Bloomberg Law recently reported that the venerable firm Steptoe would allow associates to choose their own billable hour targets. The program will start next year. An associate can choose to bill 2200 hours and receive top pay, or they can opt for 2000 hours and make less, or 1800 hours and make even less. Associates reportedly elect to move to a different tier. Associates are allowed to bill fewer than 1800 hours and have their pay pro-rated accordingly.
The move is designed to offer associates more lifestyle choices, which seems to be desired.
Kate Cappaert, chair of Steptoe’s professional development committee, has been quoted as saying, “We heard a lot of different things from associates about what they’re looking for at different points in their careers. We are recognizing that each associate’s experience is different and providing each associate flexibility in a structured format to allow them to take more control of their career path.”
The approach has been called very progressive by one consultant.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
The idea to provide associates with what would appear to be firm sanctioned lifestyle options is laudatory on its face.
I wonder how well this will work in practice and whether it will exacerbate other problems stemming from the billable hour system
But I wonder how well this will work in practice and whether it will exacerbate other problems stemming from the billable hour system. One issue is the expectations and demands of partners and the work. Partners will worry that a lower tier associate will just say, “Oops, I’m on a lower billable hour track and get to go home” when a case blows up (which they always do). Partners will naturally flock to those associates willing to meet the higher thresholds.
The sad truth is that in the
