The Paul Hastings Associate Presentation Wasn’t That Offensive

This won’t get me elected Ms. Popularity, but I found something archly refreshing about that now-infamous “Non-Negotiable Expectations” presentation for baby lawyers at Paul Hastings.

Reputedly the handiwork of a senior associate at the firm—Paul Hastings didn’t dispute the authenticity of the presentation though it said, “the views expressed do not reflect the views of the firm or its partners"—it boiled down to 10 golden rules for being a good junior associate. Among them: always be “‘online’ 24/7,” act like “a concierge at the Four Seasons,” and always be mindful that “clients expect everything to be done perfectly and delivered yesterday.”

The upshot: shock, outrage, and anger in Big Law. Folks on social media call the presentation “horrifying,” “sick,” “disgusting,” and “insulting”—to name a few popular adjectives.

“This slide is at odds with my experience and the experience I try to create for my team,” sniffed a Big Law partner at another major firm on LinkedIn, adding, “The partners I worked with, and now the clients I work with, wouldn’t put up with this approach, because they are good people.”

Another lawyer wrote on social media, “Who wants to work for clients that are this demanding?”

Well, I have news: Many lawyers and firms would happily sacrifice a relative for the chance to service a deep-pocket client who makes relentless demands. And the suggestion that “good” clients would never make such unreasonable demands? Puh-leese. (Query: Are certain firms known for “good” clients?)

Admittedly not the most artful delivery—though I rather fancied the White Lotus concierge/lawyer analogy—the Paul Hastings presentation nonetheless delivers the unvarnished truth of what being a Big Law associate entails: absolute, ridiculous devotion to the money-making machinery. (Is it a coincidence that Paul Hastings posted soaring profits and revenue this year?)

As the presentation obnoxiously points out, being a lawyer is a “service” business—i.e., suck-up function: “If a client wants a mountain moved, we move it. No questions.” Arguably, it’s just the unpleasant advice that junior lawyers need to survive if not succeed.

To be perfectly clear, I’m not advocating this as a desirable or sustainable work model. I was hopeless at the game and didn’t last long as an associate.

We all know the life of a Big Law associate is often nasty, brutish, and short, so why all this shock and awe over these 10 rules?

Probably because it destroys the fantasy that work/life balance is somehow feasible in Big Law. For the last two decades, the profession has been obsessed with work/life balance, pursuing it like the Holy Grail. And like the Holy Grail, it’s illusory.

Yet, a cottage industry has sprouted over this fantasy. Publications regularly publish lists of “family-friendly” or good “work/life balance” firms—as if certain firms qualify as “lifestyle” destinations.

And firms are playing along too, talking a good game about how they offer flexibility, mental health checks, and some kind of magic elixir. (Fun fact: Paul Hastings ranked No. 5 in a Law.com survey of summer associates, which weighed, among other factors, how much the firm cared about the mental health of its associates.)

But the fact is, associates are billing and stressed more than ever. Every year, what qualifies as an acceptable level of billings climbs up. What remains constant is that practice in Big Law is demanding, relentless, and often thoroughly unpleasant. And yes, there’s a price Big Law expects from wet-behind-the-ears lawyers for those outrageous salaries.

Somehow, though, that’s not what we want to hear.