Money talks

An overwhelming number of respondents cited ‘compensation and benefits’ as the most important factor in deciding where to move (92%). This figure was almost identical to that for 2008 but up substantially from 2009, when less than half of respondents listed it as important. Is this a return to the status quo perhaps?

One respondent says that the results reflect the uncertainty regarding these issues in the legal employment market. “Seeing compensation and benefits rank highly in this survey is no surprise at the moment,” the lawyer said. “Given that most firms in the region have cut bonuses, frozen pay, abandoned lockstep or brought in all three, lawyers are looking for more security on these fronts should they want to move firms.”

Somewhat predictably, compensation and benefits were very important for lawyers from mainland China, India and other South-East Asian countries, where average salaries are much less than in Hong Kong, Singapore or the UAE. In these jurisdictions lawyers also ranked post-material workplace needs like work/life balance and professional development and training highly.  “Money comes with seniority,” said an associate working with an international law firm in Japan. “But it’s the support that one’s employer offers in helping one get to this level which is important – things like workplace flexibility are important here.”

Work/life balance

Most law firms across the region seem to have made positive inroads in relation to work/life balance, according to respondents. A number of law firms have introduced policies that either stagger or allow for adjustable working hours, the option to work from home and even allowances to go to the gym. Regardless of the initiative, firms seem to be making efforts to tailor work/life balance to fit the individual needs of their staff.

Both male and female lawyers at one Korean law firm suggest that their firm had made so much progress in the area that it could justifiably be regarded as the most flexible firm to work for in the market there. “Individual associate experiences will of course vary according to the partner supervising one’s work, but generally the firm doesn’t care when you work or how long you are in the office as long as you get the work done,” said one lawyer.

“I can and will stay late in the office,” said another. “But I prefer to work from home outside regular office hours when needed. Here I have this flexibility but it’s not too common at other law firms in the market.”
Not all law firms in the region were as accommodating as those in Korea. In Hong Kong, for example, very few lawyers said their firm had “any sort of cogent work/life balance strategy…apart from charitably forgiving the transgression of coming back five minutes late from lunch,” as one lawyer put it. Bemoaned another: “No [arrangements] offered here and we still have rostered Saturday work.”

In Japan, a number of lawyers commented that although their firms had work/life balance programs in place, lawyers who chose to use them often did so at their own peril. “As a firm policy they may offer some of these arrangements, but in this particular office I am certain that an associate who took advantage of them would be fired within a year.”

Hence, while having flexible workplace strategies and a balanced strategy is important, establishing a culture where employees are able to take up opportunities to work from home or stagger their working hours without fear of reprisal is equally as important, especially in jurisdictions where working in excess of 12 hours per day is not uncommon and, in some cases, mandatory.

Interestingly, the survey reveals that while most law firms across the region do have some sort of balanced strategy in place, these appear to be available only to certain lawyers. Take the case of one of Singapore’s ‘Big-Four’ law firms, as an example. Of the 13 lawyers from that firm who responded to the survey, seven said the firm had a number of work/life balance schemes available to staff while six said that the firm had no such initiative in place. The seven lawyers who voted in the affirmative were all senior-level lawyers (partner to senior associate level) while the six dissenting votes were all lawyers of junior to mid level seniority.

When asked to explain the discrepancy, one partner at the firm said: “It’s probably just that the initiatives out there have not properly been explained to our junior staff.” A junior lawyer at the same firm offers this rejoinder: “It’s not that they have not been explained – the overactive HR department never misses a beat here… it’s a case of them not being available to lawyers who aren’t at partner level.”
It’s on issues like these that ALB’s Employers of Choice for 2010 really set themselves apart from the pack.

NEXT: Why domestic lawyers love international law firms

Go to page: 1 2 3 4 5