The Legal Industry's Growing Two Caste System

I have often told my children that I'd never pay even a penny towards their education costs if they were to go to law school. Why? Because in general law sucks as a career. To do well in larger firms one needs to sacrifice family and much of a private life because of the grueling hours. And then there's the constant back stabbing and fighting over how the firm pie is divided up. And on top of that, at least in many parts of the USA, being openly gay is a sure ticket to being shown the door - something I found out personally seven years ago. Now, the law firm plantation system is taking on a new modification. In addition to associates who will work like dogs to enrich the partners big firms are adding a "non-partner" track for attorneys. These lawyers will do largely the same work - and no doubt be billed out to clients at much the same rate as partner track associates - and add to the profits of the partners. The only positive (which will need to be borne out over time and proven to not just be a case of less pay for the same work) is that for less pay, these folks may actually be able to have a life and put in fewer hours. The New York Times looks at this growing form of legal serfdom. Here are highlights:
*
The nation’s biggest law firms are creating a second tier of workers, stripping pay and prestige from one of the most coveted jobs in the business world. Make no mistake: These are full-fledged lawyers, not paralegals, and they do the same work traditional legal associates do. But they earn less than half the pay of their counterparts — usually around $60,000 — and they know from the outset they will never make partner.
*
Besides making less, these associates work fewer hours and travel less than those on the grueling partner track, making these jobs more family-friendly. And this new system probably prevents jobs from going offshore.
*
But as has been the case in other industries, a two-tier system threatens to breed resentments among workers in both tiers, given disparities in pay and workload expectations. And as these programs expand to more and more firms, they will eliminate many of the lucrative partner-track positions for which law students suffer so much debt.
*
“For a long time the wind was at the back of these big law firms,” said William D. Henderson, a historian at Indiana University-Bloomington. “They could grow, expand and raise rates, and clients just went along with absorbing the high overhead and lack of innovation. But eventually clients started to resist, especially when the economy soured.”
*
So now firms are copying some manufacturers — which have similarly inflexible pay because of union contracts — by creating a separate class of lower-paid workers. At law firms, these positions are generally called “career associates” or “permanent associates.” They pay about $50,000 to $65,000, according to Michael D. Bell, a managing principal at Fronterion, which advises law firms on outsourcing. These nonglamorous jobs are going to nonglamorous cities.
*
“It’s our version of outsourcing,” said Ralph Baxter, Orrick’s chief executive. “Except we’re staying within the United States.” Similar centers have cropped up in other economically depressed locations. WilmerHale, a 12-office international firm, has “in-sourced” work to Dayton, Ohio.
*
“There’s a big, low-cost attorney market there,” said Scott Green, WilmerHale’s executive director. “That means we can offer our services more efficiently, at lower prices.” What’s good for clients, of course, isn’t quite as good for those low-cost lawyers.
*
Lower salaries make it even more difficult for newly minted lawyers to pay off their law school debt — like the $150,000 in loans that David Perry accumulated upon graduation from Northwestern University School of Law in 2009.
*
Heather Boylan Clark, 34, was a seventh-year associate at Jones Day before applying for a career associate position after the birth of her second child. She makes 40 percent less than before, but says she still does “challenging work,” and, more important, has greater control of her schedule. “I’m not killing myself to be hitting specific numbers of billable hours in any given year,” said Ms. Boylan Clark, a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law. “Now I’m always home for bedtime.”
*
My advice? Avoid law as a career. There are many other options where one can be happier and have more of a life than in big firm sweatshops.

