Author: TSA Press

Biglaw or boutique law? While Biglaw still entices young lawyers (and even those not-so young) with the siren call of big money, the reality of what Biglaw costs attorneys is becoming more of a talking point for those already in the profession and entering it.

Joe Patrice wrote about it in a recent post about how there’s a title shell game in Biglaw: “partner” in name only. Should that be called “PINO”? As Joe points out, the deequitization trend is anything but transparent. When is a partner not a partner? When the firm says she isn’t, and the use of that misleading term when that it is not the case does no one any good, neither the “partner,” nor the firm. A client may think her matter is in the hands of a “partner,” and it is in the hands of a partner, but a PINO. Does anyone in the firm ever explain to the client the differences between a real partner and a PINO? Do you think that would be a good idea so that the client knows exactly what a PINO is and where that person is in the hierarchy and the extent of what a PINO can do without an equity partner’s supervision?

Sara Randazzo’s article in the last Saturday’s print edition (West Coast) of the Wall Street Journal is “The Flip Side of Making Partner.” Dinosaurs will remember that there was an “A” side and a “B” side of records and almost always it was the “A” side that was promoted and sold the most copies. You had to have a “B” side, but oftentimes that side was just there because you had to have a “B” side. So, are PINOs the “B” side?

As Randazzo points out, it’s all about “bill, baby, bill” today, and the camaraderie that was an essential part of the fit (and partners would look for that in prospective hires) is gone. Collegiality doesn’t mean what it used to, long live billable hours. She writes that “all partners are not created equal, and that data and money rule.”

Randazzo notes that in the mid-1980s, The American Lawyer started its comparisons of revenue and profits of the Biglaw firms. It was then off to the races, and the profession has never been the same since. I think we lost something that we will never retrieve.

Steven Brill was the founder of The American Lawyer. In his book Tailspin, subtitled “The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall—and Those Fighting to Revise It,” he acknowledges the role that The American Lawyer has played in the transformation of the law practice. Writing about the very first report that the magazine published in the summer of 1985, he says that “there is no denying that the fallout of this report and those that have followed since The American Lawyer and other trade publications was significant and double-edged. The new flow of market information about these businesses made those who ran them more accountable to their partners, their employees and their clients, but it also transformed the practice of law by the country’s most talented lawyers in ways that had significant drawbacks.” You think? What was lost in what was gained?

Question: When you have a firm of thousands of lawyers, how do you avoid client conflicts when there are lawyers all over the world handling all sorts of different transactions, different litigation, different regulatory issues? Is it ever possible to have a clean conflict check? Your client is your client and you don’t want to relinquish that work because a partner (and not a PINO) in another part of the country or somewhere else in the world outranks you and you lose the work. What is your client’s reaction? Your client knows you are a “partner.” Yes, but….

Take the poll that ATL is running now, asking the question, “What do you wish you had known about Biglaw before you started?” Tell ATL how you really feel.

What is happening is that associates are now taking themselves and their work to “boutique law firms,” where these associates do not get lost in the shuffle but get to do meaningful work from the get-go. Law.com has a podcast now about three lawyers (early in their careers) who left Biglaw to join boutique firms that do much more to satisfy both their professional and personal needs.

Why make the switch? Boutiques provide the experience that newer lawyers crave and cannot get in Biglaw — there are opportunities to do both paid and pro bono work, and in these smaller firms, the associates often drive the pro bono work. In boutiques, they not only do the depo prep but they take the deposition. There’s a partner by your side at the depo, but you’re taking it, not the partner. You go to court with a partner and argue the motion, but you are arguing, not the partner. All three of the lawyers said making the switch gave them the opportunity to get “boots on the ground” experience, rather than just observing others. They are doing, not watching.

Benefits play a part as well in the decisions to switch — availability of both childcare and elder care, flexible schedules, to name just a few.

It’s easier to have a voice in a smaller firm, and, as one lawyer noted, it’s harder to get buy-in for a project, an idea for associate development, across a ginormous firm. It’s also easier for newer lawyers in a boutique firm to build business, to be entrepreneurial, because the firm can be flexible, especially when representing startups and billings can be deferred. Smaller firms are nimbler in what they’re willing to do to get their associates up and running, to help them succeed.

