According
to
a
recent
Above
the
Law
article
by
Kathryn
Rubino,
an
AmLaw
100
firm
recently
announced
that
it
expected
its
associates
to
work
at
least
2400
hours
a
year
to
be
in
“good
standing.”
Just
when
you
thought
Biglaw
couldn’t
get
more
tone
deaf
about
work
life
balance
and
technology
adoption,
we
get
this.
The
policy,
as
quoted
by
ATL,
is
as
follows:
To
ensure
that
our
lawyers
develop
professionally
and
meet
client
needs,
associates
are
expected
to
contribute
a
minimum
of
2,400
total
productive
(“all–in”)
hours,
which
generally
includes
at
least
2,000
billable
hours.
The
remaining
hours
should
be
dedicated
to
productive
non-billable
contributions,
such
as
practice
and
business
development,
professional
development,
recruiting,
and
other
practice
and
firm
initiatives.
While
it’s
not
unusual
for
firms
to
set
billable
hour
quotas
for
associates
and,
for
that
matter,
partners,
this
announcement,
particularly
right
now,
sends
all
the
wrong
messages.
Let’s
Do
the
Math
In
the
age
of
work
life
balance
and
lawyer
health
concerns,
doing
the
math
is
enlightening.
Assuming
52
weeks
a
year,
working
2400
hours
means
working
over
46
hours
a
week,
week
in
and
week
out.
That’s
a
little
over
9
hours
a
day
assuming
a
five-day
week.
I
know,
what
big
law
associate
works
5
days
a
week?
At
6
days
a
week,
your
daily
grind
is
manageable
7.6
hours
a
day.
Of
course,
that
means
working
what
most
people
would
consider
a
full
day
every
single
Saturday.
But
of
course,
there’s
those
pesky
things
called
holidays
(5
days
a
year
if
you
grudgingly
decide
to
celebrate
the
most
important
ones)
and
vacations
(two
5-6
day
weeks
wasted).
Not
to
mention
time
wasters
like
taking
care
of
kids,
personal
hygiene,
and
that
overrated
activity
called
sleep.
It’s
no
wonder
younger
lawyers
who
are
juggling
several
balls
are
gagging.
Work-life
balance?
Meh.
Concerns
for
mental
health?
As
long
as
you
get
your
quota
you
are
free
to
do
whatever
you
want.
No
wonder
so
many
associates
are
burned
out
and
fleeing
Biglaw.
What
About
AI?
But
there’s
another
reason
this
announcement
and
indeed
any
imposition
to
arduous
billable
quotas
is
wrong.
Firms
trumpet
their
adoption
and
interest
in
AI
tools.
They
talk
about
how
they
will
lead
to
improved
efficiencies
and
higher
quality
work.
They
talk
about
how
they
are
embracing
AI
throughout
the
firm.
Yet
getting
associates
to
use
AI
tools
that
save
time
means
less
billable
hours
to
meet
quota.
Less
interest
in
efficiency.
Less
interest
in
using
the
tools.
And
as
I
have
written
before,
if
checking
AI
work
isn’t
billable
due
to
client
pressures,
then
there’s
the
temptation
not
to
use
it.
And
it
runs
deeper
than
that.
The
same
pressure
applies
to
the
use
of
any
technology
that
saves
time.
It
applies
to
such
things
as
training
and
experimenting
with
using
the
tools
that
frankly
is
crucial
to
using
them
effectively.
Who
wants
to
do
anything
that
detracts
from
hitting
your
9+
per
day
quota
which
appears
to
be
all
that
matters?
And
lest
we
forget,
while
partners
may
not
have
to
work
2400
hours
per
year,
most
large
firms
have
quotas
for
them
as
well.
The
same
pressures
apply.
Time
to
call
the
“can’t
have
it
both
ways”
police.
You
can’t
in
good
faith
say
you
embrace
AI
while
imposing
2400
hour
work
requirements
Innovation?
Forget
It
Not
to
mention
the
stifling
effect
on
innovation
and
the
development
of
alternative
fee
structures
that
these
kinds
of
quotas
may
have.
Associates
are
rewarded
for
billing
hours
period.
They
aren’t
rewarded
for
coming
up
with
innovative
techniques
to
help
the
client,
to
be
more
efficient,
to
work
smarter
not
harder.
The
message
from
firm
management
is
just
the
opposite.
Wonder
why
so
many
legal
tech
companies
are
started
by
disgruntled
associates?
It
may
be
because
their
law
firm
had
little
interest
in
products
and
innovations
they
were
coming
up
with.
Or
in
rewarding
them
for
their
ideas.
Alternative
Fees?
