A new organization of students from the nation's law schools are asking large firms to change the conditions under which new associates work. Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession, which consists of about 125 students from around the country, recently sent out an email articulating its Principles. That message went to representatives at firms in the AmLaw 100, a ranking of the nation's largest law firms based on gross revenue. An excerpt...

We are all familiar with the escalation of associate salaries and billable hours, as well as
the problems it causes. We intend to bring this escalation to a close. We will use the Principles
for a Renewed Legal Profession, enclosed, to determine our employment decisions as we enter
the legal profession. We recognize that changes in work structures come with an economic cost:
we are willing to be paid less in exchange for a better working life. Our Principles revolve
around these core themes:

• Making concrete steps towards a transactional billing system
• Reducing maximum billable hour expectations for partnership
• Implementing balanced hours policies that work
• Making work expectations clear

I'm curious to see if this effort has any substantial impact. After all, there are already plenty of jobs available for attorneys who want to work fewer hours and make less money. Those jobs just don't happen to exist at the nation's largest law firms. Is there any real economic incentive for these firms to comply with the groups principles? I suspect that the high demand for these prestigious if backbreaking jobs will ensure that few firms take the group's letter seriously. Until ALL top graduates refuse to take these jobs, conditions won't improve.

[WSJ.com Law Blog] You Say You Want a Big-Law Revolution (via Law School Innovation)