And implicit in what all three lawyers said is the collegiality that a boutique law firm can provide. Yes, we all became lawyers to do good and, as a collateral benefit, to have a comfortable lifestyle. We knew we were all in this together. At least, we were. Not so much any longer.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

A new update in the saga of George Sink vs. George Sink. For those who haven’t been following along, George Sink is a South Carolina personal injury attorney. George Sink is also a South Carolina personal injury attorney. The problem for the latter George Sink is that he’s the son of the former, and dad fired the son from his firm and then sued to prevent his son from using his own name on his law firm.

This is, of course, all a bit ridiculous and exactly why people hate lawyers, but George the Elder managed to secure a victory in this ongoing battle:

A federal judge on Friday issued a temporary restraining order banning the younger Sink from using the “George Sink” name on his firm’s website, social media accounts and email address. The ban will stay in place until the case is heard by an arbitrator.

A lot of the media reports have characterized this as George the Younger losing the right to use his own name professionally, which it kind of is, but glosses over the fact that this is not a final decision but a TRO issued until the parties complete an arbitration. Blocking Junior’s firm is the best way to maintain the pre-breach status quo.

George the Elder definitely has an interest in keeping a confusing mark out of the market, but the younger Sink needs to be able to practice somehow and in a way that allows clients to look up his credentials. He’s been George Sink for his whole professional life (and, well, his whole actual life, though he goes by Ted socially) and while he’s not been practicing as long, he shouldn’t have to forfeit any goodwill he’s built up. One hopes the arbitrators, with more of a free hand than the courts, can forge the sort of equitable solution that allows both sides to walk away with viable practices.

Because both Sinks have already sunk too much into this.

(Check out the opinion on the next page.)

George Sink Jr. can’t use his own name to market his North Charleston law firm, judge says [Post and Courier]

Earlier: Father Sues Son For Using His Own Name — This Is Why People Hate Lawyers

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

It looks like Jones Day has one fewer (named) plaintiff to deal with. As you may recall, the firm is facing a purported class-action gender discrimination lawsuit alleging a “fraternity culture” at the firm and unequal pay behind the firm’s notorious “black box” compensation system. There had been seven named plaintiffs in the case, but now Jane Doe 4 has withdrawn.

Jane Doe 4 was the last remaining anonymous plaintiff in the case. Although three additional women filed the case anonymously, they disclosed their names in June, saying they were bolstered by others coming forward. Sanford Heisler Sharp, the firm representing the plaintiffs, fought for the plaintiff’s right to remain anonymous, saying there was a well-founded fear of retaliation and analogizing the situation to that of a whistleblower. However, a ruling by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia meant that all named plaintiffs had to be identified by Monday, August 12th, or withdraw from their role as class representative. Facing disclosure of her identity, Jane Doe 4 opted to withdraw from the case.

As reported by Law.com, Jane Doe will remain a class member as it is currently defined in the Second Amended Complaint:

“As the class is defined in the Second Amended Complaint filed last night, Jane Doe 4 remains a class member, though she is not among the named plaintiffs and proposed class representatives,” Sanford Heisler partner Deborah Marcuse said in an emailed statement.

Earlier coverage: Jones Day Hit With Explosive Gender Discrimination Case
Jones Day Facing Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over ‘Fraternity Culture’ Of The Firm
Partner Whose Behavior Features Prominently In Jones Day Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Is Out At The Firm
Jones Day Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs To Reveal Themselves To The Public
Plaintiffs Throw Shade At Jones Day In Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Gets Yet Another Plaintiff
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Dropped — Well, One Of Them At Least
Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Spreads To New York
Amended Gender Discrimination Case Brings The Real Scoop On Jones Day Compensation
Jones Day To Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs: You Don’t Deserve To Be Paid On The Cravath Scale

Disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Details concerning his passing at Metropolitan Corrections Center in New York, New York, are still being uncovered, but at this time it appears to have been a suicide. An investigation as to the details surrounding the death is underway.

Epstein was jailed as a result of significant sex-trafficking charges. His death immediately followed the release of extensive court documents detailing his alleged abuse of women and underaged girls in addition to naming other individuals who may have been involved. His death closes the criminal case against him. For the victims, his death is troubling, because they will never have the ability to witness him take accountability for his crimes. Although the investigation regarding the sex-trafficking will continue and likely focus on the other individuals involved, the victims will not have any closure with regard to Epstein.

