How the "Cravath System" Created the Bi-Modal Distribution

The bi-modal distribution (graphic to the right) continues to generate interest in the blogosphere.  See, e.g., Greg Mankiw, Right Coast, Broken Symmetry.   The  chart summarizes the starting salaries for lawyers who graduated from law school in 2006.  One reason the bi-modal structure is so jarring is that it demonstrates that measures of central tendency, such as average or median, are not necessarily reliable guides for law students' future earning power.  In conventional labor markets, that disconnect is rare.

NALP recently dug into its archives to determine whether this stratification is a persistent feature of the entry level law market.  See NALP Bulletin (Jan. 2008).  It turns out that 15 years ago, the market followed a much more traditional distribution.   The chart below summarizes the salaries for the class of 1991.

The 1991 graph is right skewed but bears some resemblance to a normal curve.  Below is the graph for 1996:

The rightward skew is a bit more pronounced and the area under the $75K to $85K range is becoming more substantial.  A more seismic shift is seen in 2000 (below) with the emergence of a second mode at the $125K price point. 

At the height of the Internet boom, a remarkable 14% of all entry level lawyers took jobs at the $125K level.  According to NALP, "never before had a single salary so dominated the landscape."  Under the 2006 bimodal distribution (see chart above), 44% of graduates received entry-level salaries in the $40K to $60K range; yet, the second mode moved further to the right ($135K to $145K) and grew to 17% of all graduates.

What are the market forces that have created this peculiar salary structure?  In my working paper, "Are We Selling Results or Résumés?: The Underexplored Linkage Between Human Resource Systems and Firm-Specific Capital," I posit that the runaway $160K mode is a confluence of two factors:  (1) the continued growth in the corporate legal services market, primarily due to the growing scale and scope of transnational corporate activity; and (2) law firms' nearly universal adherence to the "Cravath system," which purports to hire the best graduates from the best law schools and provide them with the best training.  More after the jump. ...

The New York firm of Cravath Swaine & Moore created and refined this system during the early 20th century.  The emphasis on educational credentials was initially an attempt to establish a distinctive brand of legal services that could differentiate the firm from other Wall Street competitors. Now, ironically, it has become a uniform industry practice utilized by every large law firm that claims to provide first-rate services.   [Virtually all firms mimic the Cravath system without understanding its logic.  In the paper, I draw upon a unique study of engineers at the renown Bell Labs to suggest that Cravath's superior client service has less to do with credentials than an organizational structure and ethos that aligns the interests of associates, partners, and clients.  Paul Cravath's theory is laid out in Robert Swaine's history of the firm.  I will discuss his profound disconnect in a subsequent post.]

On one level, law firms' reluctance to tinker with the Cravath system makes perfect sense--it has produced large incomes and huge profits margins for decades.  Further, 30 or 40 years ago, the vast majority of  firms that would eventually become the Am Law 200 were, in fact, "white shoe" firms within an overwhelmingly regional corporate legal market.  In particular, places like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh and St. Louis garnered their share of elite law school graduates.  In the early 1960s, sociologist Jack Ladinsky found that 73% of Detroit lawyers working in law firms (i.e., not in solo practice) went to one of five national schools:  Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, or University of Michigan.  See Ladinsky, Careers of Lawyers, Law Practice, and Legal Institutions, 28 Am. Sociology Rev. 47, 49 (1963).  You can bet this pattern is radically different today.

As these regional law firms morphed into the Am Law 200, their partners remained psychologically wedded to their own perceptions of eliteness.  In the ensuing salary wars, these firms slavishly paid the prevailing rate rather than signaling to the market that the firm had become "second rate" (a term used by a Proskauer Rose partner in rationalizing the higher pay). In turn, the laws of supply and demand produced the bi-modal distribution.

The Results or Résumés paper draws upon two pieces of market data to demonstrate that a large proportion of large corporate law firms have to re-evaluate their business models:  (1) stunning uniformity of associate entry level salaries amidst large, growing disparities in profits per partner; and (2) evidence that firms are becoming stratified by premium versus non-premium practice areas.

