Most law firms typically have vast portfolios of work that keep associates and staff busy. This can include matters that extend across different practice areas as well as various state and federal courts. Sometimes, associates can choose the types of matters they work on, but most of the time, associates are assigned matters and practice areas depending on the needs of a law firm. In some circumstances, law firms may assign unpleasant work assignments to associates to get them to leave a law firm or to punish them for not meeting expectations.
Pretty much every law firm has unpleasant matter that the firm accepts to generate revenue and keep the lights on at a shop. For instance, there are often sexual assault cases on which law firms work involving religious organizations, civic groups, and other types of defendants. These types of matters are often filed in waves, so at any given time, a law firm hired to defend these types of cases might have numerous matters connected with a tragic subject matter. As everyone deserves a defense, a law firm usually should not be faulted for accepting such work.
However, working on such matters might be much more unpleasant than working on other types of cases. Sexual abuse cases or other types of unappealing matters might involve difficult topics, uncomfortable questions, and may be more emotionally draining than other kinds of work. One way law firms can handle the emotional load of such matters is to evenly distribute such cases so that no one associate needs to spend an inordinate time on such matters.
However, I have heard stories of some associates being assigned to handle such unpleasant matters as their primary source of work. Since associates typically have billable hour requirements, they might not be in a position to reject such matters and request other assignments since such matters might be the only way they can meet expectations. I have heard several stories about associates who were assigned such unpleasant matters since partners hoped this would compel an associate to depart a firm. Of course, this is difficult to confirm, but anyone who watches “Seinfeld” should know that employers might make life difficult for employees they want to quit.
This strategy seems crass and irresponsible. Lawyers often have mental health issues at baseline since the conflict, stress, and emotions already make it difficult to handle legal work. Adding in difficult assignments that touch upon emotional issues might have a significant impact on the mental health of associates. Also, not giving associates a choice about whether they will have to work on unappealing matters can eliminate agency of associates and negatively impact morale.
Law firms also typically assign better matters to associates who are more favored by management of a shop. For instance, I once worked at a law firm that did not pay as much as other shops, but partners at the firm liked me and seemingly wanted me to stay. They assigned more interesting assignments to me than the average associate was given. I also argued appeals, handled interesting matters in federal court, and completed additional tasks that other associates did not. This practice might also be pernicious since associates might not be happy that other associates are being given privileges that are not available to everyone at a shop.
All told, most law firms have unpleasant matters that need to be handled so that the firm can generate money. However, it is not fair in most circumstances to assign such matters disproportionately to one group of associates, especially if it is being done to punish associates or get them to quit. Law firms should implement safeguards to ensure work is doled out equitably to all associates.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.
