A recent survey of 1000 legal professionals published in The Lawyer magazine online stated that nearly three in every four lawyers are suffering from burnout or worried about the condition. However, there was little published analysis which means either this is unscientific with massive assumptions were being made or the more forensic data was not published, leading to the readership having to make massive assumptions about the results.
I believe this sort of investigative work is to be applauded but question the validity of publishing something so scant of detail. For example, I cannot see a causal link between someone at a top 20 firm saying that they are stressed by working 60+ hours but a pay rise would help to make them less stressed, as this piece suggests. On the other hand, it makes sense that a legal aid duty solicitor on £20k a year working 50 hours a week is concerned about achieving a living standard that makes it seem more worthwhile than a manual/semi-skilled job where they can earn more money for less effort.
This analysis would be much more meaningful if there were supporting data revealing the cross section of firm type where people were surveyed, the work types they were involved with as well as the charts compared by age range. The constant need for more online content often dumbs down the analysis and ironically means I write pieces like this.