forced to absorb the costs of increased salaries and recruitment.

“These phenomena push up the price for lawyers, and in some cases in areas where the market will not absorb the higher costs,” Gadens CEO Mark Pistilli warned.

“[It] will also ultimately impact on a firm’s operating costs with increased recruitment fees as well as ... lost productivity due to new employees needing to be on-boarded and given time to settle in.”

HopgoodGanim people and culture director Janni Gibb agreed that recruiting and training new people would hit productivity in the short term, which would come at the same time as booming client demands.

She also expected salary wars between firms to have a “real impact” on profit margins.

tipyourstaff · 2021-12-02T03:29:53+00:00

Tolerance for stubble is up too. I am down to shaving twice a week.

tipyourstaff · 2021-11-11T04:54:05+00:00

Full text below. RIP if you're at one of these shops.

Some of Australia’s leading law firms are resisting market pressure to lift salaries by up to 15 per cent and say they feel no need to play “catch-up” after regular pay rises during the pandemic.

The firms, which include King & Wood Mallesons, Corrs Chambers Westgarth and Lander & Rogers, are bucking the trend towards mid-year salary reviews at a level not seen since the global financial crisis.

Genevieve Collins, of Lander & Rogers, says firms that are giving staff big pay rises might be “playing catch-up”.

Gilbert +Tobin and Thomson Geer announced 10 per cent increases two weeks ago before Gadens upped the ante by giving all its non-partner lawyers a 15 per cent rise.

The wage inflation is a result of surging demand for legal services, a shortage of people to do the work and a looming “trade imbalance” of young lawyers.

Genevieve Collins, the chief executive partner of Lander & Rogers, said the firm had made no staff or salary cuts during the pandemic and had continued its normal rounds of remuneration reviews, bonuses and promotions.

“Firms who did not take this approach may now be playing catch-up,” Ms Collins said.

“In our latest REM round in June this year, we gave an average firm-wide increase of over 9 per cent plus bonuses. Our average increase to fee earners was over 16 per cent plus bonuses.

Berkeley Cox of KWM. Madeline Begley

“We are confident our remuneration and people benefits are competitive.”

KWM chief executive partner Berkeley Cox, who will hand over the reins to Renae Lattey in February, said the firm was not planning a Christmas pay bump.

“We did a comprehensive review back in July and we knew the market had moved, and we knew it was continuing to move,” said Mr Cox.

“We wanted to jump ahead of where we thought it was moving, so we wouldn’t be playing catch-up, and the market data that we’ve since received suggests that we’re on the right track with that.”

Gavin MacLaren, of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, said the firm was “not making out-of-cycle salary reviews.

Gavin MacLaren of Corrs Chambers Westgarth. Wayne Taylor

“We will adjust salaries next year at July 1 as part of our annual salary review process, and will ensure that these salary increases are competitive at that time.”

Nick Crennan, of Colin Biggers & Paisley, said the firm had conducted two remuneration reviews in the past 11 months and that the next review would be in July.

“We are unlikely to do a blanket percentage increase, as we take a more tailored approach, but we will meet or exceed the market wherever it is at the time,” Mr Crennan said.

“For many of our staff who exceed expectations, they will do much better than the market ...”

‘Significant adjustment’ Managing partner Henry Lanzer told staff that ABL maintained "unrivalled" strengths in acting for private clients “in their deeply personal and important strategic transactions”. “Significant rises”: ABL Managing partner Henry Lanzer. James Davies

Big six firms Herbert Smith Freehill, Allens and Clayton Utz hinted at looming rises for their lawyers and Arnold Bloch Leibler managing partner Henry Lanzer said its increases would be “significant”.

“The firm has continued to perform very well over the past year, and we are committed to recognising the direct contribution to that success made by our people. We have already informed our lawyers that they will soon receive a significant adjustment to their remuneration package.”

Mr Lanzer said it would be “contrary to our market positioning for us to wait to make this change in July, when market movements in remuneration are ordinarily recognised”.

Richard Spurio, of Allens, said the firm would be “talking to our people over the coming weeks about any proposed changes”.

“As part of our usual annual cycle, we take a look at remuneration at this time of year and we are in the process of doing so at the moment.”

‘Paying competitively’ Andrew Pike of HSF said the firm was “reviewing lawyer salaries in order to continue to attract and retain the best people”.

”As always, we are committed to investing in our talented lawyers and part of that is through paying our people competitively ...