Besides the criminal cases against Epstein, civil proceedings also exist and may increase in number. As a result of his death, his estate will be substituted as defendant. Given the breadth of his estate, estimated at $2 billion, including a Caribbean island and a mansion in Manhattan, successful plaintiffs will likely see some monetary reward.

Although the death of a defendant ends a criminal matter, in a civil proceeding it changes the tenure,  complicating the lawsuit. Often, a defendant decedent’s family is not eager to administer the deceased’s estate. Administering the estate means defending the lawsuit and possibly the loss of funds in the defense and with a judgment. A defense without the the defendant, the main witness, can be difficult. Plaintiffs are sometimes compelled to file for the administration of the defendant’s estate in probate court so that someone can represent the defendant in the matter even if his family is unwilling. Generally, if no family wants to serve, the Public Administrator or even sometimes a creditor will stand in the decedent’s place.

The death of a defendant stalls the civil proceeding until a proper representative is appointed by the probate court. Given the complexity of the decedent’s family, the status of a last will and testament, and the general tone of the litigation, the substitution may take some time.  Often there is little information concerning a defendant decedent’s next-of-kin, and significant diligence must be completed before a court will appoint an administrator. As in the Epstein case, plaintiffs will not have the opportunity to personally confront the defendant and may have to deal with someone who had no connection to the decedent, thus complicating any sense of closure.

Plaintiffs die as well. In these cases, a deceased plaintiff’s estate will be substituted in her stead. Any recovery from a lawsuit wherein the decedent was a plaintiff will be considered an asset of her estate and distributed pursuant to her last will and testament or the state’s laws of intestacy. It therefore behooves a decedent-plaintiff’s family to substitute an estate into the proceeding so that the matter can speedily proceed and hopefully collect a judgment.

In addition to the multitude of reasons to execute a last will and testament, if involved in a civil lawsuit, it is imperative to appoint an executor in the event of death. By doing so, you ensure that the induvial you choose defends or pursues the matter on your behalf, and hopefully, as you wish. Similarly, it is important to have a power of attorney so that in the event you become incapacitated during your lifetime, another appointed agent can take over your litigation without complication.

For all litigants in a civil proceeding, the death of a party is a complicating factor. A civil matter, however, is generally brought for a monetary reward or some kind of specific performance. The surviving party will eventually gain closure in the form of a  decision accompanied by a payment or maybe an action. Unfortunately in the criminal sphere, in addition to the defendant and the prosecuting entity, there are victims. When a defendant dies, the victims have no recourse to assuage their pain, their experiences, or their need for justice. This reality emphasizes the gravity of the crime and the pain that subsists despite any opportunity to monetarily collect in a civil proceeding. As the Epstein investigations and civil matters proceed, let us be mindful of the victims, who will never really get what they deserve.

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com. 

A lot of people have used home DNA kits from Ancestry.com or 23andMe. It’s become a popular holiday present — to give each other the gift of having to spit repeatedly into a tube. Much of the newly discovered information is fun. Like the fact that I’m 3 percent Scandinavian! “God dag” to you all.

But something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I mean, the reproductive medical profession. The frequency with which unexpected and shocking genetic information is coming to light — such as discovering a number of fertility doctors secretly used their own sperm to inseminate their patients — is alarming.

The latest shocking home DNA test-inspired lawsuit to emerge is that of the Cartellones in Ohio. After the traditional Ancestry.com DNA test holiday gift exchange, the family sent in their tests to learn more about their ancestral history. The results, however, surprisingly showed that Rebecca Cartellone, the 25-year-old daughter of Joseph Cartellone, was not genetically related to the father who raised her.

While it is not that uncommon for hopeful parents to turn to donor sperm and not tell their child, that, however, was not the case here. Joseph Cartellone and his wife, Jennifer Cartellone, underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) over 25 years ago, when they had trouble conceiving. Jennifer’s oocyte (eggs) were retrieved and combined with Joseph’s sperm, or at least so they were told. Three of the resulting embryos were transferred to Jennifer’s uterus, and the pregnancy resulted in the couple’s daughter, Rebecca. There was no talk of donor sperm, or anyone else’s sperm, for that matter, being used other than Joseph’s.

