My fellow blogger Steven Harper has some insightful thoughts about associate morale in The Am Law Daily. He seems troubled--though I assume not surprised--by the high dissatifaction rate among midlevel associates.

In the post, Harper makes the rather radical suggestion that partners be held accountable for associate satisfaction:

Firms that fared poorly in associate satisfaction should pretend that there's a cost associated with young attorney dissatisfaction that their short-term profit-maximizing metrics aren't capturing. Then they should look at the categories by which associates measure their satisfaction. Finally, they should develop a mechanism for evaluating partner behavior that takes those categories into account--and rewards or penalizes partners accordingly.

All perfectly good ideas. But to be perfectly frank, I doubt most firms give a damn. Maybe they'll survey their associates about the topic, hold a few meetings, then let the matter drop.

Not that I think law firm management wants people to be miserable. Any workplace that's buzzing with joyful workers is bound to be more productive. But for the average managing partner who's fretting about keeping clients happy, collecting billables, and soothing the egos of competing partners, the issue of associate morale is not going to rank high. Certainly not in this job market.

Sure, Harper is on the right track when he says that partners should be rewarded or penalized for the way they treat associates. At many firms, it's still a feudal system where partners have almost unchecked power over the associates who work for them. But will firms really "punish" a low-scoring partner? Maybe one that they're trying to get rid of. Probably not one who's making rain.

In every firm, there are really decent partners who take a genuine interest in their associates' well-being. I once worked for a gentlemanly partner who often bemoaned the insane hours (he thought they were "unhealthy") and the lack of civility of his colleagues. But he was a rarity. More to the point, he had little clout in the firm. Sure, he was respected-for his old-school ways by younger, more aggressive partners. (Well, actually, "tolerated" is a better word.)

But you think anyone listened to him?

What's the situation at your firm? Do you think the powers-that-be care about morale?

Do you have topics you'd like to discuss or tips to share? E-mail The Careerist's chief blogger, Vivia Chen, at [email protected].

 Photo: Yuri Arcurs - Fotolia.com