The GOP's Medicare Nightmare

By the time polls close tonight in New York's 26th Congressional district we may have a better sense of just how badly House Republicans may have wounded the party by voting for Rep. Paul Ryan's budget which among other things savages Medicare and opened the door for allegations that the GOP was "throwing" grandma over the cliff." It's not as if the Congressional Republicans didn't have warnings as to the possible consequences of appeasing the Tea Party crowd and House freshman. They just chose - with typical GOP arrogance and a desire to claim a mandate where none existed - to ignore them and threw down a gauntlet which may now hopefully be used to beat them severely about the head and at the ballot box. Politico has a piece that looks at the many warnings that were available. The Washington Post has a column that looks at the GOP's self-inflicted wound in additional detail. First, this highlight from Politico:
*
It might be a political time bomb — that’s what GOP pollsters warned as House Republicans prepared for the April 15 vote on Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget, with its plan to dramatically remake Medicare.
*
No matter how favorably pollsters with the Tarrance Group or other firms spun the bill in their pitch — casting it as the only path to saving the beloved health entitlement for seniors — the Ryan budget’s approval rating barely budged above the high 30s or its disapproval below 50 percent, according to a Republican operative familiar with the presentation.
*
GOP pollsters, political consultants and House and NRCC staffers vividly reminded leadership that their members were being forced to walk the plank for a piece of quixotic legislation. They described for leadership the horrors that might be visited on the party during the next campaign, comparing it time and again with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to ram through a cap-and-trade bill despite the risks it posed to Democratic incumbents.
*
“The tea party itch has definitely not been scratched, so the voices who were saying, ‘Let’s do this in a way that’s politically survivable,’ got drowned out by a kind of panic,” a top GOP consultant involved in the debate said, on condition of anonymity.
*
In the Washington Post column, Eugene Robinson looks at the problems now flowing from the GOP's act of hubris. Here are highlights:
*
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the architect of his party’s radical plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program, gave a lesson Sunday in stating the obvious: “I don’t consult polls to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be.” I’d suggest that Republicans with less disdain for public opinion might want to check out the height of the cliff from which Ryan would have them leap.
*
What concentrates the minds of GOP strategists and candidates — or ought to — is the spectacle unfolding in New York’s 26th Congressional District near Buffalo. It’s a solid Republican constituency, one that Chris Lee won last year with 74 percent of the vote. Alas, Lee resigned after a Web site published a bare-chested beefcake photo he had sent to a woman he met through Craigslist.
*
What should worry Republicans is that the biggest issue in the campaign — practically the only issue — is Ryan’s Medicare plan. Corwin supports it, Hochul opposes it, and the GOP may well lose a race that shouldn’t even be close.
*
Is the Medicare issue really that toxic? Newt Gingrich clearly thought it was, or else he’d never have called it “right-wing social engineering” and gotten himself in such trouble with his fellow Republicans. Even now, after a week of rhetorical beat-downs from GOP opinion-makers and busy signals from big-time donors, he’s still trying to find a way to support the Ryan plan while leaving some sure-to-be-needed wiggle room.
*
Many Republicans, sensibly, are eager to change the subject. This would be tough to do under any circumstances, given that the party has made the deficit its central issue. Moving along will be much harder with Democrats doing everything they can to keep the Ryan plan in the news — and with Ryan and other true believers still convinced that giving vouchers to senior citizens, putting them at the mercy of the private health insurance market, is a dandy idea that surely will catch on.
*
It won’t. Americans oppose Medicare cuts by overwhelming margins.
*
Obviously, I am hoping that the GOP's growing extremism will be its undoing. Making pacts with the Devil - e.g., the Tea Party and the Christian Taliban - needs to be made to carry a high cost.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Birthers Train Sights on Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal

Despite Barack Obama's release of his long form birth certificate not too long ago, the lunatics of the Birther crowd continue to whine and mutter that Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, unqualified to be president. Now, the idiocy of this ignorant and bigoted by choice crowd is swinging rightward and biting two GOP stars squarely in the ass. The targets of the birther crowd? Florida U. S. Senator Marco Rubio and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Wing Nut Daily has a poll of its readers (see the chart above) that shows that only 4% of respondents believe Rubio and Jindal are qualified as natural born Americans to run for the presidency. It seems the birthers believe that unless BOTH of one's parents were native born Americans, you're not a native born citizen. The GOP helped legitimize these nutjobs, so there is some amount of pleasure watching the Frankenstein monster break the shackles of control of the GOP establishment.

