As The People’s Therapist, my door is always open. I don’t turn away poor clients.
“Pay whatever you can afford,” I tell them.
Naturally, they get what they pay for. If I’m a little sleepy, or staring at the clock – who are they to complain? Come to think of it, why do we have to talk about them all the time anyway…
Just kidding.
But let’s be real – are things any different with the the high-fidelity first-class traveling set than they are with folks flying “comfort class”? I ask myself that question a lot. I do it to stay honest.
For one thing, my wealthy clients – mostly partners at big firms – pay a lot more, which means they literally pay my rent. That means something. Therapy can feel conspiratorial, too – you tell your therapist everything. So when I’m on duty in the Platinum Elite Lounge, I’m aware I’m also pow-wowing with a supremely powerful boss making life-shattering decisions affecting my clients on the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
But I have to be everyone’s therapist. That’s my job. I’m consciously working two sides of a divide.
The following is not an unusual scenario: I spend fifty minutes with a JD two years out of law school who’s making $25 per hour doing doc review – all to eke out monthly payments on a $170k financial carcinoma euphemistically termed a “school loan.” Five minutes later, in the same chair, I face a senior partner who brings in $2.8 million every twelve months. I witness abrupt social discordance at least once a week. Welcome to my world.
One of my wealthiest clients, a hypothetical composite who claims half of a large law firm as a personal asset, explained to me an especially profitable element of his firm’s business:
“You see, we get these kids in to do doc review, and we pay the company that recruits them $35/hr. The kids get $25, and we bill the client $70. That’s about it.”
It turns out there’s a sweet spot between handing doc review off to a junior associate – at $350/hr – and wiring it to some faceless drone in India to have it done for – what? – $20/hr? For $70 – the sweet spot – you’re saving the client real money but – and he insists there are studies to prove it – by hiring an out of work American JD, you’re still guaranteed high-quality, reliable service.
Do the math. The firm’s pocketing $35 every single hour – every single $25 hour that one of those kids spends chained by debt to a computer monitor, assessing corporate detritus.
Of the firm’s thirty-five bucks, a fair chunk goes directly to my client (hypothetical composite that he is), since he “owns” the account and the matter – a massive securities litigation – generating the doc review.
For each one of those dozens of doc review galley slaves slowly dying for $25/hr, my client – I’m guessing – pockets about $10/hr. That would add up fast.
Needless to say, he doesn’t have school loans. He does possess several gracious homes.
Okay. So what is The People’s Therapist doing sitting in the same room with this guy?! Even if he is a hypothetical composite – doesn’t it amount to consorting with the enemy?
For starters, Mr. Hypothetical Composite is not the enemy. He’s just a person. And what I’m doing is psychotherapy – just like with you. Let’s say he has problems with his kids, or marital issues or stuff he wants to work out from his childhood before his elderly father dies – well, then that’s what we’re talking about. Just like with everyone else in my office.
Even as I struggle to write this piece, I envision the comments and letters I’ll receive. Half will excoriate me as a wild-eyed Communist. The other half will tear into me for selling out.
Neither is the case. Trust me. I’m just a therapist.
Do I hate watching young people exploited by the law schools and the big firms? Of course.
Do I care about my wealthy, powerful law firm partner clients? Yes. And not just because they can pay hefty fees and help me make my rent. Because they’re people.
I guess my point here is that we need to do more than vilify one another. We need to understand one another – and understand the system and where we fall in it.
That sounds like a platitude. But psychotherapy is about consciousness and this is an element of consciousness.
I’ll put it this way: I sometimes cringe when an incredibly wealthy partner waxes on about philanthropy. While he’s contemplating a foundation to benefit the arts, I’m imagining what his little doc review army would think…probably that they could use five more dollars per hour in their pocket – or maybe a charitable foundation to benefit victims of school loans.
But hey – it’s not like government supports the arts in this country….We could use more foundations to benefit artists.
And at the same time, when I sit with a naïve 1L rhapsodizing on the theme of her cuddly law professor’s quirky personality, I also cringe, and imagine the loans she’ll face in a few years’ time – probably without a job.
We could argue forever about how the world ought to be – how much wealth the rich should be permitted to amass before they pay taxes, how low the poor should be allowed to sink before we reach down a helping hand. It isn’t my place to attempt to define injustice.
But I do wish we were all a bit more conscious of how the “other half” (or other ninety-nine percent, or other one percent) lives. At very least, let’s open our eyes and own that law students, scammed into buying degrees with tens of thousands of borrowed dollars, are being worked like cattle. Meanwhile, wealthy partners are pocketing millions upon millions and wondering how they can possibly give back in a meaningful way.
The Occupy Wall Street protest is situated only blocks from my office. I’ve spent time walking through their encampment, pondering its message, which boils down to: “Something is wrong with this picture.” It’s not too different from Warren Buffett’s message, when he reminds us that, as a candidate for the title of richest man in the world, he pays a lower tax rate than you or I.