For the last quarter of a century, the family had no reason to believe that Rebecca was not genetically related to her father. Now, however, the family does not know specifically who Rebecca’s biological father is. But … they have a pretty good guess. According to the complaint filed by Rebecca and her parents, they have conducted independent genetic research, and believe that they have narrowed down Rebecca’s biological father to one of a handful of men. Oh, and guess what? One of those men worked as a doctor at The Christ Hospital, which is where the IVF procedure took place. In terms of Vegas odds, the hot money is on that guy, given the of persons finding out they were conceived with their parents’ doctors’ genetics.

To add to the emotionally distraught situation, the Cartellones have no idea what happened to Joseph Cartellone’s actual sperm samples. Were they used with another couple? Does he have a genetic child out there, just waiting to receive a home DNA kit for Christmas 2019? As the complaint argues, the family is “tormented with questions concerning whether Joseph’s sperm was used for another customer at the Institute and the potential implications (moral, ethical, economic, and otherwise) from that unknown and unauthorized use.”

What Legal Theory Should We Try Today?

What legal claims apply to this situation, and what precisely are the damages? Obviously, the Cartellones love their daughter Rebecca as much as they did before they took the DNA test. Some state courts look askance at so-called wrongful-birth claims, reasoning that to find a cause of action amounts to a “wrongful life” suit by the parents. Then again, the Cartellones alleged breach of contract claims, among others, don’t exactly fit into the “wrongful life” bucket.

While legal scenarios vary, the Cartellones’ case seems especially egregious. And, in good news for the family, there is some precedent for potential recovery. Surprisingly, the most on-point case — where a court found in favor of the plaintiffs — was all the way in Singapore, and therefore not exactly binding precedent. There, the court found against a fertility clinic when it used another patient’s sperm, instead of the intended father’s sperm, and awarded significant damages to the new parents for a “loss of genetic affinity” between the father and child.

In the Cartellones’ case, damages are being sought for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, battery, bailment, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence (both on behalf of the daughter and on behalf of the parents).  So maybe one of those claims will stick.

Adam Wolf, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, explained, “There is no doubt that the defendants’ conduct was not only wrong, but also tortious. For instance, the clinic and its staff agreed to use Jennifer’s egg and Joseph’s sperm, and they clearly broke that agreement. The Cartellones are devastated.”

Some claims may have had an easier path if they had been brought in another state, thanks to some new laws. Earlier this year, the State of Indiana passed a fertility fraud statute that makes it a crime, as well as a civil cause of action, to misrepresent a medical procedure, and specifically includes a bar on misrepresenting facts about human reproductive material. In Texas, after a highly publicized case of a doctor substituting his own sperm for the patients’ chosen donor, the resulting child (now an adult with children of her own — and a prior guest on my podcast!), successfully fought for the passage of a reproductive fraud statute in the state. It is now a felony, meriting jail time, for a medical professional to transfer the gametes (sperm or eggs) or embryos of another person without the patient’s specific consent. While not addressing civil claims, the existence of a criminal statute on point might make a negligence per se claim easier in Texas. But Texas and Indiana are the only two states in the country to have specific laws on the books. So far.

Perhaps Ohio will follow suit in considering more tailored laws for its books. In the meantime, we will watch with interest to see how an Ohio court deals with solid facts of plaintiffs who were wronged, against the backdrop of laws that were written long before our brave new world of modern assisted reproductive technology existed.

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Few institutions are as insufferable as THE Ohio State University. Every time one runs across a Buckeye, they cartoonishly stress that the school isn’t Ohio State but THE Ohio State as though there’s some knockoff Ohio State University out there. There actually is a Berkeley College and you don’t see Cal running around saying THE Berkeley. And, unlike Ohio State, Berkeley is actually an institution with some credibility to lose.

Apparently, this fixation with avoiding nonexistent brand confusion has seeped into the DNA of the school itself because on August 8th, the school filed Application 88571984 with the trademark office to register the word “THE.” Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, the school wants to trademark the most common word in the English language. The goal is to sell merchandise that just has the word “THE” in all caps.

