But junior lawyers really have been blasted by the bad weather. Redundancies, training contract deferrals and every man and his dog signing up to a legal career is just some of the bad news facing them these days. In addition, A&O defined a watershed moment this week becoming the first magic circle firm committed to using an independent outsourcer.

On top of that, a number of firms are now following the likes of Pinsents and planning to take advantage of associates’ current weak bargaining power to squeeze associates some more considering abandoning associate lockstep in favour of more ‘merit based’ systems for career development purposes.

Meritocracy. Great, only the incompetent will complain about that. Sure, but like all ideals it is hard to create something that works perfectly in practice. How will firms objectively compare each individual lawyer’s performance across different practice groups at all different levels on a purely objective basis (and put a number on it)? [Individual firms have not made it clear that these new career paths will be linked to pay but we're taking a punt here based on the Pinsents model].

Using key criteria (forms + box ticking) judged by individual partners perhaps? Two basic psychological factors will ensure this is one of the least likely ways to keep things fair: ‘excessive self-regard tendency’ leading to the ‘endowment effect’. Essentially man’s automatic tendency to love his own conclusions leading him over-appraise his “possessions”. Think. Who picks associates? Who controls the quality, quantity and nature of the work associates get, especially early on? Will different partners, especially in very large firms, really make consistent appraisals across the board? Add a bit of flattery into the mix and bang goes any remaining objectivity.

Then on a practical level, assuming salaries do get linked to new career milestones, appraising partners will surely require at least some guidance on a starting point for salaries (currently ‘basic salary’) for a person at such and such a level (erm like lockstep based on PQE) which they can increase depending on merit based factors (how novel, a variable element, we think this is currently labelled a ‘discretionary bonus’). Incidentally, basic salaries normally denote basic competence to work at given firm. Merit is in play here – if you’re not competent to the basic level there’s this thing called performance-related layoffs.

Removing something as transparent and objective as basic salaries based on years qualified plus a performance bonus. Then replacing it with a more opaque system where progression and salaries disappear behind a cloak of ‘merit-based’ criteria and ‘objectively’ achieved milestones doesn’t add up (unless you are the FD maybe). So, forgive us for being cynical but, considering the timing, this looks like opportunism on the firms’ part to be more flexible with their salary obligations. We hope those firms moving to a new system prove us wrong.

Enjoy the weekend.

More Top Stories

• Lawyers’ Favorite Ways to Rip Off Clients
• The Rabbi, The Cocaine and The Prostitutes
• The Week: PwC’s annual law firm survey released
• Anonymous Assistant: Assessment
• Bellway barristers beaten by beautician
• Associates are ‘Self-Absorbed Egotists’
• Court Case of the Week: British Tossers Get Fined