Tennessee Enacts Anti-Gay Bill Backed by Tennessee Chamber of Commerce

As America Blog Gay is reporting, the Governor of Tennessee has signed the anti-gay bill passed by the Tennessee Legislature compliments of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and its Board of Directors member, Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Pfizer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caterpillar, KPMG, Whirlpool, Embraer, Alcoa, and United HealthCare. The bill makes it illegal for an municipality in Tennessee to enact anti-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens. Obviously, it is time to boycott the state of Tennessee in every way possible - as well as boycott all of the corporations who knowingly supported this legislation and deliberately threw LGBT citizens under the bus. The only good news is that the statute is much like that passed by Colorado nearly two decades ago which was struck down as unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans. One can only hope that a challenge will be mounted to this hateful law. As promised last week, I'm dumping all of my Federal Express stock -I hope people all over the country will do the same - and I am in the process of finding a new overnight courier service for the law firm. Fedex can kiss my gay ass goodbye! Here are highlights from America Blog Gay:
*
The TN Chamber of Commerce, once of the forces behind anti-gay and anti-trans legislation that repeals a gay/trans civil rights ordinance in Nashville, and bans Tennessee cities from passing any civil rights legislation ever again, has just switched gears and is now opposing the bill.
*
Unfortunately, the Republican governor just signed the law.
*
Here is the Chamber's statement:
*
“The Tennessee Chamber supports a standard regulatory environment at the state level as opposed to potentially conflicting local regulations covering employment practices. That principle was the only interest the Chamber had in this bill. Because HB600/SB632 has turned into a debate on diversity and inclusiveness—principles which we support—we are now officially opposing this legislation in its present form.”
*
Adopted unanimously May 23, 2011
*
DEB WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT
TENNESSEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
*
This is is a bit like finding a man innocent after you throw the switch to kill him. It's hard to see how any of these companies avoid blame since they're on the board of the local chamber, and their local representatives were warned about this legislation a good month ago - warned that it would repeal gay and trans rights - and they did nothing about it until it was far too late. Every single company that sits on the Tennessee chamber of commerce is responsible for this atrocity.

Obama Still Places the Sensibilities of Christianist Above Rights of LGBT Citizens

As I've noted before, Barack Obama seems to always put the religious sensibilities of Christianists - and perhaps his own religious based prejudice - ahead of the civil law equality of LGBT Americans. Obama failed the test again while responding to Minnesota's anti-gay amendment that will be on the 2012 ballot. But for the fact that it's highly unlikely that the GOP will nominate a rational candidate, I'd love to be able to vote for someone other than Obama. I want a president who is not afraid to be a leader - and who has a backbone - yet but for a few extreme;y rare occasions, Obama seems to be made of Jell-O. The Washington Blade looks at Obama's mealy mouthed statement on the Minnesota constitutional amendment effort:
*
The White House on Monday issued a statement in response to a proposed measure in Minnesota that would make a ban on same-sex marriage part of the state constitution.
*
The complete statement follows:
*
“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples or to take such rights away. While he believes this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also believes that committed gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.”
*
The statement doesn’t explicitly mention the proposed constitutional amendment in Minnesota, but states that the president “has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts” that would restrict rights for gay couples.
*
Additionally, the statement reaffirms Obama’s lack of support for same-sex marriage rights by saying the issue is “best addressed by the states.” Obama has said he’s “wrestling” with the marriage issue, but has yet to make.
*
How would Obama respond to someone who said that they thought blacks should have the same rights and responsibilities as whites, but lacked the backbone to condemn slavery?

Monday Male Beauty

Daniels Bails; Pawlenty Joins GOP Clown Car

The GOP continues to grasp for a candidate who might have a serious chance to win in 2012 as opposed to the loonies who are the darlings of the far right and Tea Party. Yesterday Mitch Daniels said no to a 2012 run for the presidency even as Tim Pawlenty threw his hat into the contest. The New York Times has coverage on Daniels' decision to bail. Here are some highlights:

*

Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana said early Sunday that he would not become a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, telling supporters in an e-mail message that concerns from his family were the overriding factor in deciding to stay out of the race.

*

“In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one,” Mr. Daniels wrote. “The interests and wishes of my family is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry.”

*
His announcement answers one of the most highly anticipated questions about the 2012 Republican campaign, but introduces new uncertainty into the race. He is the latest in a string of prominent Republicans to decline a presidential bid, leaving the field without a clear front-runner less than eight months before the first voting could begin.
*

Mr. Daniels, a former budget director in the White House under President George W. Bush, had secured the fund-raising commitments and political support from a large contingent of alumni from the Bush network. In recent days, aides said, several contributors sent word to Mr. Daniels that they needed an answer soon. The message from Mr. Daniels early Sunday indicated that he appreciated the support.

*

As for Pawlenty, the guy is an anti-gay bigot who would like to reinstate DADT. The Washington Post looks at his decision to join the fracas largely populated by crack pots of the far right and Mitt Romney who continues to try to be all things to all people. As with other GOP candidates, it will be interesting to watch and see just how much Pawlenty is willing to prostitute himself to the Christianists and Tea Party elements that now largely control the GOP primary process in far too many states. Here are highlights from this story and this story in the Washington Post:
*
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty released a video Sunday previewing his announcement for president, which is set for Monday. The video, titled “A Time for Truth,” aims to be the anti-campaign announcement, shunning the usual pomp and circumstance for a somber message that Pawlenty says is more important than balloons and idealistic speeches.

