ILNews

Staff at large law firms worried about compensation, survey says

IL Staff
November 21, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A survey of law firm employees at the largest law firms in the U.S. reveals that staff aren’t as worried about layoffs as they are about pay and heavy workloads.

The report, “Turf Wars: Defining New Roles and Competing for New Territories,” released by AML Legal Intelligence, provides an overview of the current staffing issues affecting AMLaw 200 firms.

The top three factors working against firm morale right now are too much “deadweight” in the firm (34 percent), compensation that is too low as compared to other firms (31 percent) and too much work for the current staffing levels (31 percent).

The 2011 survey revealed layoffs, bonus cuts and low compensation as the top three factors affecting employee morale.

The report surveyed partners, associates, paralegals, support staff and law firm administrators.

Other key points from the report include:
•    62 percent of firms are likely to hire new attorneys in the coming year.
•    49 percent plan to reduce support staff in the coming year.
•    19 percent foresee legal process outsourcing growing at their firms in the next three years.
•    47 percent of firms have promoted associates to of counsel rather than to an equity partner in the past year.
•    The top three qualities these law firms look for when hiring new associates are practice expertise, Ivy League or top law school graduation, and GPA.
•    The biggest challenges when it comes to staffing are hiring and retaining key talent.

The report is available for a fee at http://almlegalintel.com/Surveys/turfwars.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT