We only ask for decency: young lawyers
This article makes a case for fresh grads/junior lawyers’ usefulness at litigation law firms; and seeks to uncover the lack of decency in the Pakistani legal industry. It also tries to invite innovation in law firm business practices across Pakistan based on compassionate, kind, and conscientious leadership.
Speaking about his time at Yale in the 1990s in an interview with Qanoondan (2018)–Mr. Feisal Naqvi tells us about facing difficulty in securing a job at a law firm in the United States. The reason, he explains, was that the recruiters weren’t ready to take him on due to his plans of leaving the firm he applied to in 1–2 years.
Despite this challenge, Mr. Naqvi triumphed, and as luck would have it, he landed a job at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York office.
In 2023, Mr. Naqvi –now an Advocate Supreme Court leading Pakistan’s top law firm BNR, and responsible for recruitments therein –writes an op-ed on the issue of fresh graduates/junior lawyers retention at firms and why they get paid less. In the op-ed, he talks about his reluctance to recruit fresh grads due to them leaving the firm after 1–2 years. He goes a step further and calls them a net-loss, liability and a useless commodity to any law firm, particularly his.
In the face of this contradiction that I have taken the liberty to draw in Mr. Naqvi’s own statements, one wonders, if Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (FFHSJ LLP) had rejected him seeing him as a net loss and a liability –would his thoughts on fresh grads differ?
Mr. Naqvi further argues in the op-ed that he wasn’t a net loss due to the billable hours model adopted in the US market compared to the lump-sum fee structure in Pakistan, which dictates the utility of fresh grads. While this may hold true from a staunch business standpoint –it is, however, not entirely about billable hours. In fact, in my opinion, it’s more about the top-down mindset of the lawyers running the firm and the nature of the business the firm is involved in.
Before I build on this, I would like to state the following.
My opinion and comment below is based on my litigation experience from being an intern, associate to a solo practitioner and now a law firm owner in the legal industry in Karachi. It is also influenced by my role as a mentor to more than 500+ students across Pakistan through my law-student based organization Adal Aur Sehat, and my role as a lecturer/tutor in law schools. My views are anecdotal evidences based on my interaction with law students, fresh grads, law firm partners, my involvement in bar politics, social media (13K+) and in-person conversations.
I would seek to critically engage with Mr. Naqvi’s op-ed from both a policy and a business standpoint.
I begin with my argument related to policy.
The lack of institutionalized structures at litigation law firms in Pakistan in addition to the lack of regulation –creates room for the individual lawyers to dictate policies and cultivate a work culture at the firm. Based on founding/senior partners personal preferences, past professional experience with the way their seniors treated them, and their own biases (social, political, religious etc.) –they curate the vision for the firm in whatever way they like. For eg. some firms have a no-women policy (we all know one) on the other hand some firms empower women both in offices and in courts. Some firms start from an unpaid internship policy while some have paid internships based on training/mentorship that culminates into associateships. Some firms have a strict go-home timings whereas some have an arbitrary timing schedules. Some don’t bother associates once they are home while others bug them at 3:00AM in the morning. Some give lunch/petrol/travel allowances, while others don’t even offer drinking water. Some do bonuses on good performance/eids/Christmas whereas some cut-down salaries on no fault/minor inconveniences.
So if BNR and specifically Mr. Naqvi chooses to not recruit fresh grads because they are a net loss and a liability –it is NOT the fresh grads fault –it’s his own mindset that translates the policy. He chooses to enforce barbaric, self-serving rules for his firm. One questions, how could he form this policy when his own motivations as a fresh grad was to leave the firm after getting some experience? Classic double standards.
Apart from the argument regarding senior partners/lawyers cultivating law firm culture/polices –my second argument that endeavors to defy Mr. Naqvi’s claim that fresh grads are a net loss focuses on the nature of the law firm business.
Some of the firms choose to limit/confine their practice to High Court/Supreme Court but majority small and top law firms –like 90% of the firms in Pakistan, have cases fixed from/before District Courts all the way to the Supreme Court & Special Courts. In the latter model, the firm’s senior partners do not prefer to go to attend cases themselves due to many reasons (waste of time/lack of respect etc/case load). They nevertheless take on the cases because it brings attractive amount of money that increases law firms’ profitability. Or sometimes their corporate clients have a family matter that’s stuck in the district courts which the senior partner cannot refuse to take, or a close friends reference, amongst other plenty reasons.
Fresh graduates are the best resource at this point for firms to manage district court litigation. Trial advocacy poses less risk for loss to business primarily due to option of appeal meaning that if something goes wrong –the senior lawyer can take care of the matter at the High Court. With this thought, despite the lack of solid training of the fresh grad –firms understand that they have nothing to lose. In fact, losing in trial brings more profit because it gives them the opportunity to charge the client for another case ie the appeal. This, viewed from a business strategy standpoint negates Mr. Naqvi’s claim that fresh grads are a net-loss.
In addition to this, fresh grads are hungry for exposure and would give 200% to the tasks assigned, and if they have previous litigation internship exposure by the time they graduate they have enough knowledge to lead the district court case load of the firms. At this juncture, lets talk about the district court practice to further elaborate how fresh grads are not a liability but a skilled resource adding to the firms profitability.
Litigation requires competence not necessarily in terms of research, drafting and advocacy. It also requires competence in the form of responsible conduct, discipline, consistency, presence of mind, good management & administrative skills and solid team work. Litigation is not necessarily a one man’s job if it’s more than one case–it is a team effort. Each day there are 0–1 to 50 cases or more fixed in the district courts. On ground, you need to keep track of the files, documents in it, certified copies, client calls, stages in a trial, delays on the side of the judge/opposing counsel, getting applications ready on the same day and getting the prints, affidavits and submissions, seeking reports from court staff, dealing with uncalled for strikes, keeping track of the next dates and 1000 other tedious, laborious tasks that require NOT legal skills but the skills I mention above. A munshi/court clerk can help you to an extent –but the supervision also consumes, in fact, drains your mental, emotional and physical health.
Fresh grads are ripe for this experience compared to most Advocates with PQE +2 because the latter is looking for clients at this point –not exposure per se. In the same vein, even High Court practice requires fresh grads assistance when the trial court case goes to appeal/revision –they are the ones who help prepare the documentation/arguments/research because they are well-equipped with the facts of the case since they attended the case in the lower court. This again makes a case for fresh grads adding to profitability of law firms.
Additionally, if the matter before the High Courts is any constitutional petition or any other small or high level/complex litigation, a lot of it is reading and synthesizing information, preparing summaries, briefs because senior partners do not always have time to go through the documentation themselves. This again does not require legal experience –it just requires reading/writing skills. This sort of litigation also requires help with assembling files, preparing case notes, coordinating with court clerks, and many times assisting in hearings because it is the junior who knows which page number is flagged for the impugned order, relevant annexure etc. And trust me, this also does not require legal experience –just requires a sense of responsibility. Is it not ‘good value’ for Mr. Naqvi and the likes? Giving fresh grads exposure of the sort I describe above is a win-win for both the law firm and the associate.
Mr. Naqvi mentions that training is a waste of time. Perhaps he should then change his recruitment criteria by making assessments on the basis of skills rather than choosing friends/family. The latter of course would be a liability and a waste of time. He should find a way to automate/innovate systems that save his time and energy. One way I have adopted innovation is by using recorded lectures to teach legal research methods/drafting. When a new intern or an associate joins my firm –they are asked to see the recording, learn and ask me well-informed questions later. This saves my time, and energy while simultaneously ensuring that the quality of work is maintained throughout. I also rely on my seasoned associates to supervise/teach the new associate/fresh grad. This helps the firm polish new talent through an already taught existent resource and also helps me evaluate the supervising associate’s capability to manage. The latter helps me in making the decision for future partnerships prospects, if any.
Often times, associates are needed on an urgent basis due to some unforeseen litigation propping up at the last-minute. Much of the task during these times is to remain on top of everything which includes fact-checking, making chronological summaries and more. At that point, the law firm’s business needs are mostly to look for a responsible individual with skills of management/writing/reading and not a SC lawyer. How it this net-loss, again? Just like in any profession, there are always few bad apples but does that discount the majority of good apples as a liability?
Instead of seeing fresh grads as a net-loss, liability and over all a useless commodity –Mr. Naqvi can perhaps work towards taking ownership of the issue and propose solutions.
Speaking of maximizing profits –what I have also learnt being a lawyer managing not only litigation but also the business side of the law firm that its all about your relationship/psyche with money and your ethical, moral values. Law firms DO have the money, and they CAN choose to give a portion of the profits to the associates, if they minus their own greed. You know how? By enforcing conscious, compassionate and fair leadership. When you do this, you are turning fresh grads into exceptional advocates who go on to save the legal industry’s drowning quality of advocacy AND make money for themselves & the firm. The kind of lawyers that uphold the Constitution and bring this country out of the shackles of the establishment. Money is necessary but so is your role to the bar, bench and the society. But who cares about that, right? All we care about is keeping the ‘lump-sum’ to ourselves and complain about having no money to give to associates because they are not ‘good-value’.
Some other factors that determine the utility of fresh grads to maximize profitability are as follows.
· Fresh grads bring value in the form of positioning the law firm. This again goes beyond billable hours. It is about the manner in which they are representing the firm in their own network. Their background adds to the firm profile that is sent to pitch to corporate clients –and most of the corporate clients are all about foreign degrees and LLMs/Bar-at-Law.
· Some associates are also helpful in business development through social media by writing legal articles/blog posts among others. I remember I used to help with website of the law firm I worked at, helped with making posters for firm events, developed excel sheets for cases, even packed suitcase of the senior partner to ensure all the files are placed correctly for his SC case hearing. I basically was useful in anything that helped in the functioning of the firm. I applied all these teachings to build my own law firm later.
Speaking on behalf of fresh grads/associates –I believe, its not about the money when we say that senior lawyers exploit young lawyers. What we mean is that the absence of an overall decent workplace culture destroys the motivation of fresh grads to stay at the firm or in the profession for that matter. The change begins with us and decent work culture must become the norm. I write below the few things I have adopted as a young lawyer myself in my law firm to put a stop to the toxic cycle of legal practice:
· By decent, we mean –defined working hours. I know litigation firms are inherently aberrant when it comes to that but then don’t make it a continuous practice to take cases at 11th hour, unless absolutely necessary, at the cost of your and everyone’s mental peace. Law firms can choose to adopt a virtual model and pandemic has taught us that it is possible
· We also mean sensitive/empathetic leadership. Associates don’t have it easy and they should be given some leeway to make mistakes. Partners must understand that mistakes are bound to happen so they should take it upon themselves to check in with associates, and try to keep an active mentorship role at the office. I always ensure that if my firm has 5–10 cases fixed on some day –then the team gets adequate rest/day offs the next day. It should be normalized that walking from 4th floor to the ground floor with 10 files is NOT easy. So if you cannot reduce their work load –then neutralize by either paying them more or simply give them some form of comfort/perks such as day offs. Don’t go around and say ‘hamarey zamane mein aisa hota tha..’. If something has been there for many years now –does not mean it is good.
· Maintain good performance bonuses when they bring you great case laws consistently and please provide them feedback –good or bad!
· Do a mental health check in with them because contrary to what Mr. Naqvi believes –associates have a life outside of their work which gets highly influenced by our intense 7-day lawyering. I have suffered mental breakdowns at law firms so I know what it feels to be exposed to toxicity
FFHSJ LLP recruited Mr. Naqvi as a legal associate despite his plans to leave. There may be something more advantageous that Mr. Naqvi must be offering in terms of his dedication, commitment and intellectual wisdom that suited FFHSJ LLP business needs and policy framework to say yes to placing him at their firm. They saw through a holistic lens –which is what the law firms in Pakistan and Mr. Naqvi should aspire to accomplish when it comes to recruitment of fresh grads.
I end my arguments here.
I have deliberately left out my comments on gender, role of bar councils & bar associations, and judiciary in my critique above and I reserve them for my upcoming writing ventures.
— —
Below is my comment around the lack of awareness on the part of Mr. Feisal Naqvi about his privilege in the legal industry as reflected in his op-ed. The reader can choose to read it as a separate comment on Mr. Naqvi’s op-ed or may consider it a continuation of my critique.
Blinded by privilege
Let’s revisit Mr. Naqvi’s Qanoondaan interview. He mentions that he joined Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan and Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan sahb’s chamber and assisted them in cases before the High Courts & Supreme Courts. As per his admission in the interview, Mr. Naqvi has NO exposure to district judiciary due to his privilege of having the opportunity to work on big cases from the get-go which has helped him establish a face-value and build a network to sustain when he started his independent practice. He forms 1% of the entire legal industry which is not the reality for the 5000+ young graduates who don’t get the opportunity to work in big chambers and have to resort to smaller chambers focused on primarily district court practice.
Mr. Naqvi’s exposure was never towards kacherhris/district judiciary hence his mindset seems stuck on the elitist legal practice that most top foreign grads are exposed to by virtue of being attached to country’s top legal minds –which in itself is a HUGE privilege to begin with. A privilege that Mr. Naqvi conveniently forgets to acknowledge just like his Yale & WallStreet background that may have played a role in landing the associateships in the first place.
Foreign degrees open another pandora’s box on discrimination for fresh grads with most law firms being readily accessible to Yale, Harvard, Berkeley grads. These Ivy Leagues universities also provide access to network of elites that lawyers utilize to lure foreign clientele/projects or opportunities. Even for local clientele, stamps like Barrister/Ivy League put the advocates like Mr. Naqvi above and at par with the 1000s of advocates who could barely pay the fees for their enrolment/license forms.
What I am saying is that being privileged is never a bad thing and no one is punishing you for it. What is bad is the lack of sensitivity or outright blindness around the same privilege.
Mr. Naqvi also mentions in the op-ed that junior lawyers leave firms to establish their independent practice. As they say, action speak louder than words –he, as stated by him in the interview, left Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan’s chamber after 1.5 years to start his independent practice. I ask, why Mr. Naqvi has inhibitions now around fresh grads doing the same for better prospects? In my opinion, since the market is so saturated –you can always find another equivalent for the associate who just left. The recruitment process is inconvenient but not painful enough to call fresh grads move to go independent as ‘problematic’. Moreover, not everyone can build an independent practice or a law firm for that matter because one needs clients. I reckon, Mr. Naqvi’s Yale/Wallstreet background, his own family network, coupled with Mr. Bhandari’s father’s exposure to the alleys of the Supreme Court/High Courts. All this brings fortune in terms of building a law firm of international stature.
May I also highlight the sheer lack of sensitivity and sense of responsibility on the part of Mr. Naqvi. His op-ed’s tone is demeaning and reeks of classist/elitist jargon. He lacks empathy and proposes NO solutions to the entire issue. Instead he makes sure to gaslight the plight of young lawyers by repetitive use of inhumane, insulting and humiliating phrases that only serve the purpose of accusing fresh grads of choosing to do law or perhaps having a life.
