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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT