When non-lawyers ask what’s happening in the world of law these days (i.e.,
what ATL is covering), our first response is usually one word: layoffs.
It’s been a dominant theme in our coverage since the fall.—Above
The Law (today)
While I might nominate that quote for Understatement Of The Season, I cite
it for an entirely different purpose: Are there any alternatives to layoffs?
Actually, I don’t believe there are any "pure" alternatives to layoffs,
at least not in the economic sense of "substitutes," for firms under serious
financial stress. But I’d like to suggest there are "complements" (economic
sense) to layoffs.
[Jargon digression: In economics, "substitutes"
are goods or services that people can trade off between without drastic
disruption or deprivation, such as coffee and tea, bagels and muffins, or red
and white wine. As you can tell from these examples, there are rarely
perfect substitutes—we all have our preferences—but if our favorite
is unavailable or exorbitantly expensive, we will make do with the alternative
and carry on. "Complements," by contrast, are goods or services that
tend to go together. Think coffee and sugar, bagels and cream cheese,
or red wine and bread.]
In the land of law firm layoffs, it’s all too easy to understand why so many
firms are resorting to them in this unprecedented environment.
Forgive me if what follows strikes you as simplistic (good for you if it does!),
but I find myself explaining this to people with a frequency that suggests
it’s not widely understood. Consider hypothetical BigLaw firm in 2008
and 2009:
|
2008
|
2009 (no layoffs)
|
2009 (10% layoffs)
|
|
|
Revenue
|
$1,000,000,000
|
$850,000,000
|
$850,000,000
|
|
Associate & Staff Compensation & Benefits
|
455,000,000
|
455,000,000
|
410,000,000
|
|
Rent/Occupancy
|
130,000,000
|
130,000,000
|
125,000,000
|
|
All Other Expenses
|
65,000,000
|
65,000,000
|
60,000,000
|
| Profits (% margin) |
$350,000,000 (35%)
|
$200,000,000) (20%)
|
$255,000,000 (30%)
|
| Profit Decrease (2009 vs. 2008) |
—
|
-43%
|
-27%
|
Obviously, these numbers are simplistic and you can quibble with the details and assumptions, but the message is powerful: Law
firm P&L’s are highly leveraged. In the good times, this is your best
friend: Every additional dollar of revenue drops almost intact to the
bottom line. But in the bad times, this is your worst enemy. A
1% drop in revenue can–all else equal–lead to a 3% drop in profits.
What, then, to do? As the famous advice has it, "Follow the money." The
money, in this case, is associate and staff compensation. Together they
are to a law firm’s expenses as Social Security and Medicare are to the federal
government’s budget: Enormous. If you need to cut a lot of expense
at a law firm, you don’t have many alternatives but to look there. (I’m
assuming all your office leases are long-term and not readily renegotiable,
especially in this environment.)
The bad news, of course, is that cutting associates and staff used to be viewed as being as untouchable as trimming Social Security and Medicare would be. But not any more. If we’ve learned nothing else from the drumbeat of layoffs in the US and the UK, it is that there is no stigma attached to them today.
While we’re at it, let’s not limit the casualties to associates and staff. Everybody ought to share the pain, including equity and (if you have them) non-equity partners. It cannot be true that every single person in category X (say, partner) is irrebuttably indispensable while everyone in category Y (non-equity) is subject to scrutiny. Note to those keeping score at home: Cutting partner ranks will also distribute the diminished profits over a smaller pool, making the hit to your PPP less, percentage-wise, than the hit to your total P.
So if the base case for the inevitability of resorting to layoffs has been made, how can we do it more intelligently? How can we be more intelligent and less reactive, more scalpel and less meat-axe, more humane and less brutal?
Let’s go back to "complements."
I suggest there are a variety of techniques you can employ, not as "substitutes" for layoffs, but to enhance their cost-saving impact and trigger other savings. Let me add that, with some degree of consternation, I don’t see very many firms implementing these "complements." If this column has no other purpose, it’s to change that myopic behavior.
- Reduced hours for reduced pay. Forgive me, but this strikes me as blisteringly obvious. We’ve heard bellyaching throughout the boom years about "work/life balance" and so forth, usually to imperceptible effect, but now we have an opportunity we can embrace with gusto. Of course, the reaction of associates invited to partake of this bonanza may suddenly be less than enthusiastic. "Be careful what you wish for?" Still, you should think about it.
- Sabbaticals. Whether paid, unpaid, or inbetween, consider granting (requiring?) people to take a period of time off. Don’t permit them to do nothing, however; make sure the expectation is that they will do something related to broadening themselves, learning, professional or cultural or emotional or even artistic development. You might be surprised at the new imaginations they’ll return with. And in the meantime you’ll have economized while maintaining loyalty.
- Shared jobs. As with our first suggestion, this is one that was oft requested and rarely honored during the boom: "Impractical and unworkable." "Clients won’t stand for it." "Shirking by another name." "How entitled do they think they are?" Permit me to suggest the world has changed. Think about this again.
- Salary freezes. Been there, done that, and how shocked are you that the reaction has been so placid? Which brings me to:
- Salary cuts. I don’t know if you read it here first, but it matters not where you did. Economists famously and widely insist that wages are "sticky downwards," which is their awkward formulation of the highly common-sensical notion that people hate to see their pay (at the same employer) actually drop. But these are not ordinary times, and there are ample reasons to think that people would be surprisingly amenable to this revolutionary concept:
- Today, a job–almost any job, much less a highly respectable one at BigLaw–beats no job. Enough said.
- There’s value in shared sacrifice. Taking a hit, collectively and communally, to preserve the firm’s community, is not a hard stretch or leap of the imagination for people today.
- Dollars go farther than they did 18 months ago. Have you noticed that housing has gotten cheaper? That cars can’t be given away? That "70% off" is the minimum required to get people off the street and in the door? That everyone is suddenly very very negotiable on price?
I’m not suggesting my list is exhaustive; it’s meant to be suggestive and (we can always hope) creative.
Now’s the time to innovate. Given what a straight-line extrapolation of current reality would look like, somebody better.
Update: 23 February. I received the following
correspondence from a 1L at a top ten law school.
[After I asked my correspondent whether I could have permission to republishGreetings from Law Student
Land.What an intense time to be a 1L. Just thought I’d share a few thoughts
and reflections, especially as they relate to your latest column.First,
never have any doubt about the attention paid to Above the Law at the student
level. Personally I have serious misgivings about that site’s position
as the main conduit of information between associates and management.
However, looking around my Crim class the other week on that famous thursday
and watching everyone tick off the layoffs as they happened, I was struck
again by the power of the instant press on firm recruiting and retention.Secondly, and building on my first comment, note this story: ( http://abovethelaw.com/2009/02/nationwide_layoff_watch_mckee_1.php
) for an example of the sort of press that will make a difference
in July, when my class at [*****] begins bidding for interview slots
at firms. As I’m sure firms are aware, students aren’t going to
be able to exclude all of the firms that have made layoffs from
our job search.However, the process by which firms lay off their associates
is a chance for us to "look under the hood" at the interaction
between management and associates at different firms. I am certain that
firms who conducted "stealth layoffs" or that swung the scythe
heavily through the first-year ranks will be penalized come recruitment
time. Which is not to even mention the debacle over at Pillsbury last week.Lastly,
I note with satisfaction your mention of work/life balances issues in
your latest column as a way to trim firm expenses. Sadly, it seems
that though firms have realized they will need to adapt to a changed business
environment, they have so far acted with the lumbering (be-suited) herd
mentality that so regularly characterizes their behavior.Someone has told
them that layoffs are ok, and so they are going to attempt to cut staff
numbers until their profit margins return to normal. While wages are surely
sticky, they are not stuck. I am lucky enough to have secured an
associateship with a firm this summer. The firm I am headed to pays
its associates below the "New York rate" but in a secondary city.
I am told that associates work around 50 hours a week. This strikes me as
a fair bargain, and one that many of my classmates would willingly
make. It seems to me that even firms that are known as "sweatshops" could
create a 75% work schedule in which pay is cut in relation to the
chosen billable hour requirement. The idea of a sabbatical seems like
an ingenious way to temporarily de-equitize partners until work picks
back up.All of which is just to say that I think your concept of
where the general mood of the lowest rung of the ladder is these days
is fairly accurate. Keep up the good work.
his thoughts:]
I have no problem with being anonymously quoted. I think this is clear from
my comment, but just to be sure, the scheme I am advocating is less hours for
less pay, as opposed to a straightforward pay cut. I don’t think this would
be too much of a problem, as I am under the impression that there aren’t enough
hours to go around at the moment. I’m also generally not in favor of having
an across the board pay cut in exchange for a promise of no layoffs. Obviously,
this would reward under-producers at the expense of the hardest working associates.
I think generally we as students expect firms to approximate the level of attrition
that they have in good times, and therefore be prepared for our class when
we come aboard in 2011.
Thoughtful commentary indeed.
Why would it not make sense for firms
to offer a tradeoff between hours and pay or, perhaps more audaciously, a tradeoff
between the investment made in professional development and training, and pay?
What I’m suggesting in the latter thought experiment is simply this: If a firm
is going to work you to death and skimp on training and professional development
(they’re non-billable), then shouldn’t you expect to be paid handsomely for your
pains? Conversely, if another firm is willing to devote significant resources
in time and money to an intense training effort, shouldn’t you rationally be
willing to accept a lower salary, recognizing that you’re investing for your
future in a non-monetary way?
The remarkable thing is that it seems to work in other industries—witness
the old joke about how the publishing industry is a wonderful place to get
training "if your parents can afford to send you there."
