The practice of law in large law firms is undergoing substantial change. There are a number of causes, but the most important is economic. Practice has become increasingly complex and corporate counsel, in view of the high fees charged by law firms, are increasingly turning to outside lawyers only for the most complex, difficult and specialized matters. Such matters are those with respect to which the risk of error and therefore of exposure to malpractice suits is greatest.

These factors taken together mean that the pool of young lawyers who can do the work required of them in a large law firm is smaller than in the past. At the same time the pool of such lawyers available to large law firms in big cities is being further reduced by those who are unwilling to accept the demands placed on associates by such a practice and who opt for positions in smaller, less pressured practices, as well as by those who abandon the law for higher paid positions, for example in investment banking or real estate development. This reduction in the pool of young lawyers qualified for large firm practice has been accompanied by a nationwide increase in the demand for them caused by the continued growth in large firm practices in major cities.

In sum, the demand for highly qualified young lawyers has risen, and the supply available to large law firms has diminished. The result is, of course, inevitable. Salaries paid to beginning lawyers (and therefore to all associates, since every raise in starting salaries must be reflected in the salaries of more senior associates) have risen exponentially. A major New York firm has just announced that its starting salary will be $65,000 in the fall, and those who have been judicial clerks will be paid a signing bonus which can be as much as $25,000.

These changes in large firm law practice which have their source in its changing economic structure are in their turn causing important other changes. This paper addresses one: the apparently increasing dissonances for some of the best law students between the fulfillment of law school and the realities of an associate's practice in a large corporate law firm (particularly in New York City) as that practice evolves.

Generalizations are necessary to the paper-about law school and law students and about law firms and associates-which are not demonstrable. Those set forth seem essentially correct, however, and two caveats may be sufficient: 1) no generalization in this paper is wholly true about anyone or any law school or any law firm; and 2) all generalizations are false (including this one).

There are two student populations: those who see law as a relatively low risk career alternative to business as a means of access to high salaries (the "diverted business person") and those who consciously or unconsciously see the practice of law as a more accessible, much better paid and less isolated alternative to the life of a scholar (the "diverted scholar"). The second of these two is the central concern of this paper, and a portrait (idealized) of such a law student is helpful.

The diverted scholar has been a consistently outstanding student and has demonstrated the intellectual capacity to be a teacher and scholar. She is interested in theoretical questions and research and values original thought. She has spent much of her student life considering moral questions both in the classroom and out of it, has a continuing concern for social justice and puts a premium on the possibility of making a contribution to society in her professional life. She is not certain that she has the ability to lead the lonely life of the scholar and in particular that she has the "sitzfleisch" which the life of the dedicated scholar demands. She is unwilling, in any event, to run the considerable risk that after devoting seven or eight graduate years to specialized study she will find no rewarding teaching position, and she wants to earn more money than most scholars command.

Law school offers much to such a student, and she and those like her come in substantial numbers. Indeed, they have in the past appeared to be in the majority, at least at some major law schools (if one can take a career interest in the public good as decisively identifying them): annual polls of entering students taken at Yale Law School fairly consistently indicated that the majority of the entering class intended to pursue careers of public service.

Such a student spends three years at law school essentially free from economic pressure (except that of the mounting debt she will one day have to repay). She is almost wholly in control of how her time is spent. At least after the first year, much of it can be devoted to activities other than school work, and she is on the whole autonomous. She spends the three law school years searching with the brightest and most able among the faculty and her fellow students for an expanded understanding of law, legal theory and social justice; and as her competence grows, she is increasingly treated by the faculty as a valued colleague in that search.

If she, like the majority of her classmates, decides to join a large corporate law form after graduation, she will immediately confront one dissonance: a substantial number of the faculty of law school-whose approval is of particular importance to her-have little admiration if not indeed disdain for such a choice. Moreover the changes in her life will be radical. A recent series of interviews by the National Law journal with mid-level associates of large New York law firms suggests what these changes will be.

First and foremost she will be paid handsomely for what she does. This warrant of the value of her contribution is, to say the obvious, extremely welcome after her many years as a student (and in light of the debts she has incurred),but for the thoughtful there is even in this a question. As one associate expressed it to the National Law journal interviewer, "Money, money. The damn thing about money is that we get paid too much. You begin to live a lifestyle your salary can sustain, and like other vices, you become addicted to that lifestyle:'

Secondly, for the law student who joins a large corporate law firm there are significant changes, compared with the life of a law student, in autonomy, lifestyle and status. She is no longer free to determine when and how she will work. Demands on her time are constant and frequently extreme. As one of the interviewed associates said: ". . .it's best (for the partners) to have a full crop of eager prospective partners killing themselves to beat each other out to join the higher ranks [by billing the largest possible number of hours]:' And her status as a valued colleague whose opinions count is to be won again and, even when seemingly won as a senior associate, is frequently, in her eyes, put in question by the way partners deal with her. Again the views of the interviewed associates: "I think associates can be, to a much greater extent, brought into the firm decision-making." "So many partners and senior associates look at you as just junior to them .... In some cases you're stepped on . . "I think the major problem is that. . . [the firm's] pyramidic structure reduces anyone's feelings for the firm:" "The high moments are the times when a suggestion [of mine] gets taken seriously."