Regarding the disconnect between associate and partner pay, the bar chart below compares associate starting salaries with profits per equity partner at the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentile breakpoints in the Am Law 200.

As the paper documents, over the last several years, profits are going up at all levels of the Am Law 200; they are just going up much faster for high PPP firms. Obviously, when firms at the top of the heap (95th percentile) pay higher salaries and bonuses, it is quite a stretch for firms at the 25th percentile to match.  The money has to come from somewhere.  If it comes out of the draw of a rainmaking partner, he or she has a strong incentive to seek greener pastures.  That is risky; but to the majority of the partnership, departing from the Cravath model seems equally perilous. Over the last decade, virtually all large firms have adapted by increasing leverage (i.e., the ratio of total lawyers to equity partners).  But higher leverage can also undercut associate morale and loyalty.  So for firms at the bottom of the PPP distribution, the salary wars are one hell of a vise, particularly as the economy heads south and they are stuck with a $160,000+ cost structure.

Yet, for many firms, there is second trend that is much more troubling.  Based on a dataset of lateral partner mobility within the Am Law 2000, it is possible to tease out a relative hierarchy of practice areas.  The table below, which covers the 2000 to 2005 time period, orders legal specialty by differential profits per equity partner (PPP) between the firm a partner left and the firm he or she joined.

The trends are straightforward. Partners in marquee practices like white collar crime, securities enforcement, M&A, private equity, emerging markets, and intellectual property litigation are disproportionately moving upstream to more profitable firms. Partners specializing in regulatory compliance, real estate, public finance, project finance, and trust & estates are disproportionately moving downstream.  A similar analysis using multivariate regression, which controlled for year and city, found that labor & employment was also associated with downward (i.e., lower PPP) movement. (See regression table.)

In the long-run, firms without a optimal mix of premium practice areas will have a hard time sticking with the Cravath system.  Increasingly, corporate clients are refusing to have their cases staffed by expensive first- or second-year associates who don't know very much and tend to leave.  Hence, the training the clients are allegedly paying for has little or no future payoff.   

In other words, for many large law firms, the wheels of their hallowed business model are falling off.  During this period of denial, every firm's short term strategy is to work harder, promote fewer lawyers to equity partner, and de-equitize as needed.  Marc Galanter and I chronicle the unremitting nature of modern large firm practice in our forthcoming Elastic Tournament article.  If you have any doubt about the inevitability of change, read this seminal speech by Cisco GC Mark Chandler.

Fortunately, the Results or Résumés paper lays out a solution for any law firm willing to try something new.  The psychological barriers, however, are much larger than the logistical or financial.  I will blog on this topic in a subsequent post.

Comments

[biglaw partner]

Well, now I have read the article. It has some interesting ideas, but I think the author would benefit if he had spoken (which he doesn't seem to have) with actual practicing lawyers at middle-market firms (i.e., Amlaw firms 21 through 200). For instance, a significant amount of transactional work at those firms is done on a fixed-fee basis, and an even larger portion on a "soft fixed-fee" basis (i.e., it is understood that if a matter runs significantly over what would be normal for a matter of that size, the firm will absorb some of the cost). Obviously, the managing partners of these firms don't publicize that sort of thing, since it would mean admitting that the firm isn't Cravath.

Also, I'm not sure that a permanent stratification of practice areas is really in the offing. Hot (i.e., profitable) practice areas change over time, and those lawyers in fields that have prospered at any given time will be moving up the firm ladder, while those in fields that have declined will be moving down, but it won't be the same fields in 20 years from now.

[Tax associate]

Where does tax fall on the Separation by Practice Area chart?

[Cynical]

The cost of first tier legal services is going up because the impact of not having that top rate legal service has gone up with the increased regulation and advances of "law" into so many areas of business. Make a bad business decision, not only does the company, BOD, and CEO get sued, they might go to jail. Want a complex M+A (they are all mind-numbingly complex now in ways that were ot considered 20 years ago)- then get a firm that can follow the complexity in the short time period allowed.

Add to this situation, ever increasingly complex laws and it takes specialist who have experience and the brain power to sort through the fog of a "legal war" and craft a first rate position. Having seen the results when the other side is not as specialized or as experienced, or as smart- they often don't make the best legal arguments and accept a disadvantage in the legal battle.

When it is top tier firms on both sides- it may look easy. What the big companies are buying is brains and experience, not prestige. Yes Virginia there is a big difference between the quality of services at the top of the AMLAW 200 and a fim not on it in too many areas of the law.

This is reflected in the associates- the firms are buying brain power and a willingness to work. In a world where those two qualities can pay much more than the legal field (finance, business)- it takes larger salaries to get associates with those qualities. The top schools select for brain power- what else is the LSAT measuring? There are only so many smart people going into law- and almost all attend a top 20 law school.

[Corey]

"There are only so many smart people going into law- and almost all attend a top 20 law school."

That sentiment explains every chart in this post. As law schools and students pursuing law multiply, the traditional elitist finishing schools face increasing competition from bright, innovative upstarts. The response from the ivory tower has been to tout their luxury services and encourage an increased focus on rankings, which necessarily reflect the initial distribution of prestige and are a conservative (backwards looking) hierarchy-perpetuating force.

Some top firms have 2000 lawyers but only hire from 15 law schools. Some boutiques only hire from four or five. They aren't selecting for brain power, if so they would go around to 100 schools and hire only the summa grads. They are buying resumes that say Harvard and Stanford because they think the clients care. And the more those ivy kids turn around and post about how everyone else is too dumb to comprehend their complicated deals, the more the merit mythology gets perpetuated.

[anon]

lawyers just want to keep up with investment bankers. it's an esteem thing. they can't believe that for their superior education and intellect and all the glory they bathe themselves in that some hustler with a spreadsheet can collect a 0.2% fee for "advising" a multi-billion dollar merger, no matter how much time it takes. lawyers sweat to earn the same money by creating some stupid system where they have to bill for every hour of every day of every year and call it "work." what a joke.

[biglaw partner]

Finally, I want to point out that bimodal distributions are not inherently unstable. I think you will find that a bimodal distribution for "age at baptism" has existed in America for some 200 years now.

[colin]

I'm always amused by quotes from law firm partners saying basically "higher salaries are a result of a labor shortage. if we could find more top level legal talent, we'd hire them. as it is, most people going to large law firms are ill-suited for it and wash out." it makes sense in a way, since the lsat dominated law school admissions process mostly eliminates the value of any characteristic other than abstract reasoning skills. we should expect large firms to be hungry enough for more true talents that they throw money at the problem. I wonder whether the actual legal work at larger firms tends to be more complex and difficult, such that the larger population of young lawyers who lack the mental chops go to work for the firms that pay less for less mentally demanding work. of course, it might be nothing like that.

[Jeff Paul Internet Business]

I am running a small internet marketing business as my side business. This has helped me cut time when I’m free from my busy schedule. I really get satisfaction when I am my own boss.

[Alan]

Lawyer compensation is also skewed at more senior levels. Big Law partners - even service partners -- make in the millions, while others (small firm and solo, in-house, or government) in mid-career muddle along in the $100-$300,000 range, even in a high-salary market like New York. And there is no means of entry to the big firm system for those senior lawyers, regardless of where they went to law school. This type of gross inequality for people with similar backgrounds and experience indicates something deeply sick about the legal services economy -- as does the practice of offering first years "money for nothing" to avoid rescinding offers. How long will the clients continue to pay for this irrational excess?

[ElisabettaUH]

The smart outcome as this good topic will be included in custom dissertation or in the buy thesis to buy research papers on line from the essay writing services.

[LindaEg25]

People have now very good Internet sources to order the phd thesis and hot research about this good topic at the experienced thesis writing service.

[viagra online]

hello friend amazing post about How the "Cravath System" Created the Bi-Modal Distribution thansk for sharing I really enjoyed reading

[cheap viagra]

great post about How the "Cravath System" Created the Bi-Modal Distribution thanks for sharing and I think that And there is no means of entry to the big firm system for those senior lawyers, regardless of where they went to law school