Big-Law Revolution

Andrew Canter and Craig Segall, Stanford Law students, are heading up a new organization called, "Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession." The article can be found here.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

“We are writing as a group of over 100 law students to propose a change in the way we all experience our profession. We are working to ensuring that practicing law does not mean giving up a commitment to family, community, and dedicated service to clients.”

Four Principles -

1) Making concrete steps towards a transactional billing system;
2) Reducing maximum billable hour expectations for partnership;
3) Implementing balanced hours policies that work; and
4) Making work expectations clear.

By next fall recruiting season, they want to compile a list of AmLaw 100 firms that have committed to their request, and let law students know which firms are on board and which are not.

What sort of negotiating leverage does this organization have? For starters, they are willing to exchange all of the above for lesser money (salary). It is the organization's belief that they have enough market power to make the difference.

Here's my 2 cents from a law student's stand point.
Most law students don't have the insight or wisdom to see beyond money. When law firms wave $160,000, their primal instinct comes screaming back. They begin to see light and hope for paying off that $150,000 loan. This coupled with the "grass looks greener on the other side" tendency, law students all too often think: "It won't be that bad being a highly paid associate at a top-notch firm! In fact, it'll be awesome!"
It isn't until they are working associates that most law students realize they are cuffed in golden chains. As the organizers of this organization astutely point out, all negotiating power goes out the window, once law students are associates, so change must start from the law student level.
Thus, for this organization to get real results, they need to spend more fire power and time preaching to the law students. Fortunately, more and more associates are getting the message out that they are "extremely unhappy" by leaving their firms. The organization should go a step further and connect these dissatisfied attorneys with current law students, so that the law students can get it directly from the horse's mouth.

Now, from AmLaw 100 stand point, this new organization may seem a bit brazen: who do these kids think they are?
Law firms are generally conservative in their management and business. But just like their proteges, they are moved by money. The main question for these law firms will be, "Will it affect our profit?" If lowering associate salaries across the board (keep in mind, they are going to hit some rough pavement, if they try to lower the salaries of already practicing associates) in exchange for all of the above requests won't affect their profit, law firms should (in theory) jump at this proposal.

Personally, I think, as I mentioned in a previous post, some sort of free-market system (like ibanking) would be better. Start off with a lower base salary, but award increased bonuses to those who were most productive. Let those who want to work their butt-off do so. Let those who want more control of their time do so.
I don't see how or why the nature of modern legal profession wouldn't allow for such a system. Perhaps there is something I don't see. If anyone can provide invaluable bits to contribute to my meager knowledge, I'm greatly indebted to her/him.