There has been much talk lately of what is euphemistically called a 'restructuring' of law-firm labor: the growth of full-time lawyer positions that are off the 'partner-track,' or for which there is no expectation that one be considered for partnership at the firm. As the recent NY Times article explains, non-partner-track lawyers are paid significantly less (around 60K/year) than their partner-track colleagues, largely for the same amount and type of work.
Those who would favor this two-track system argue that the non-partner-track allows more flexibility for those who aren't sure if they want to dedicate 8 years of their lives to the long and arduous slog toward partnership at a big law firm.
What proponents of the two-track system are missing, however, is that, beyond the lower salary, the podunk work locations, and the contingency of the labor (a non-partner-track attorney will certainly have less job security and would be easier to replace on shorter notice), such a system will create an especially nasty effect: non-partner-track lawyers will become a kind of legal underclass, looked down upon (and sometimes pitied) by their partner-track colleagues, abused by those in positions of managerial and budget-setting power, and, ultimatly, multiplied to create a growing army of lower-paid lawyers with fewer benefits that will become the standard of the profession, rather than the exception. Why does PMB think this?
Just look at academia.
When managerial and administrative types in higher education figured out that it's cheaper to take advantage of the market glut of competent people vying to work in academia--and the concomitant 'price' inelasticity of demand for academic work--by hiring adjunct, non-tenure-track faculty to carry the burden of university teaching, instead of hiring tenure-track faculty (who, unlike adjuncts, actually get health and retirement benefits), the number of adjunct professors has risen dramatically while the number of tenure-track faculty has declined dramatically.
The effects of this shift in academic labor are manifold. For one, adjuncts are often taken advantage of, and treated like an underclass by tenured professors. Two, their abundance in relation to tenured professors, combined with their lack of jub security and high degree of expendibility, means that large numbers of faculty in a given department can disappear at any given time (not so great for students, or for building a better department, without continuity). Three, the dignity of the profession, and the quality of higher education as a whole, have taken a serious hit. The holy grail of tenure is virtually the last aspect of the profession that attracts the brightest and best people to choose to make less money as educators and pass up more lucrative jobs in industry; and that last incentive is rapidly eroding.
What would it mean for our economy, our political discourse, our ability to compete with other countries, and to preserve our knowledge and traditions and ways of life, if, as with primary and secondary school teaching (at which we are, on a global scale, pretty awful), the brightest and best were scared off to do something else?
The answer to this question is tied in many ways with the legal profession. It, too, is one of our most important institutions. And we can't afford to gut it from the inside out the way we've already begun to gut academia. Lawyers need to be incentivized and rewarded properly for their high-skilled and (cynics turn away!) crucial labor. Building a poorly compensated underclass of lawyers to replace what has been for so long one of our most dignified and desirable professions won't just harm lawyers--it will have negative consequences for broader society.
Astute consumers of what is loosly and perilously called 'culture,' and what is tellingly called 'history,' will recognize that when budgets are tight and economic times are tough, the short-sighted instincts of managerial types point to budgetary slicing and dicing and cost-cutting all over the place. Some things, however, need to be preserved through the tough times. Just because savvy law firms have figured out how to keep up their profits by 'restructuring' their labor doesn't mean this is good for the profession long-term. Lawyers, take it from an academic: fight for what you deserve before it's too late.
