Let me tell you about two different law firms.
Big Law Group One is a well-respected Canadian firm with many hundreds of lawyers, some of whom appear to be happier than others. Some of their dearly departed professionals have told me distressing stories about their lives at that firm, and the effect that the work demands had on their mental health. They also shared with me their feeling that the firm let them down when they required accommodation to recover from their mental health problems. They painted a picture of a firm which did not care much about its people, especially after those people became unable or unwilling to continue to sacrifice their health on the altar of billable hours.
Big Law Group Two is also a well-respected Canadian firm with many hundreds of lawyers. This firm has been making a real splash in the media about their mental health initiatives. They appear to be putting their money where their mouth is and showing the world that the mental health of their lawyers is important to them. I have to commend them for shining light on this issue and for striving to lift the legal profession up to a better place.
So, which of these two firms would you prefer to work for? If you answered Big Law Group Two, here is the problem. I lied. Big Law Group One and Big Law Group Two are the same firm.
Are the malcontents who I spoke to really just that – losers who could not hack it and need to blame someone else for their short-comings? Or are they conscientious, hard-working professionals who flamed out trying to excel in a culture which requires that you put your career above everything else?
Is it possible that this firm has decided to address the mental health crisis in their firm by identifying and fixing operational problems? Reducing billable hour targets perhaps?
I have my suspicions, but my best bet is that the idea of fixing the mental health problem in Big Law by reducing the billable hours targets for professional staff would be a non-starter. However, it may have made sense to them to devote more of their marketing budget to maintain the flow of young people joining the firm and giving it their all. It is certainly possible that their media presence around this issue is really about that.
Those of you who are as old as I am will remember the Ford Pinto case. Ford had a problem with fuel tanks exploding on low impact rear-end collisions. Ford lost big when someone leaked the mathematical calculations that management had done showing that the cost of fixing the design defect was more expensive than the cost of paying the wrongful death lawsuits. They learned all about punitive damages on that one.
Is it possible that Big Law has gone full-out Ford Pinto and concluded that the cost of professionals burning out and replacing them with new people is cheaper than the cost of allowing them to live a healthy life?
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.