Thanks to Michael Peppard, who sent me this article from the New York Times on a new, non-partnership track for lawyers at big firms. They make less money, but also have less responsibility, and will not be required to bill an outrageous amount of hours.I think this kind of development is all to the good. But I do have a couple of questions. First, will the kind of work these non-partnership track lawyers get at big firms will be all that satisfying? Heck, most of the work you do as a first- or second-year associate on a partnership track isn't all that satisfying. Due diligence document review (in corporate law) or discovery (in corporate litigation), or waiting around at the printers in the middle of the night for IPO books to be proofread (wait. . . I'm showing my age. . . there are no more IPOs. . . and maybe all proofreading is done via PDF now). Second, is the idea of not having "two classes" of citizens expressed in the article practical? I think of the academy, where there are definitely two classes of people, tenure-track and non-tenure track.The people I know who have made successful, happy careers as permanent associates at big firms were people with highly technical skills not easily taught to others--one was an expert in Medicare rate appeals, another was an expert in ERISA law. They didn't start out as permanent associates, they went that route after gaining their expertise as partnership-track associates and then deciding to take a detour. Will the permanent associate track work for garden variety lawyers? Will the firms invest in training them--or will they be doomed to endless document review and discovery, with slightly more responsibility than paralegals?I hope it does work out. There is a lot at stake.