Submitted by merevaudevillian, Nov 5, 2007 13:46

While a number of law firm associates may express the opinion that they "work harder" than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it seems a bit simplistic on a number of levels. First, they assume that they know the average workload of a Justice. Second, they seem to believe that the margin of error for a Justice is equivalent to that of a young associate. Third, they may "work harder," but there's a different in efficiency... and meaningful output... and ultimate social impact... and so forth. It's silly that the rubric be mere hours put into a day (if an associate actually exceeds that of a Justice). In BIGLAW, however, it may bt the only rubric young associates know.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.