????杜威路博國際律師事務(wù)所（Dewey & LeBoeuf）是紐約市的一家頂級(jí)律所，而如今它卻陷入困境，搖搖欲墜，聞名業(yè)內(nèi)的高薪或許也將不保。以前，人們提到律所通常會(huì)想到體面和身份，而如今好像變成了不惜冒險(xiǎn)的初創(chuàng)行業(yè)？或許，我們可以從杜威路博的衰落史中一探究竟。

????斯坦福大學(xué)法學(xué)院（Stanford Law School）教授羅伯特?戈登目前正在編寫一本關(guān)于美國法律界的書。他說：“杜威路博或許只是個(gè)極端個(gè)案。但也可能代表了一種趨勢(shì)。律所的擴(kuò)張程度遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過其他行業(yè)。許多律所承諾了他們無法負(fù)擔(dān)的薪酬，并為此不惜大筆借貸。”

????當(dāng)然，并非所有法人律所都在走下坡路，但受到技術(shù)融合、員工過剩等公司結(jié)構(gòu)因素的影響，律所的日子并不好過；而且，作為律所客戶的各大企業(yè)都在致力于大幅削減法律方面的開支。

????隨著杜威路博的出局以及律所合伙人天價(jià)薪酬一點(diǎn)一點(diǎn)地曝光，律所行業(yè)躁動(dòng)不安的文化也公之于眾。為了爭奪有利可圖的企業(yè)客戶，律所之間展開了瘋狂的競爭，并利用吸引眼球的薪酬承諾亂挖墻腳，使用各種伎倆從對(duì)手那里吸引明星合伙人。而這種行為卻徹底改變了合伙關(guān)系的傳統(tǒng)發(fā)展軌跡。以前，只有經(jīng)過數(shù)年內(nèi)部培訓(xùn)、具有豐富經(jīng)驗(yàn)的律師才有資格成為律所合伙人。

????華盛頓大學(xué)法學(xué)院(Washington University Law School )法律專業(yè)教授布萊恩?塔馬納哈稱：“律所合伙關(guān)系是凝聚忠誠度的品牌，但隨著合伙人開始待價(jià)而沽，一切都隨之而改變了。我們還在維持著律師職業(yè)門面。但當(dāng)律師將自己與高薪的CEO或其他有錢的美國人進(jìn)行比較時(shí)，其實(shí)是在自吹自擂。”

????斯坦福大學(xué)的戈登稱，早在上世紀(jì)八十年代：“成為律所合伙人能讓一位律師享有極高的聲譽(yù)，但不會(huì)讓他一夜暴富。”而隨著上世紀(jì)七十年代對(duì)法律服務(wù)的需求日益增多，律所開始丟棄“高于市場道德觀的服務(wù)與職業(yè)”這件浪漫主義的外衣。

????美國全國法律就業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)（National Association for Law Placement，NALP，跟蹤法律行業(yè)就業(yè)情況）執(zhí)行董事吉姆?萊波爾特補(bǔ)充說：“上世紀(jì)八十年代中期，大批年輕律師進(jìn)入律所，之后律所合伙人的薪酬便一直在穩(wěn)步上漲。”為了能夠與更具吸引力的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)競爭，十年后，律所大幅提高薪酬，從頂級(jí)法學(xué)院搶奪人才。

????互聯(lián)網(wǎng)泡沫的破滅減緩了競爭的步伐，但和法律相關(guān)的業(yè)務(wù)仍大量存在，于是在2006年和2007年，律所新人的薪酬又經(jīng)歷了一次上漲。從1997年至2007年，在最頂尖的律所，也就是所謂“大律所”，首年入職員工的薪酬翻了一番，從80,000美元上漲到160,000美元。雖然這些公司至多聘用了20%的法學(xué)院畢業(yè)生，但這些身在大城市的律所卻為整個(gè)行業(yè)定下了薪酬基調(diào)。

????勞動(dòng)力管理公司TyMetrix近期對(duì)美國4,000家律所進(jìn)行了調(diào)查。調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，在律所金字塔的最高層，合伙人的薪酬已經(jīng)達(dá)到了頂尖公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的水平，每小時(shí)收費(fèi)高達(dá)900美元。

????As top-drawer New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf teeters on the edge, likely to fall from high-paid grace, its closely chronicled decline is providing a look into how the once genteel, clubby world of law firms has morphed into a risk-taking, entrepreneurial industry.

????"Dewey may be an extreme example," says Robert Gordon, a Stanford Law School professor who is writing a book on the country's legal profession. "But it may also be an example of something that is happening a lot. Law firms have expanded at a greater rate than other businesses. Some have loaded on debt and made promises of compensation that they can't keep."

????Most corporate law firms aren't on the skids, but they are being roughed up by the confluence of technology, employee-heavy structures, and corporate cost-cutters determined to lop off a sizeable chunk of their legal costs.

????But airing it all in public, through the drip-drip-drip revelations about Dewey's departures and sky-high partner compensation, has laid bare a hustling legal culture. Firms are competing feverishly for lucrative corporate business, working against their counterparts by poaching profit-making partners through the cunning use of eye-popping salary guarantees. This behavior has essentially dismantled the traditional track to partnership, a seat that was usually won after years of in-house training and experience.

????"Legal partnerships were brands that drew loyalty, but that changed when partners began to sell themselves to the highest bidder," says Brian Tamanaha, a law professor at Washington University Law School in St. Louis. "We still maintain the facade of being a profession. But when lawyers measure themselves against the highest-paid CEOs or the richest Americans, it's a pretense."

????As recently as the early 1980s, "being a law firm partner was prestigious, but it was not a way to get rich," recalls Stanford's Gordon. Law firms began to shed their romantic cloak of "service and craft above the mores of the marketplace" as demand for legal services accelerated in the 1970s, he adds.

????Law firm associate salaries "began to climb steadily starting in the mid-1980s as armies of young lawyers were being recruited," adds Jim Leipold, executive director of the National Association for Law Placement, or NALP, which tracks legal industry employment. To compete with glamorous Internet startup recruitment efforts, law firms noticeably hiked salaries a decade later to nab stars from the most elite law schools.

????The dot.com bubble burst slowed the competitive race, but legal work was still plentiful, giving firm beginners' salaries another boost in 2006 and 2007. Between 1997 and 2007, first-year salaries doubled from $80,000 to $160,000 at the toniest law firms, often referred to as Big Law. While such law firms employ, at best, only 20% of law school graduates, the big-city firms set the tone for the rest of the industry.

????At the top of the law firm pyramid, partner salaries are reaching the levels of top corporate chieftains, with hourly rates reaching as high as nearly $900 per hour, according to a new survey by TyMetrix, Inc., a workforce management company that surveyed 4,000 law firms nationwide.