“The truth is, our country’s in big trouble,” Pawlenty says. “We have far too much debt, too much government spending, and too few jobs. We need a president who understands that our problems are deep and has the courage to face them. President Obama doesn’t; I do.”
*
And then there's this:
*
GOP strategists say that the removal of Daniels as a factor has made it even more obvious that the contest is becoming one between presumed front-runner Mitt Romney and a pack of underdogs hoping to emerge as the alternative to the former Massachusetts governor. * And the dismay that some influential Republicans are feeling over Daniels’s refusal to run may well spark a renewal of their efforts to coax such conservative stars as ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush and current New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie into the race.
*
But for all of Romney’s assets, including fundraising firepower demonstrated earlier this month by a phone bank that raised more than $10 million in a single day, his uneven performance in his unsuccessful 2008 bid has left many Republicans doubtful that he has the political skills it will take to beat President Obama.
*
Another camp buoyed by Daniels’s announcement was that of the freshest face in the field, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., a potential candidate who will wrap up a five-day swing through New Hampshire on Monday. Like Pawlenty, he is trying to sell himself as someone who has crossover appeal outside the GOP base.
*
For all the Republican hand-wringing over the state of the race, there is one place where the strength of the potential field is not being discounted: the Obama White House. Strategists there note the country is so divided that any credible contender is likely to emerge from the nominating contest with a strong, energized base of support and adequate financial resources.

Are Some Wingnuts Beginning to Realize They Are Losing the "Culture Wars"

Generally, the rabid anti-LGBT elements are disconnected from real world reality as they seem to increasingly live in a fantasy world of their own making. And even those who recognize that the larger society is moving away from their brand of hate and intolerance, they rarely will utter the fact publicly preferring to continue to shake down their dwindling flock of followers for every last dollar possible before they disappear into total irrelevance. Focus on the Family fits this description and, as a result, it was surprising to see Jim Daly, the titular head of FOTF since Daddy Dobson's supposed retirement admit that they have "lost" on the issue of same sex marriage. True, frauds and hypocrites - e.g., Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Benedict XVI and fellow haters - will continue their rants (and in the case of the first two individuals, their self-enrichment ), but the younger generation's largely ceasing to listen to them. Or if they do hear them, the anti-LGBT rant seems to drive them from religion rather than from their support for equality. Here are highlights from World Magazine where Daly acknowledged the inevitable:
*
What about same-sex marriage? We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age—demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that. I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.
*
Any thoughts on President Obama? I may not agree with any of his policies. I do appreciate that he's married to his first wife and raising his two children. We need more men like that. I once said that America would be better off if we had more families that reflected the Obamas, and a lot of conservatives went nuts with that, but it's true! Some of the conservative candidates that we put up—between a couple of them recently, I think they had seven or eight marriages. That seems a bit hypocritical.