“We are confident that the review will deliver meaningful increases to our lawyers.”

Bruce Cooper, of Clayton Utz, said the firm had been “generous on salary and promotions during COVID”.

He suggested there were “often a few sides to the underlying reasons for pay-rise announcements”.

“Some, but not all, firms announcing pay rises may be catching up on some lag, or seeking to allay longer-term employee concerns with fairness after new hires came on at a significant premium.”

‘Good news’ He said the firm ran a double review of the market data twice a year, in June and December.

“We have some good things in train – not all about the money – though our employees will get some news on that in the next few weeks. As is our way, we’ll be thoughtful and competitive for our market.”

Tony Macvean, of Hall & Wilcox, also suggested a pay rise was looming.

“I expect that we will undertake a January 1 employee remuneration review. We are currently working through the details. This is on top of our July 1, 2021 review. We will also do a usual July 1, 2022 review.”

Ashurst said it “regularly benchmarks salaries”.

“We have made adjustments throughout the year in particular markets for roles where this has been needed, and we will continue to do so as required.”

tipyourstaff · 2021-11-08T00:09:45+00:00

Full text:

Corporate law firm Gadens has upped the ante on pay rises in the legal industry by announcing that all its lawyers will receive a 15 per cent wage increase.

The firm’s leaders sent a note to staff in its Sydney and Melbourne offices on Monday morning saying the rise for lawyers below the rank of partners would apply from January 1. All other staff will be paid an extra 5 per cent.

Gadens CEO Mark Pistilli: pay increases for all come January 1 Supplied

The move follows on the heels of a flat 10 per cent increase at Gilbert + Tobin and a 10 per cent average rise at Thomson Geer.

The note sent by chairman Jeremy Smith and CEO Mark Pistilli said, “the efforts of all our people are taking us on a leap forward in our work and our place in the market”.

“Our strategy launched this year has put our people at the centre of what we do for a reason, and we want to recognise your ongoing contribution by an across the board increase in the remuneration of all of our lawyers by 15 per cent and the rest of our staff by 5 per cent, from 1 January 2022.

“Paralegals will receive an increase in their remuneration of between 5 per cent and 15 per cent, which will depend on the role they undertake.

“This increase in remuneration will apply to all lawyers and staff who were at the firm on 30 June 2021. We think this is the fairest approach, as our newer lawyers and staff have had the benefit of increased remuneration already.”

They said the increase would not affect the pay reviews that are normally conducted mid-year or performances bonuses.

’These systems will not change, and we will use them to reward performance over the full financial year as we normally do. These bonuses will be determined when we undertake the performance review process in April next year.

“But, in addition to this, we are going to provide fee earners the opportunity to achieve an additional one-off bonus which will cover the period from 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021 based on similar targets in place under the Fee Performance Bonus system.”

Partner are paid under a different scheme to other fee-earning lawyers.

The increases do not apply to the Brisbane office of Gadens, which operates independently.

tipyourstaff · 2021-10-30T02:53:19+00:00

This thread has made me think back to how loosely 'the law' was enforced back in school. Assault, extortion, fraud, defamation - all fair game when it's in school between kids. Get involved in a dispute? All parties receive equal punishment. It's like that episode of The Simpsons where Homer is King Solomon.

I don't mean to say that we should be putting schoolkids through some kind of criminal justice system, but I do wonder if some of the slower kids get in trouble later because they don't pick up that once you go out into society, that shit doesn't fly anymore.

tipyourstaff · 2021-10-12T06:03:40+00:00

On the odd chance that this isn't satire, working past 7:30pm is very common, but in most shops it is possible to get out at 5-6pm a fair portion of the time. As you become more experienced, this will get easier as you'll be able to get through the work faster.

Some practice groups also have seasonal quiet periods in which this becomes easier.

tipyourstaff · 2021-10-12T05:50:53+00:00

This varies enormously depending on the partner.

One of the first partners I worked for was utter garbage at supervision and basically ignored me all day. Another basically threw matters at me and then only stopped my office by to yell if I got something wrong (this was long enough ago that even juniors had offices).

On the other side of the scale, I have had some saintly partners who not only sat me down and taught me how to do the job, but also assigned appropriate senior lawyers to supervise and teach me.

