Law firm

Demand for legal services in Australia is flat – so what can I do about it?

Business Development image

Yesterday’s [4 July 2014] Australian newspaper Legal Affairs section published an article – “Top-tier firms axe hundreds of jobs” (subscription required if you wish to read the full article) – that opened with the following paragraph:

THE nation’s biggest law firms are in the midst of an employment shake-out with hundreds of jobs disappearing as the firms slash costs in the face of flat demand and intense competition.

The point of this post is not to opine on whether or not demand for legal services in Australia is truly flat, nor whether indeed demand among, so-called, ‘top-tier’ firms is intense, which I’ll leave for another day, but rather to comment on whether or not such flat demand, and indeed intense competition, should lead to the loss of hundred of jobs.

First off, anyone who has a memory even slightly longer than a gold fish, will recall that most (if not all) international firms (of whom most make up this so-called ‘top-tier’ level here in Australia) who entered the Australian market post the GFC cited “flat demand” in their domestic jurisdictions, and the need to grow revenue from other jurisdictions, as a strategic reason for doing such.

(more…)

Leverage and the 10-20-30-40 Rule

Business Development image

Today’s Australian Financial Review Legal Affairs section has an interested article – ‘Junior lawyers bring in the money‘ – reporting what we all already essentially know: that law firms make their money from their junior lawyers.

What spiked my interest in the article was despite reporting the fact that “the conventional profit-driven pyramid model is still the dominant method adopted by most of Australia’s top-tier law firms” the percentages where the work is done has changed over time.

Early in my career we followed what was known as the 10-20-30-40 Rule, whereby [roughly]:

  • 10% of a matter’s work was done at partner level,
  • 20% of a matter’s work was done at senior associate level (there was no special counsel level in those days, but they would be included today),
  • 30% of a matter’s work was done at associate and senior lawyer level (in times when there was a difference between an ‘associate’ and ‘lawyer’), and
  • 40% of a matter’s work was done by the junior lawyers / trainees / graduates / paralegals (i.e., everyone else).

(more…)