Her work, moreover, will for the first time have consequences other than grades in a transcript. After years as a student this is also very welcome-indeed, a frequently articulated reason why she and others chose law practice over scholarship. Again, however, there are dissonances. In law school the ultimate question was, "Is this just?" In practice it is, "Will this advance the interests of my client?" The question of the ultimate comparative value of the two arises for some. Most seem persuaded, as one interviewee said, that "[t]he process itself. . . has a societal function and to the extent that I help preserve the efficacy and integrity of that process, I am doing something worthwhile." But there are caveats. As the rhetorical question of a young litigator framed one of them: "Do I think genuine societal benefits will flow from victory in my cases? Precious few . . . . " A more important caveat is evident in the interviews of most of the associates the National journal talked to: "When I was in law school, I thought about legal aid or defending the rights of the poor:" "Would I be doing greater good working for Legal Aid or in some policy area? Probably yes . . . . " "I would be happier in a position where I could feel that I'm doing something worthwhile:"

The most fundamental change she experiences, however, is in the certainty of her status. From recognized able scholar in the law school community she becomes again an aspirant, this time for a position in the inner circle of partners. In New York, at least, the odds are against her and growing longer as changes in the economic structure of practice evolve. This is an uncertainty she must live with, generally for eight years, if she is to remain in the running, and one which will only grow in intensity as she gets nearer the time of decision and has committed more and more of her life to the outcome. Not only is there uncertainty about the outcome, but about the standards which determine it. "It's foolish. . . to assume you'll become a partner no matter how good you are. There are other factors. It's some kind of secret thing like the Elysian rites but we, on this end of it, don t have a clear sense of it"

Much of what is reflected in these young associates' responses is simply the contrast between training for any profession and the doing of it; much which is unique to the practice of law in a large law firm is not new. Some themes are new, however, in degree at least, and most of what is new has its source in the changing economics of a large firm practice.

Many of the life changes described above which the joining of a large firm brings with it are positive and exciting for the beginning lawyer; but it is obvious that others create very substantial pressures and exact a considerable price. For the overachievers who are the subject of this paper-a uniquely driven and compulsive group who are "afraid to fail"-the pressures and the price are yet another challenge to achievement, and partnership is achievement of a very significant kind economically, professionally and in terms of the power and prestige which accompany it.

But the changes in the economics of large law firms have exacerbated the pressures and increased the price enough that some associates have become more questioning about the bargain they have struck. As one summed it up: "I have to say the benefits outweigh the costs or I wouldn't be here. But I'm not happy and the costs are very high:'

A summation of those costs as reflected in the responses of the interviewed associates is instructive. To appreciate fully its significance an obvious fact needs to be kept in mind: these young persons are subject to high stress. Research suggests that individuals who handle stress most successfully are those about whom three things are true: 1) they are challenged by what they are doing; 2) they are in control of the outcomes; and 3) they are strongly committed to their work and its outcomes.

The evidence in the responses of the interviewed associates that they are highly challenged is clear, although dissonance results from the frequent shift from high level responsible work to work "which can be, not demeaning, but work you can do with one eye [sic] tied behind your back ...."

On the other hand, that they have a strong sense that they are not in control of their lives frequently comes through. One, leaving his firm although he felt that he had been treated well and "may have been viewed as a potential partner;" gave as the central reason for his decision to leave "the lack of control over my life." This feeling came to a head when he found himself working with people he did not enjoy but who were senior. "Working with these people made me realize I was subject to their whims and dictates to a degree I could not tolerate. It drove home the point of how out of control my life was."

The final issue for these highly stressed young persons-and perhaps the most telling-is that of commitment to their work and its outcomes. They are totally committed to excellence in the work they do, and equally so to serving clients well. This much is true both of the associates who are diverted business persons and those who are diverted scholars. Commitment beyond dedication to these values is a function of other factors. For the diverted business person commitment is directly commensurate with the amount of money being made. If it is high, her commitment will be high. For the diverted scholar an increased commitment may not always follow continued increases in salary; uneven challenges, lack of autonomy or control and the limited commitment of some associates in large law firms may make its costs seem very high. The ultimate costs may be that some of these overachievers will wonder whether they are, for the first time in their lives, underachieving.