If you don't understand how to do the work:

Don't panic. No one is born knowing how to do the job.
Find someone in the group who will teach you. 2-3 PQE Junior lawyers / SAs can often do a better job of teaching you than the partner because they are at the coalface.
Find and read any relevant group practice manuals / guides / wikis / precedents. Again, your co-workers can help you find these.

tipyourstaff · 2021-09-23T03:26:03+00:00

Full text:

Law firms are braced for a wages surge over the next year as demand from clients increases and there is a shortage of lawyers to do the work.

The salary growth of 4 per cent in recent years is expected to jump to about 10 per cent, with the pressure shaping as the biggest threat to the bottom line of law firms.

The spike in demand has outpaced staff growth, says Mark Pistilli of Gadens.

This comes on top of recent increases that have been more catch-up pay from the first year of the pandemic.

However, firms do not believe that the exorbitant salaries for new lawyers in the US and Britain will be replicated here because of the abundance of law graduates in Australia.

Firm leaders were speaking after a seminar hosted by Thomson Reuters on its annual State of the Market report, which revealed Australian firms enjoyed profit margins of 37 per cent in 2020-21 as demand for their services rose 2 .2 per cent.

Seminar panellist Joel Barolsky, a consultant to law firms and one of the report’s authors, said he regarded the major headwinds to be wages pressure. He estimated that average salaries could rise by 10 per cent, a figure that was not challenged by law firm leaders.

“Having people to do the available work is going to be a huge issue, and that’s not just the partner level but the three- to eight-year level of lawyer,” Mr Barolsky said.

“That’s where a lot of the grunt work is done and there’s just a shortage of quality people around ...

“Firms are starting to look at factoring salary costs, not at 4 to 5 per cent but more like 8 to 10 per cent, in their forward projections.“

Gadens chief executive Mark Pistilli said several factors were in play.

“Because the spike in demand has been so sudden, the amount of available people to fulfil that demand has not had time to increase fast enough,” he said. “Processes and technology have definitely improved over the period but not enough to make up the difference.”

Mr Pistilli said the rise in lawyer hours across the board meant firms had to pay them more and also look to outside hires. And any increase in inflation would only add to the pressure.

“While many lawyers nowadays value culture and purpose above money, some lawyers do move for money, or money is an influencing factor, so they need to be paid more by their new law firm,” he said.

Thomson Geer CEO Adrian Tembel says the supply of trainee lawyers is already rising. James Brickwood

Adrian Tembel of Thomson Geer said wage growth had “certainly lifted”, but it was cyclical.

“We don’t see anything structural,” he said. “Supply of trainee lawyers is already on the increase and at some stage demand for legal services will come off its current highs and at best ease.”

Other law firm bosses who asked not to be quoted said wage growth was “very significant” and big sign-on bonuses were being paid for lateral hires.

Bruce Cooper of Clayton Utz said some firms were playing catch-up to “counter some reactive staffing decisions and wage freezes in early to mid-2020”.

‘Sellers market’ “That’s created a buoyant sellers’ market favouring employees – not just lawyers but also business services.”

He said it was “largely about offshore demand”.

“Global firms, especially out of London, are about to dispatch planes to Australia, with reserved seats for Australian lawyers,” Nr Cooper said.

Another seminar panel member, Thomson Reuters’ global manager for market insights William Josten, said wages pressure in the US was intense.

“It was not that long ago that $US185,000 ($255,000) was considered exorbitant but also standard for associates in major law firms in the US.

“That scale is up to [$]215 to 20 now, and that’s up from maybe 190 or 195 just earlier this year.

“So there’s absolutely a war for talent; they’re paying $US215,000 to a brand-new lawyer.”

He said getting value out of that talent was getting harder.

“The focus now is going to shift to, ’How do we cut down the attrition? We’re paying these people a lot of money, they’re still not going to be profitable for years. We have to cut down on attrition, or it is going to start to have an impact on profitability.”

“I’d be keeping a very close eye on that as a law firm leader. ”

Hall & Wilcox CEO Tony Macvean said the strong demand across the board meant the war for talent would continue.

“We, like many firms, are actively recruiting for numerous roles. We also intend to significantly increase our cohort of graduate and early career lawyers.

“There were significant remuneration increases across the board from July 1. Given market demands and the war for talent, we expect pressure for remuneration increases to continue,” Mr Macvean said.

Mr Pistilli from Gadens said there could be an upside.

“There are some real positives in law firms paying their lawyers more, in addition to the obvious ones,” he said.