I’ll add to the growing chorus: There’s something wrong with this picture. Both sides are sensing it – your half (whichever it is) and the “other half.” Both sides appear to yearn for a solution.
I’m in the middle, between the two halves, trying to help you understand one another. It’s a little like couples counseling. I don’t think the junior associates out there seek a Communist overthrow of our government. And I don’t believe every wealthy managing partner wants his name on the door of a Dickensian sweatshop. Here’s my job: I’ll repeat what you’re each telling me, out loud, so you can both hear it. Eventually, you’ll begin to understand what the other half is saying.
========
This piece is part of a series of columns presented by The People’s Therapist in cooperation with AboveTheLaw.com. My thanks to ATL for their help with the creation of this series.
If you enjoy these columns, please check out The People’s Therapist’s new book, Way Worse Than Being a Dentist: The Lawyer’s Quest for Meaning
I can also heartily recommend my first book, “Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy”.
(Both books are also available on bn.com and the Apple iBookstore.)
The People's Therapist 
Look at the bright side: Mr. Composite Client may be in to see you more often as the LPO’s slip away with his business: http://kowalskiandassociatesblog.com/2011/10/12/lpo%e2%80%99s-have-become-legal-project-outplacement-firms-they-are-outplacing-legal-work-from-traditional-law-firms/
It’s not a Communist overthrow; it’s capitalism at its best.
Really enjoyed this post, and looking forward to more in the series.
Although, it felt like you were straining to be equally sympathetic to both “sides.” If the “1%” wanted to behave differently, couldn’t they decide to pocket $10/hour less without a drastic change in lifestyle? Whereas there are relatively few alternatives for the cattle-like lawyers working for $25/hour to pay off $170k (more like $200k) loans, which is why they’re stuck where they are. And the dilemma of how to give back in a meaningful way seems a lot less urgent than keeping one’s head above water.
Nonetheless, appreciate your underlying argument that all of us are people and deserve to be understood and listened to etc. And as an out of work lawyer with massive loans, appreciate that you make your services available at a rate people like me can afford.
Jeannie – yes, they could take less, but that wouldn’t mean more money in the pocket of the $25/hr document reviewer. The agency that hired him/her would keep it. That’s simply the going rate among such agencies, and the end customer (partner) in a firm can’t affect it.
Regardless, the “cattle-like lawyers” you describe DO have alternatives. They can leave NYC or whatever high-cost-of-living area they’re living in and go somewhere cheaper for a while (they can always come back, but often do not after realizing how $hitty life was in such city) (did this myself). They can try to defer their loans for a year while they hang out a shingle and hustle for clients. They can even take a non-law job for a while, yet maintain a strong connection to being a lawyer through CLEs, speaking engagements, etc… (did this myself). There are lots of alternatives, none of them all that palatable from the outset, but they can all lead to lightening his/her debt burden.
As for the point of the article, I’m glad Will sees every one of his patients as human beings with problems that need solving (or just people who need to vent).
In an attempt to understand lawyers and money, I’ve been reading The Soul of Money, which is a fantastic book. It’s by Lynne Twist, who ran the Hunger Project for many years. Her point is similar, in that money doesn’t necessarily equal happiness, so rich people have problems, too, then she goes into how to improve things. Includes a great story about meeting Mother Teresa, along with an arrogant rich couple. As you’d imagine, Mother Teresa had a unique take on the subject.
On a more practical note, for any prelaws reading this and thinking they’ll be the rich partner in Will’s story, be careful. Law School Myth #1: Lawyers make a lot of money: http://thegirlsguidetolawschool.com/09/law-school-myth-1-lawyers-make-a-lot-of-money/.
Doc review pays around $35/hour. With overtime at a steady doc review gig, it is possible to clear $100,000 when working hours comparable to big law.
That’s around $65,000 post-tax. Take off $2000/month for a studio or apartment share, and you have about $40,000 left to cover student loans and other expenses. The work is just as mindnumbing as big law, but it pays the bills and there is no screaming partner or stressed out senior associate to report to.
Many doc review gigs also have flexible start / end times, as long as you fulfill the minimum weekly hours. Want to leave work early because you’ve got a hot date? Want to show up to work late because you’ve been partying all night and/or hit the snooze button for some morning nookie? No problem.
No emails or blackberries to check. No angry voicemails wondering where you are. All in all, it’s a low stress job that allows one to have a nice social life.
Like! Heart! Thumbs up! I totally agree that there are happy doc reviewers, I just think we are not as loud as the unhappy ones. Not that I heart doc review itself but it pays for a nice life as a real human being, which is more than one can say about a lot of other jobs.
It seems there’s definitely three sides: partner, reviewer, and agency. It would seem that if the partner would hire reviewers directly, even with the same status of temporary worker, his HR might have a little bit more work, but the two main parties would definitely be better off. Is the middle man really necessary?
Thanks, Will. My biggest hope for the OWS movement (and its progeny) is that instead of being “anti” something, it becomes “pro” unity, community, and compassion. All of the problems against which people are currently protesting begin with failure to understand “the other side.” Lawyering pits us one against the other as though there can be winners and losers in the world. In the end, however, we all win when we understand and care about one another. Thank you for being the middle ground and helping bring both sides’ views to the table.