GOP Devoid of Ideas and Filled with Narrow Angry People people

The caption of this post is what Jon Huntsman said about the GOP back in 2009. It's a true and accurate statement, of course, but it shows the uphill battle Huntsman faces in winning the GOP nomination with the party primaries to some extent controlled by the craziest and most irrational folks in both the GOP and the country at large. An old New Republic story is resurfacing and it will nor doubt not play well among the Kool-Aid drinker set. Of course, the fact that Huntsman recognized the GOP's problem demonstrates one reason why he's the best news for the party's long term prospects. Maybe not for 2012, but perhaps 2016 if the GOP nominates at nut job this go round. Here some highlights from the 2009 story that are just as true today - maybe even more so - than two years ago:
*
A virtual unknown only six months ago, Huntsman had burst onto the national radar based largely on his declaration of support for civil unions in February [2009]--a shocking position for the Republican governor of the reddest state in the country. He then started using his new platform to brashly criticize his own party. Politico, which in February dubbed him "the fastest-rising star you have never heard of," by March described him as "an articulate, unapologetic, and unlikely spokesman for a new brand of Republicanism." By May, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was describing Huntsman as "the one person in [the Republican Party] who might be a potential presidential candidate."
*
To Huntsman, the economy should be a politician's "focus, laser-like," despite the fact that it doesn't "make for a very colorful and interesting sideshow."
*
Huntsman is certainly right: His skillful stewardship of the state's economy is not what propelled him onto the national stage. Huntsman, who was elected in 2004 as a fairly conventional Republican campaigning on a platform of economic development, first began breaking with his party over environmental issues--for instance, signing the bold Western Regional Climate Action Initiative. He then started taking relatively progressive stands on immigration, unions, and education. As opposed to some of the more conservative Republican governors, Huntsman accepted all the money from Obama's stimulus package offered to the state. "Limited government is important," Huntsman explains, "but I need to make sure that we have a government that actually delivers on issues that people expect us to manage competently and well."
*
By far his most explosive position has been his support for civil unions this year, a clear shift from his support during his 2004 campaign for Utah's constitutional gay marriage and civil union ban--which his spokeswoman says he now favors repealing. The position is particularly surprising in a state where, according to recent polls, 70 percent of people oppose civil unions. "I've always been in favor of equal rights," he says in explaining his stance. "What would Abraham Lincoln be doing if he were around today?" Huntsman says that he has little patience for the traditional "culture war" issues. "I'm not good at playing those games," he tells me. Huntsman was the only 2012 front-runner not to show at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference.
*
But defying all expectations, his popularity barely took a hit, sinking only from 90 to 84 percent. Emboldened, he started taking on the national party, excoriating GOP leaders for their knee-jerk obstructionism and narrow social conservatism. "I don't even know the [Republican] congressional leadership--I have not met them, I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential, completely," he told The Washington Times in a scathing February interview. "Our moral soapbox was completely taken away from us because of our behavior in the last few years."
*
In dozens of interviews over the past few weeks, he has characterized Republicans as "devoid of ideas" and "gasping for air," decrying the GOP's "gratuitous partisanship," comparing it to "a very narrow party of angry people," and describing its strategy as "obstruct and obfuscate … grousing and complaining." When I ask him who he sees as potential leaders for the party, he says with a mischievous grin, "I don't know that we have one."
*
To be sure, Huntsman is no Republican In Name Only; his positions on abortion and gun control still hew quite closely to the Republican line. But he sees himself within a broader GOP tradition. "[Republicans] forget sometimes what Lincoln taught us about individual dignity and equal rights, what Roosevelt taught us about the environment and big stick diplomacy, about American power abroad and how we project it," he says, folding his hands beneath his chin and staring out his window. "We have Nixon who created the EPA, for heaven's sake. People forget that."
*
If Huntsman was planning to run for president, why would he move so brazenly to the left at a time when the GOP seems to be heading rightward? The most obvious reason is that he may actually be a moderate. "I'm not very good at tags," he tells me. "I just try to do my best, and maybe that makes me a pragmatist." He joins a long tradition of moderate Republicans from Utah, despite--or perhaps because of--the fact that the state is the reddest in the country, with the GOP holding every statewide office and more than two-thirds of the state legislature. The GOP lock on Utah politics allows the party to welcome a broader swathe of politicians, and breed leaders who are less combative and ideological than their besieged colleagues in more competitive states. And if Huntsman has learned anything from the failed Mitt Romney campaign, it is that the only thing worse for a Republican than not being a conservative is being a phony conservative.
*
But on a more strategic level, Huntsman was forced to fill the political space that had been left for him by the current front-runners--including Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Romney himself--who were all pandering to the conservative wing of the party. Huntsman would have had a tough time competing for the same constituency as them; better to take the long shot that Republicans would be looking for a moderate in three years. In the meantime, he could sit back and let the more conservative candidates beat each other up.
*
Huntsman has a good role-model for his duck-and-run strategy: George H. W. Bush, who went to China as ambassador in the 1970s while Republicans dealt with the Watergate fallout. He was able to avoid the Republican bloodbath at the 1974 polls, and return relatively unscathed from the fracas--eventually making his way to the White House. Heading to Beijing will allow Huntsman to sit out the mess that will probably envelop the GOP over the next few years, and return as a fresh face in time to gear up for 2016. It is also likely that some of his more controversial positions, particularly on civil unions, will become less toxic by then.
*
The ambassadorship also equips Huntsman well for a later presidential run. Representing the United States to perhaps our most important strategic rival will give him top-notch foreign policy chops. And since the 2016 race could well be a competition for heir to the Obama mantle, Huntsman will now have bipartisan cred to add to his youth and proven pragmatism in claiming it; an appointment from the man himself doesn't hurt either.
*
Quoting political historian Theodore White, he told me when we spoke last month that he was happy to defer "to the inevitable cycles of history. Some of them are so inexorable you can't fight against them." In deciding to go to China, he seemed to be conceding that he wasn't going to win the battle for the GOP's soul this time around. Better to wait for the cycles of history to align in your favor.
*
Another big question will be how much Huntsman is willing to sell his soul to the deranged elements of the Christianists and the Tea Party. Yes, politics needs pragmatism. But it also needs some moral solidity and an unwillingness to be a cheap political whore,