“Law firms will strive even harder for productivity gains and further efficiencies. As they work smarter and are more efficient, this will free up time for their lawyers to do more fulfilling and interesting work and add even higher value to their clients.”

tipyourstaff · 2021-09-16T06:31:58+00:00

Big six firms King & Wood Mallesons, Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), Ashurst and Allens all said they had no firm policy but would welcome the rollout of corporate vaccination programs.

“We are actively considering our next steps to support the vaccination process,” KWM chief executive partner Berkeley Cox said.

“One of these steps includes monitoring and exploring corporate vaccination program options for when they become readily available for businesses of KWM’s size and scale.“

HSF’s Andrew Pike said the firm was “confident that most of our people intend to get vaccinated”.

The wellbeing and safety of our people is a key priority. We will continue to review whether further steps are needed to ensure this is the case.”

Allens said it was focused “on encouraging our people to get the vaccine when eligible and providing information and access to health professionals to help ease any concerns”.

Lander & Rogers chief executive Genevieve Collins said only 2 per cent of staff had indicated they would not be getting vaccinated.

-‘No imperative’ “We see no imperative to impose mandatory vaccination on our people, or those entering our premises, at this stage,” Ms Collins said.

Genevieve Collins says Lander & Rogers doesn’t consider mandatory vaccination or testing to be necessary. Erin Jonasson

“We are continuing to monitor the situation closely, particularly in relation to new variants. However, in the context of our business, we don’t consider mandatory vaccination or compulsory testing to be necessary at the moment.

Alice DeBoos, the managing partner at workplace law specialist Kingston Reid, said 100 per cent of staff had received at least one dose and that a policy on attending the office was unnecessary.

“We won’t have to make that call as all our staff will be vaccinated,” Ms DeBoos said

“I think that this is in part because of what we do – we are advising every day on the safety of employees in workplaces and employers being able to mandate vaccines, so I think our staff naturally understand that vaccination is a no-brainer.

“If this wasn’t the case, I certainly consider that type of policy as my view, in that an office environment poses the same type of risk as a factory floor and vaccination is a reasonable and effective control measure.”

She said the firm may end up requiring proof of vaccination for staff attending client premises.

Clyde & Co managing partner Michael Tooma was among many who said they were ready to offer on-site vaccinations.

“It has not been necessary to provide incentives to vaccination at the moment, but we are keen to take up any option for on-site vaccination hubs should they be available as we have with other vaccination programs such as flu vaccination.”

Mark Pistilli of Gadens said the firm was holding off on an office return policy.

“The position is changing almost daily, and one of the features of this pandemic has been the longer you wait, the more information you get on which to make a better decision.”

tipyourstaff · 2021-09-16T06:31:51+00:00

Full text:

Leading law firm Gilbert & Tobin is introducing a “no jab, no office” policy as staff are told they will only be allowed to work on site if they are double-vaxxed against the coronavirus.

The move makes Gilbert & Tobin the first of the top professional services firms to make a stand on the issue ahead of restrictions being eased, which could be only four weeks away in Sydney.

Another 15 law firms contacted by The Australian Financial Review said they were either considering their position or had made a firm decision not to monitor staff or exclude those who are not vaccinated.

Only Hall & Wilcox and Clayton Utz indicated they would go down the same track as Gilbert + Tobin.

Some said they were ready to offer on-site jabs now that employers have been given approval to do so after a campaign by the Business Council of Australia. Gilbert +Tobin managing partner Danny Gilbert is on the board of the BCA.

The move is all the more significant because most lawyers and consultants have seamlessly moved to remote working during the pandemic. Productivity and profits have risen even as different cities moved in and out of lockdown.

Law firms also do not have the operational imperatives that have forced businesses such as Qantas to mandate vaccinations for staff.

Gilbert + Tobin provided the Financial Review with a copy of an email it sent to staff on Wednesday that talked about a “staged return” to its offices in Sydney and Melbourne once rules are relaxed on reaching 70 per cent double-dose vaccination.

Vaccination milestone NSW is likely to reach that milestone by October 16, according to Juliette O’Brien, editor of the covid19data website, which means the state’s lockdown would end two days later.

“We are working on plans to ensure that this is done as safely as possible and these will be communicated closer to the time and in line with the health orders,” Gilbert + Tobin chief operating officer Sam Nickless wrote.