Samian – it’s not the agency that would pocket the $10 – that $10 is part of the 100% markup the firm is charging the client for the $35/hour bill. There’s an ethics issue, because presumably the firm isn’t expensing the contract attys, but is putting them on the invoice at $70 per hour, as if they are firm employees. Smart clients don’t allow that, and many retainer agmts specify that the firm cannot apply a mark-up to the expenses. THe firm is overcharging their client.
It’s not a solution for contract attorneys to leave NYC (Or Chicago, DC, LA, San Fran, etc), becuase the job market is pretty bad in most of the country, and many lack business skills that would get them jobs outside of law. I personally think having an attorney with NO experience “hang out a shingle” is a recipe for disaster.
1. According to Will’s article – “You see, we get these kids in to do doc review, and we pay the company that recruits them $35/hr. The kids get $25, and we bill the client $70. That’s about it.”
The firm pockets the $10 difference between the $25 it pays reviewers and the rate the firm pays it. The firm marks up the reviewers time, which may, in fact, be perfectly legal (since the firm is ultimately responsible to the client for whom the reviewer is performing services – i.e., malpractice liability). This is pretty common in private industry where a “reseller” marks up a product/service from the discounted price it receives from the OEM (even if the OEM is performing the service) so that it can make a profit margin on the transaction.
2. It is a solution to leave a high-cost area for a low-cost area. The job market doesn’t suck everywhere. There are a number of states where unemployment is significantly lower than the national average. In August 2011, states like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming all had unemployment rates 2-3% lower than the national average of 9.1%. By contrast, California had an umemployment rate of 12.1%.
3. Hanging out a shingle does not mean you fly completely solo. There are plenty of small (1-2 person) firms that have more work than they can handle, but not enough to hire an associate. Figuring out the law simply takes some time and a few CLEs. You cobble together 5 hours here and 5 hours there, pretty soon you have a 30 to 40-billable hour week, which if you charge $150 an hour (not unreasonable for new lawyer), translates into $4,500-$6,000 a week gross. Multiply that by 50 weeks and you have $225,000 to $300,000 a year in a low-cost of living state. I personally know at least 5 young lawyers who did this and all of them eventually prospered after about a year of getting on their feet. Some eventually went in house, others to the government, and one went to BIGLAW.
Fear is what stops most newly-minted graduates from stepping outside their comfort zones.
Interesting article! a question for Dr. Will: all else being equal, if potential client X is poor and potential client Y is rich and can help pay your rent, and you only have one slot, which do you see?
Whoever calls first to schedule the appointment.
One thing that partners can do to “give back” is be more considerate of their associates, who are the main reason why they can make the money they are making and not have to do the work themselves (I’m on a matter right now where the partner is pretty much completely checked out). We all know that clients can be very demanding and expect long hours. However, subject to that deadline, partners can and should ensure that they are reasonable of associates’ needs and time.
Unfortunately, that’s impractical to expect. The lower you are on the totem pole, the more disrespect for your time there will be. Put differently, $hit rolls downhill. Yet the more critical you are to a matter, the more leverage you have to demand that a partner respect your time. This is why associates – even first years – must make themselves indispensable. Know the deal/case inside out, even if the time you spend doing so isn’t always billable. Better yet, know the client’s business inside out. Too many young associates just do what they’re told. These are the same associates who are shown the door at year 5+, only to be replaced by a younger, fresher model who is just as naive as the 5+ year associate was at one point in time.
As for demanding and expecting long hours, I can speak directly to this as the client. I don’t demand/expect long hours – I expect timely answers to my questions so I can advise my business clients. Oftentimes, it is the partner in the firm who demands/expects long hours because he didn’t answer my question quickly enough (and I’m pissed), or he wants to spank me for billable hours while he can (i.e., government investigation, litigation, critical M&A deal, etc….).
Samiam —
I’ve often wondered why clients don’t ask for assurances from their law firms that the firm’s associates are well rested and alert and not bogged down by fatigue. I’ve similarly wondered why it should suck to be an associate at a law firm: http://kowalskiandassociatesblog.com/2011/04/18/it-shouldn%e2%80%99t-suck-to-be-an-associate-at-a-law-firm/
Have you ever asked your outsde counsel for some comfort that associates working on your matters are sufficiently well rested so that they can work most efficiently and so that you won’t be concerned about an error directly resulting from fatigue?
kowalskiandassociates – no, I’ve never felt the need to ask for such an assurance. I trust the partners with whom I work to manage their businesses appropriately. You get a sense from someone if they’re a good manager of people by the way they act, as well as by the timeliness and throughness of their responses. Most importantly, you know that someone is generally if they give you the answer you need, in the format that you want.
Wonderful article. I really appreciate your candor and your willingness to serve as a therapist for all lawyers – irrespective of how high they’ve climbed on the BigLaw ladder. Kudos!