Josh Gerben of the Gerben Law Firm came across the application and prepared this short video explaining the problems with this whole endeavor, presumably after he finished laughing for 20 solid minutes.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Yesterday, a federal grand jury indicted Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the hit reality TV show Chrisley Knows Best, for conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. Their tax preparer Peter Tarantino has also been indicted on similar tax-related charges.

The Department of Justice issued a press release accusing the Chrisleys of obtaining fraudulent loans by providing financial statements with false information and fabricated bank statements. They are also accused of using similar tactics along with using a fabricated credit report that had been physically cut up and pasted together to obtain a lease for a home in California.

They are also accused of failing to timely file tax returns and paying taxes from 2009 until 2016. They took steps to hinder the collection of back taxes by hiding income and lying to third-parties about their tax returns. Their tax preparer is also accused of lying to FBI and IRS criminal investigation agents.

The Chrisleys responded on their Instagram page by blaming a rogue employee for what happened. They claim that the employee stole from them, forged documents (along with their signatures), and threatened other employees with violence. Once this employee was fired, he sought revenge by providing the false documents to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Generally, before someone is indicted for tax evasion, he or she is investigated by the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Unit. A criminal investigation is usually initiated at the referral of an IRS auditor or collections officer when they suspect fraud or other financial crimes. Once the investigation begins, it is kept secret from the taxpayer. Typically, the IRS auditor or collections officer will stop working on the case and will cease contact with the taxpayer while the investigation is taking place. Once the special agent assigned to the case has completed his or her preliminary investigation, there must be an approval from the supervisor and the special agent in charge before the investigation continues.

At some point, the taxpayer will be contacted by the IRS special agent. If the agent tries to meet the taxpayer in person, he or she is accompanied by a partner. IRS special agents are considered law enforcement officers and carry firearms.

The special agent will also conduct a very invasive investigation. This includes interviewing third parties, summoning bank records, conducting surveillance, and executing search warrants.

Once the special agent’s investigation is complete, he along with his supervisor will decide whether to discontinue the investigation or refer it the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the Department of Justice Tax Division with a recommendation for criminal prosecution.

If the recommendation is accepted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the DOJ Tax Division, they will then prepare the case for prosecution and then seek an indictment by a grand jury.

Among the charges the Chrisleys face is tax evasion by failing to pay taxes. To be convicted of tax evasion, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a tax owed, the taxpayer took actions to evade payment of the tax, and those actions were willful.

Not paying taxes by itself is not enough to be charged with criminal tax evasion, otherwise the number of people facing jail time would be massive. Typically actions to evade involve deceit and concealment of money or assets. Common examples include placing money in bank accounts in someone else’s name, lying to IRS personnel, excessive cash transactions, and purchasing assets in other people’s names.

The indictment accuses the Chrisleys of setting up a new bank account that does not list them as the owners but instead names a third party as the owner. The Chrisleys then directed all future income toward that account. But in reality, the Chrisleys controlled the bank account and they set it up this way in order to hide it from the IRS.

But if the Chrisleys’ story about the rogue employee crafting phony documents and forging signatures is true and can be proven, that could result in an acquittal because that could show that there was no affirmative action to evade tax nor was there willfulness.

In 2018, the IRS’s Criminal Investigation division investigated 2,886 cases, 73 percent of them involving traditional tax cases such as tax evasion. Because the number of investigations and prosecutions are relatively small, the IRS must only refer cases that are certain to result in a conviction.

Tax agencies like the IRS pay special attention to high-profile people including celebrities, dignitaries and politicians. Why? Because they are seen as low-hanging fruit and yield high returns. Celebrities are usually wealthy and as a result tend to have large tax bills. Also, their lives are highly publicized and so finding information, documents, or an unwise statement is easier. Finally, because the indictment will attract media coverage, and people love to read about celebrities screwing up, the news will have a deterrent effect. The indictment charges the Chrisleys’ tax preparer with two counts of filing false corporate tax returns. The timing is convenient considering that the extended corporate tax return due date is about a month away.

