{"id":132050,"date":"2025-08-26T14:41:04","date_gmt":"2025-08-26T22:41:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/08\/26\/extreme-work-quotas-wrong-on-multiple-grounds-in-todays-world\/"},"modified":"2025-08-26T14:41:04","modified_gmt":"2025-08-26T22:41:04","slug":"extreme-work-quotas-wrong-on-multiple-grounds-in-todays-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/08\/26\/extreme-work-quotas-wrong-on-multiple-grounds-in-todays-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Extreme Work Quotas: Wrong On Multiple Grounds In Today\u2019s World"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to a recent Above the Law article<\/a> by Kathryn Rubino<\/a>, an AmLaw 100 firm recently announced that it expected its associates to work at least 2400 hours a year to be in \u201cgood standing.\u201d Just when you thought Biglaw couldn\u2019t get more tone deaf about work life balance and technology adoption, we get this.<\/p>\n

The policy, as quoted by ATL, is as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

To ensure that our lawyers develop professionally and meet client needs, associates are expected to contribute a minimum of 2,400 total productive (\u201call\u2013in\u201d) 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.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While it\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s Do the Math<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

But of course, there\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

What About AI?<\/strong><\/p>\n

But there\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, if checking AI work isn\u2019t billable due to client pressures, then there\u2019s the temptation not to use it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Time to call the \u201ccan\u2019t have it both ways\u201d police. You can\u2019t in good faith say you embrace AI while imposing 2400 hour work requirements<\/p>\n

Innovation? Forget It<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019t 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Alternative Fees? Right<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And in most firms, even if the alternative fee yields a healthy profit, the workers on the file aren\u2019t necessarily rewarded since their time records don\u2019t 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\u2019t meet your quota as a result? Not a path to advancement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

As I have written before, the culture of most large law firms is just not set up to encourage and manage alternative fees.<\/p>\n

Clients<\/strong><\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s 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,\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

But It\u2019s Not All Billable Time, Right?<\/strong><\/p>\n

But wait, the 2400 hour quota is not composed of only billable time. There\u2019s a 400 hour work portion for \u201cproductive non-billable contributions, such as practice and business development, professional development, recruiting, and other practice and firm initiatives.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n

So you\u2019re really only talking about 2000 billable hours. Much more manageable, right?<\/p>\n

Wrong. Work is still work. It\u2019s not 2000 and do what you want with the rest. It\u2019s 2400 hours worked.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s just the opposite.<\/p>\n

One final thing to think about: the temptation to fudge. Let\u2019s face it, there\u2019s no one going to complain if you pad the time on a non billable matter. There\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

By the way, one thing you don\u2019t see in the acceptable work for non billable time is any reference to technology\u2014learning, employing or innovating with it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Arduous Billable Quotas Are Just Wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n

Extreme billable quotas are just wrong in today\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

The post Extreme Work Quotas: Wrong On Multiple Grounds In Today\u2019s World<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

According to a recent Above the Law article<\/a> by Kathryn Rubino<\/a>, an AmLaw 100 firm recently announced that it expected its associates to work at least 2400 hours a year to be in \u201cgood standing.\u201d Just when you thought Biglaw couldn\u2019t get more tone deaf about work life balance and technology adoption, we get this.<\/p>\n

The policy, as quoted by ATL, is as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

To ensure that our lawyers develop professionally and meet client needs, associates are expected to contribute a minimum of 2,400 total productive (\u201call\u2013in\u201d) 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.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While it\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s Do the Math<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

But of course, there\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

What About AI?<\/strong><\/p>\n

But there\u2019s 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, if checking AI work isn\u2019t billable due to client pressures, then there\u2019s the temptation not to use it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Time to call the \u201ccan\u2019t have it both ways\u201d police. You can\u2019t in good faith say you embrace AI while imposing 2400 hour work requirements<\/p>\n

Innovation? Forget It<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019t 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Alternative Fees? Right<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And in most firms, even if the alternative fee yields a healthy profit, the workers on the file aren\u2019t necessarily rewarded since their time records don\u2019t 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\u2019t meet your quota as a result? Not a path to advancement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

As I have written before, the culture of most large law firms is just not set up to encourage and manage alternative fees.<\/p>\n

Clients<\/strong><\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s 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,\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

But It\u2019s Not All Billable Time, Right?<\/strong><\/p>\n

But wait, the 2400 hour quota is not composed of only billable time. There\u2019s a 400 hour work portion for \u201cproductive non-billable contributions, such as practice and business development, professional development, recruiting, and other practice and firm initiatives.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n

So you\u2019re really only talking about 2000 billable hours. Much more manageable, right?<\/p>\n

Wrong. Work is still work. It\u2019s not 2000 and do what you want with the rest. It\u2019s 2400 hours worked.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s just the opposite.<\/p>\n

One final thing to think about: the temptation to fudge. Let\u2019s face it, there\u2019s no one going to complain if you pad the time on a non billable matter. There\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

By the way, one thing you don\u2019t see in the acceptable work for non billable time is any reference to technology\u2014learning, employing or innovating with it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Arduous Billable Quotas Are Just Wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n

Extreme billable quotas are just wrong in today\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 \u201cgood standing.\u201d Just when you thought Biglaw couldn\u2019t get more tone deaf about work life balance and technology adoption, we get this. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":132051,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132050","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/GettyImages-2165490808-scaled-LEV0iX.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132050","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132050"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132050\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/132051"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132050"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132050"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132050"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}