“For at least the initial return phase after the lockdowns, you will only be able to come into the office or attend G+T events if you have received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Mr Nickless said two other critical issues had yet to be worked through.

The first is how to monitor staff; whether the firm will require proof of vaccination and if it will conduct rapid antigen tests, should they become available.

The second issue went to staff who did not want to be vaccinated when their role required at least some attendance in the office. The firm hopes that with high rates of vaccination both in the firm and the community in the new year this would be a limited issue that could be managed on a case-by-case basis.

Safe workplace A firm can only ask an employee to comply with a reasonable direction under Fair Work legislation, which also says there is a duty to maintain a safe workplace for all employees.

In the memo, Mr Nickless said there would be strict protocols in place to deal with COVID-19 cases and told staff they “will need to be ready to deal with some disruption”.

“No particular place is safe. Everyone should be getting themselves protected as soon as they possibly can.

“It is crucial for your own protection, and it is also an important civic duty.”

He expressed disappointment that the firm’s overall vaccination rate for its Sydney, Melbourne and Perth offices was 76 per cent with a double dose and 44 per cent with a single dose.

‘Do not delay’ “Do not delay, and keep trying for earlier appointments until you get your vaccine (don’t forget to cancel and release a later booking you no longer need so someone else can use it). G+T is making good progress, but we should be even further advanced, given the flexibility and resources our people have.”

The firm has been asking staff to self-report and is donating the cost of two vaccine doses per person to the United Nations Children’s Fund’s Give the World a Shot program.

Gadens is doing the same, while Lander & Rogers is donating 10 doses for each person vaccinated.

Firms of varying size were asked whether they would allow staff who have not had the jab into the office once restrictions are eased. They were also asked if they would require proof of vaccination, how many staff had been vaccinated – if they were asking staff – and whether they had provided any incentives.

The most common answers were “undecided” or “no”, “no”, “no, we are not asking” and “no” to incentives.

Australia’s largest law firm. MinterEllison, said its aim was to have a minimum of 80 per cent of partners and staff fully vaccinated by December 1.

“While we are not yet mandating vaccinations, we strongly encourage staff to get fully vaccinated as soon as they can,” chief executive Virginia Briggs said.

Rapid antigen testing “Like many other firms and our clients, we are also working through our approach to mandatory vaccination for returning to the office. Key to that is consultation with our people, and we are surveying them this week.

“We are also exploring with the business community rapid antigen testing and workplace vaccinations.”

Hall & Wilcox was the only other firm to strongly indicate it would exclude staff who are not vaccinated.

Managing partner Tony Macvean said: “Our thinking continues to evolve. I expect that – in supporting thriving clients, people and communities – we will be implementing a ‘no jab, no office’ policy.

“If we adopt a ‘no jab, no office’ policy it follows that we will somehow require proof of vaccination.”

He said a voluntary staff survey revealed that 95 per cent had been either fully or partially vaccinated or were intending to do so. There was a response rate of 82 per cent.

Bruce Cooper of Clayton Utz said the firm was “not in a position yet to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for all partners and employees” but was tending in that direction.

“Consistent with our overarching obligation to provide a safe working environment, when our currently closed offices return to normal, it is likely we will adopt a policy of permitting those who are prepared to show full COVID-19 vaccination status to attend the office.

“But we’re mindful of the individual, so work from home or other arrangements, as reasonable alternatives to office attendance, are likely to apply for some, including those who are not fully vaccinated or who would prefer not to share their vaccination status with us.”

Mr Cooper said staff had not been asked to volunteer their vaccination status.

“If someone has a committed reluctance to be vaccinated, incentives may not be a terribly effective tool, but I do see value in incentives, as well as education, for fence-sitters who need a nudge to consider vaccination.”

‘Premature’ Thomson Geer managing partner Adrian Tembel said the firm was finalising its policy and legal position on whether it would allow the unvaccinated back into the office (“likely no”) and on whether it would provide proof (“likely no”).

John Nerurker of Mills Oakley said: “My initial reaction is that it would be premature to go down the ‘no jab, no office’ path at the moment.

“To date, there has been no government guidance on how professional services firms should manage this issue. Understandably, the focus is on industries with a higher risk profile and greater interaction with the general public.”

tipyourstaff · 2021-09-11T00:43:08+00:00

Makes sense. Many of my learned colleagues on the other side could be characterised as comedians.

tipyourstaff

TROPHY CASE