Gen Z lawyers ‘work to live, not live to work’: legal researcher

Firms are losing juniors who decide they aren’t cut out for the profession, as new salary data busts some myths about lawyer pay.

Young lawyers have an attitude of ‘working to live, not living to work’, a leading researcher says. ​

A Generation Z attitude of “working to live, not living to work” is causing legal firms to haemorrhage junior lawyers who decide they are not cut out for the profession, a leading legal researcher says, as low pay, long hours and scarce benefits contribute to pushing them out the door.

Eaton Strategy + Search chief Shaaron Dalton told The Australian young lawyers were “working for McDonald’s rates because they’re working such long hours” which ultimately results in fresh talent leaving the job.

She also said fresh talk of quiet quitting and the desire for a “proper work life balance” has had a large impact on firms struggling to hire and retain junior staff.

“There’s definitely a different attitude to work, especially post-Covid. We’ve heard from a number of sources that people have more of a focus on work-life balance than they used to,” she said.

“The commitment level is not as high as it once was, and Gen Zs (have) questions whether they live to work or work to live.”

She said one major issue for young workers was that they did not learn practical skills at university, and they therefore experienced a tough transition upon entering the workforce.

“Clerkships are the perfect sell jobs because the firms want them to keep going and work for them,” she said. “They tend to get a lot of perfect work and are paid all this attention because the firm wants them to join, but it means they don’t get a sense of what the daily grind is.”

Ms Dalton’s comments come after High Court judge Jayne Jagot sprayed senior lawyers who contributed to the exploitation of young employees by trapping them at work, ­expecting them to be on call 24/7, and blaming them for mistakes they themselves had made. Arguing that the “extreme ­hierarchies” within the legal profession contributed to toxic cultures affecting young workers, Justice Jagot recognised legal workplaces “are like small unequal societies” that could be damaging to one’s mental health.

Ms Dalton said small salary increases had also had an impact on worker sentiment this year, as firms were hesitant to dish out raises at the close of the financial year because of a potentially looming recession.

“Salaries didn’t increase much this year except for exceptional people because firms were fairly nervous about the financial situation and there was a lot of talk about a recession,” she said.

“Firms are trying to keep profits high. A lot of young workers aren’t getting a rate they could get working in hospitality.”

Exclusive data from Eaton Strategy + Search, provided to The Australian, shows a first-year lawyer at a boutique firm earns a minimum $70,000 a year, at a mid-tier firm $85,000, and at a top-tier firm $100,000.

That compares with rates at consultancy firms, where Deloitte pays new starters $67,000, PwC pays $69,000 and Accenture $68,000.

Ms Dalton said lawyers “do earn a lot more than other people, but they do work a lot longer hours than other people”.

“It’s all about closing the gap, at least for the people who are working excessively long hours, to make sure they are getting a reasonable hourly rate,” she said.

She said firms had attempted to boost perks for senior staff members, but that had not yet filtered down to junior employees.

“Ownership is a big thing as well – there are a few firms doing the ESOP thing where they are giving shares in the business to senior associates and above,” she said.

“It makes then start to feel ownership in the business. But you’re not going to a get a huge amount of that in the juniors – they’re not necessarily going to want to be locked into a share pool in the business.”

Want to contribute to the story? Email [e-mail]