Plight of young lawyers

Debate over low compensation offered to young law graduates resurfaces routinely within early-career legal circles. Recently, while discussing differences between remuneration structures in Pakistan and the United States with a colleague, I realised that although many complaints are valid, understanding the incentives behind the system helps explain its persistence.

To begin, I readily acknowledge that new entrants face harsh realities. Fresh graduates, even exceptional ones, earn significantly less than their counterparts in other professions. Firms insist that young lawyers value experience over income and assess in-house work very differently from chamber experience.

Graduates of institutions such as UoL and LUMS often identify this early, leave the country and succeed in jurisdictions that command respect and pay accordingly. This discussion, however, concerns the majority of local graduates, often first-generation lawyers from modest institutions, who must navigate a profession still associated with the image of a "kala-coat" fraternity. For them, success is not a position at a top-tier firm or a prestigious clerkship; it is securing a corner desk in a district court chamber under a 'senior' who routinely reminds them of their replaceability.

Most graduates of Pakistan's five-year LLB programme end up in litigation, which operates very differently from transactional or advisory work. Litigation is promoted as the only legitimate path largely because the Pakistan Bar Council, responsible for regulating legal education, remains tied to an outdated adversarial mindset. Modern mechanisms such as arbitration and mediation are treated as peripheral unless pursued abroad. Meanwhile, the children of the same policymakers move comfortably into globalised practice; it is everyone else who must visibly appear in court to be considered a 'real' lawyer.

Another factor is Pakistan's litigation-fee structure. Lawyers are typically paid lump-sum fees per case, regardless of the time or number of juniors involved. Senior counsel therefore evaluates juniors by whether they can save the senior's time. Fresh graduates, unsurprisingly, usually cannot. Every rupee spent on juniors reduces the senior's own income, giving chambers strong incentives to keep staffing lean.

Why not adopt the hourly billing model used in the United States? The answer lies in Pakistan's dispute-resolution system. Complex litigation requiring teams of associates is rare because systemic delays have reduced most 'high-end' matters to battles often won on reputation rather than preparation. Our courts simply do not generate work in which junior associates become revenue producers.

This is not solely a Pakistani phenomenon. Globally, even graduates of elite institutions are rarely practice-ready upon entering the profession. I experienced this after completing my degree at Berkeley Law. Despite rigorous academic training, my initial practical value was limited. The only reason I was financially viable in my first job in San Francisco was that firms could bill my hours, an option non-existent in Pakistan.

In reality, fresh graduates become useful only after sustained investment by senior counsel. It often takes two years of active mentorship before a junior consistently produces work that justifies their salary. Compounding this investment risk, many juniors leave before firms can benefit from their development. Some pursue LLMs abroad, many women face social pressure to exit the profession, and others believe independence is the only viable path. Additionally, cultural norms make it difficult for seniors to decline favours or dismiss underperformers, resulting in firms retaining juniors who offer limited value.

Consequently, fresh graduates constitute a net loss for most Pakistani firms. It is therefore rational, though deeply unfortunate, that firms prefer experienced lawyers who can contribute immediately and whose potential can be reliably assessed.

My purpose is not to defend this system, especially its disproportionate impact on young women, but to clarify the structural incentives that sustain it. Solutions may exist and deserve separate consideration. For now, an honest understanding of these dynamics is essential.