Lawyer Satisfaction in the Process of Structuring Legal Careers-3

Lawyer Satisfaction in the Process of Structuring Legal Careers-3

Satisfaction Debates

Academic research on the legal profession finds generally high levels of satisfaction. In one of the original studies of lawyers' job satisfaction, Hirsch (1985) reported on a random probability survey of lawyers in the United States finding that overall levels of reported satisfaction were high (68 percent of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with their current job). Similar results have been found from research surveying lawyers across the country (Hirsch 1985, Tucker et al. 1989; Chambers 1989) and in particular cities or regions (Taber et al. 1988;Gellis 1991; Adams 1994; Hagan & Kay 1995; Lempert et al. 2000; Heinz et al. 2005; Boon et al. 2001). Yet the popular press, along with some academic work, continues to proclaim that law is a dissatisfying career (e.g., Tazian 2005; Pedone 2004; Ranalli 2003; "Lawyers Express Dissatisfaction with Stress Levels and Long Working Hours, Survey Shows," National Post, 6 April, p. C7; Eviatar 2000).

Sorting out this divergence-and in particular, determining who is satisfied and who is not-has become the key source of debate in this area. Faced with a generally satisfied set of lawyers in their sample, the most recent study by the Chicago bar asks if "Chicago lawyers are special" (Heinz et al. 2005:257). Most research similarly tries to parcel out satisfaction by asking whether certain groups within the bar-in particular, women and minority lawyers-are where one finds dissatisfaction within the profession. Here too, however, researchers have been stymied: women (Taber et al. 1988; Chambers 1989; Tucker et al. 1989; Gellis 1991; Hagan & Kay 1995; Dau-Schmidt & Mukhopadhaya 1999; Lempert et al. 2000:486, Table 33; Reichman & Sterling 2004; Heinz et al. 2005; Boon et al. 2001) and minority lawyers (Dau-Schmidt & Mukhopadhaya 1999; Lempert et al. 2000; Heinz et al. 2005) continue to report high rates of overall job satisfaction, even if they are less satisfied with certain aspects of their workplace or certain elements of lawyering. Since women and minority lawyers do not, in fact, enjoy the success of white male lawyers (e.g., Hagan & Kay 1995; Wilkins 1999; Chambliss 2000), this has led to a "paradox" of satisfaction (Hull 1999) that researchers continue to investigate.

Analyses of data on Chicago lawyers collected through nearly 800 personal interviews have made an important contribution to this literature (Heinz et al. 2005). Based on these data, Hull (1999) distilled two major components of job satisfaction: context satisfaction, which comprises measures that relate to lawyers' workplace, such as satisfaction with salary and opportunities for advancement; and content satisfaction, which includes the content of work, control over the amount of work, and level of responsibility. Hull found that there are in fact different predictors for different types of satisfaction-for example, money and prestige of practice area increase context satisfaction, while working in a larger organization decreases content satisfaction-calling attention to the need to incorporate more sophisticated approaches to the study of job satisfaction (Hull 1999:694; see also Heinz et al. 2005).

Research has also provided a number of additional insights into the relationship between job satisfaction and important structural features of legal practice, such as income and practice setting. The Chicago Lawyers survey found that income was a positive predictor of high satisfaction, but that lawyers practicing in large law firms were less likely to be highly satisfied than lawyers practicing elsewhere (Heinz et al. 2005). Similarly, Hagan and Kay (1995:170-2) found that lawyers who earn a higher income are more satisfied with their jobs, but that among private practitioners, there is no effect of firm size.3 Analyses of University of Michigan alumni data (Lempert et al. 2000) suggest that law graduates with jobs in government, legal services/public interest law, and education are significantly more satisfied than those working in private practice, despite their lower incomes. Other have found that even after controlling for a wide range of factors, private practice in large firm settings is the least satisfying type of practice, even though it is the most lucrative (Dau-Schmidt & Mukhopadhaya 1999:362). The consensus from these studies is fairly strong: while higher incomes lead to greater satisfaction, those working in large private firms are relatively less satisfied with their jobs.

We can draw on a number of additional findings to better contextualize this strong relationship between income, setting, and satisfaction. Sandefur and Heinz (1999) found that satisfaction with income decreases as income inequality within a field increases (1999:14), and that satisfaction with chances for advancement tends to decrease as income inequality increases (1999:15). Other features of practice settings that have been found to increase satisfaction include autonomy and decisionmaking (Hagan & Kay 1995; Heinz et al. 2005; Wallace 1995) and mentoring (Mobley et al. 1994).

While the majority of research has focused on expressions of satisfaction, a number of studies have relied on turnover and job changes as indicators of dissatisfaction-with researchers assuming that those who are unhappy change jobs, or intend to change jobs (see generally Kalleberg 1977). There is no doubt that the legal profession is characterized by high rates of job mobility, especially among new lawyers,4 and studies have found clear links between expressions of satisfaction and job mobility. A recent ABA (American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division 2000) survey reports that respondents' general job dissatisfaction and desire for greater financial rewards are the strongest reported motivations for leaving their current employer (see also NALP 2001). Kay's (1997) examination of exits from the practice of law concluded that job satisfaction is one of the keys to understanding the "causal forces and motivations that lead to job exits and lateral mobility in law" (1997:327). Furthermore, in a recent analysis of lawyers' intentions to leave their employer and the role of trust within law firms, Kay and Hagan (2003) argued that "intention to leave the firm can also be viewed as a more concrete, or even behavioral, measure of job satisfaction" (2003: 512). They found that satisfaction with both the intrinsic (e.g., intellectual challenge and enjoyment in legal work) and extrinsic (e.g., pay, workplace benefits) aspects of lawyers' work increases intentions to stay with the firm. And it is not surprising that much of the research on mobility, like the research on job satisfaction, focuses on issues of inequality, with studies finding higher rates of mobility among women (Kay 1997; Kay & Hagan 2003;5 Sommerlad & Sanderson 1998) and minorities (Heinz et al. 2005; Wilkins & Gulati 1996).