In the future, we will see whether this case goes to trial or whether a plea deal will be reached. The Chrisleys said that they have done nothing wrong and they claim to have evidence and witnesses to prove their case. They close by putting their faith in God and quoting some Bible verses. But it will take a lot more than thoughts and prayers to get out of a criminal indictment.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

As numerous people within the legal profession already know, many Biglaw firms have uniform pay scales that are based on the year associates join the firm.  Although some Biglaw shops offer less money to non-partnership track associates, pretty much every attorney in Biglaw knows how much other attorneys at their firm are paid based on their background.  However, numerous smaller law firms do not have uniform pay scales.  For many smaller shops, the only constant in determining how much money attorneys are paid is how little associates are willing to accept to work at a firm.  For this reason, many attorneys at smaller shops make different amounts of money from other associates at those firms, even if they are similarly situated.  Some attorneys are paid less because they earned lower salaries earlier in their careers, and others are paid less because they did not negotiate a higher salary.  However, smaller law firms can realize a number of benefits if they adopt uniform pay scales like many Biglaw shops.

One benefit of implementing a uniform pay scale is that doling out compensation this way minimizes the chances that someone can argue that there are illicit pay disparities at a firm.  As this website has covered at length, gender disparities in compensation is a serious issue within the legal industry.  One of the ways to combat gender pay disparities, and yes, to limit legal liability, is to pay all attorneys the same amount of money based on an objective standard.

For instance, I used to work at a firm that paid attorneys the absolute minimum the firm could get away with.  As a result, compensation varied greatly from attorney to attorney.  After discussing salary information with several colleagues (which everyone should do as mentioned in a prior article!), we discovered that a female colleague of ours was earning substantially less than two male colleagues.  This was despite the fact that this female colleague graduated law school one year before her male colleagues, and had been practicing law in our field for far longer than her male colleagues.

On its face, this seemed like blatant gender discrimination.  The firm at which we worked would likely argue that the female attorney was making less money prior to joining the firm, and as such, the firm felt warranted in paying her less after she joined the firm.  However, this is a flimsy argument, and I doubt that an employer would be successful in court arguing that they weren’t engaging in gender discriminating but were merely screwing associates by paying them the least amount of money possible.  Had the firm simply paid everyone a uniform amount based on class year, there would be less arguments for gender discrimination.

Furthermore, adopting a uniform pay scale can help boost morale at smaller firms.  Nothing hurts morale more at a workplace than feeling like you are underpaid.  No one likes an employer that is screwing them to save a buck, and employees want to feel valued by their bosses.  I remember one time, I worked at a shop where an associate with much more experience than me was making slightly less than I earned.  This attorney was extremely wounded by the fact that the firm did not pay him as much as someone with less experience, and this motivated him to seek employment elsewhere.  Some firms don’t care about attorney turnover, and they don’t mind dealing with constant hiring in order to save money.  However, if firms want to boost moral and increase continuity in their firms, they should adopt a uniform pay scale.

In addition, not implementing a uniform pay scale can impact how attorneys serve their clients.  Uneven salaries can create resentment between associates that can lead to inefficiencies in how attorneys work on matters.  For instance, I used to work at a firm where a few people discovered that an attorney on our team with less experience than us was earning substantially more money.  As a result, we resolved that if there was ever a bad assignment that one of us needed to jump on, the higher-paid associate should be the one to complete the work.  Although you might say we weren’t being team players, it is kind of difficult to argue that someone making five figures more than you shouldn’t be the one to work harder to complete tasks!

However, sometimes the extra work involved an assignment that a lower-paid associate was more qualified to handle.  For instance, a lower-paid attorney might have attended the deposition in a case, or otherwise knew the facts of the matter better than the higher-paid attorney.  As a result of pay disparities, the most effective members of our team would not work on some matters, and this impacted how we served our clients.

In the end, the legal profession is extremely competitive, and firms are forced to cut costs whenever possible.  However, smaller law firms should adopt uniform pay scales.  Of course, firms should vary compensation based on performance, but this should be done with bonuses and not with salaries.  In any case, applying an objective standard to salary calculations is not only the right thing to do, but firms can realize a number of benefits by paying attorneys a uniform salary based on experience.

Jordan Rothman is the Managing Attorney of The Rothman Law Firm, a New Jersey and New York litigation boutique. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jrothman@rothmanlawyer.com.