Right
Then
there
is
the
great
hue
and
cry
for
the
use
of
alternative
fees.
Flat
fees
and
fees
based
getting
things
done
quickly.
Fees
that
allow
you
to
make
more
money
by
spending
less
time
not
more.
Try
getting
an
associate
(or
a
partner)
who
needs
2400
hours
per
year
to
work
on
a
matter
where
the
firm
makes
more
money
by
getting
the
work
done
faster,
not
slower.
When
I
managed
a
nationwide
flat
fee
engagement,
I
saw
one
of
two
things
happen:
either
lawyers
ran
like
the
plague
to
avoid
working
on
it.
Or
they
rolled
up
their
sleeves
and
billed
like
the
dickens
since
there
was
no
client
looking
over
their
shoulder
at
the
time
spent.
And
in
most
firms,
even
if
the
alternative
fee
yields
a
healthy
profit,
the
workers
on
the
file
aren’t
necessarily
rewarded
since
their
time
records
don’t
show
as
many
hours
as
those
who
work
on
bill
by
the
hour
matters.
Help
make
the
firm
$500,000
in
profit
on
a
flat
fee
matter
but
don’t
meet
your
quota
as
a
result?
Not
a
path
to
advancement.
As
I
have
written
before,
the
culture
of
most
large
law
firms
is
just
not
set
up
to
encourage
and
manage
alternative
fees.
Clients
And
then
there’s
the
client.
You
know,
the
guys
who
pay
the
fees.
Instead
of
incentivizing
lawyers
to
work
in
the
best
interest
of
the
client
and
produce
quality
work
in
an
efficient
manner,
just
the
opposite
is
encouraged.
Rather
than
rewarding
and
encouraging
value
to
the
client,
you
reward
time
spent.
In
the
age
of
AI
which
provides
the
means
enhance
value,
the
approach
is
at
very
least
inconstant
and
at
worst
downright
disingenuous.
Frankly,
if
I
were
a
client,
I
would
be
looking
closely
at
the
billable
quotas
and
reward
system
of
any
firm
I
was
thinking
about
hiring.
But
It’s
Not
All
Billable
Time,
Right?
But
wait,
the
2400
hour
quota
is
not
composed
of
only
billable
time.
There’s
a
400
hour
work
portion
for
“productive
non-billable
contributions,
such
as
practice
and
business
development,
professional
development,
recruiting,
and
other
practice
and
firm
initiatives.“
So
you’re
really
only
talking
about
2000
billable
hours.
Much
more
manageable,
right?
Wrong.
Work
is
still
work.
It’s
not
2000
and
do
what
you
want
with
the
rest.
It’s
2400
hours
worked.
And
think
about
this:
when
it
comes
time
to
evaluate
an
associate,
how
much
will
those
400
non
billable
hours
really
count.
In
my
experience
not
much.
Let’s
put
it
this
way,
an
associate
who
has
2400
billable
hours
is
going
to
get
a
more
favorable
review
and
advancement
opportunity
than
one
who
bills
2000
and
has
a
400
non
billable
component.
The
hidden
message:
bill
2400
hours.
The
other
unstated
message:
those
hours
better
be
collectible.
Even
if
400
non
billables
is
a
credible
and
valued
number,
once
again,
the
incentive
is
not
to
use
technology
to
be
more
efficient
in
doing
non
billable
work.
It’s
just
the
opposite.
One
final
thing
to
think
about:
the
temptation
to
fudge.
Let’s
face
it,
there’s
no
one
going
to
complain
if
you
pad
the
time
on
a
non
billable
matter.
There’s
no
one
going
to
monitor
to
see
if
the
time
spent
was
reasonable
for
the
task.
And
that
can
lead
to
bad
habits
when
it
comes
to
billable
hours.
By
the
way,
one
thing
you
don’t
see
in
the
acceptable
work
for
non
billable
time
is
any
reference
to
technology—learning,
employing
or
innovating
with
it.
Arduous
Billable
Quotas
Are
Just
Wrong
Extreme
billable
quotas
are
just
wrong
in
today’s
world.
They
discourage
work
like
balance
enhances
worker
productivity
and
improves
output.
They
discourage
the
use
of
technology
and
AI.
They
preclude
the
effective
use
of
alternative
fees.
They
breed
worker
discontent
and
mistrust.
They
result
in
the
loss
of
valuable
associates
in
which
you
have
invested
time
and
money.
And
last
but
far
from
least,
they
detract
from
client
service
and
value-based
billing.
If
and
when
clients
wake
up
to
what
firms
are
really
incentivizing,
there
may
be
hell
to
pay
and
a
reckoning
about
what
legal
service
should
cost
and
deliver.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.