In the autumn of last year I was contacted by the mother of an associate at one of the “magic circle” firms. It was a difficult conversation. The mother was desperately worried by the mental and physical state of her daughter, an Oxbridge graduate, who was working remorseless hours throughout the week and seemed never to have a proper weekend off. The impact was visible in the extra weight she had gained owing to her unhealthy lifestyle of easy-to-cook junk food and no exercise. Much more serious, though, was the young lawyer’s stressed mental state. A nervous breakdown — or something worse — was beckoning. Or so it seemed. What could she do to help her daughter, beseeched the woman.

This was not the first time I had been approached by a worried parent. Not so long ago, the wife of a headmaster poured out her woes about her son, again a brilliant Oxbridge graduate, again at a “magic circle” firm. The young man had married fairly recently but his long hours in the office were already having an adverse impact on his relationship with his wife.

Against a background of the widely reported tragic death last week of Matthew Courtney, a Freshfields associate, there is renewed debate about the long-hours culture and relentless pressure that young associates endure. While it is vital to emphasise that we know little about the circumstances of Mr Courtney’s death — and Freshfields firmly dismisses any suggestion that junior lawyers are expected to work “16 hours a day, 7 days a week” — the speed with which so many commentators have assumed that it must be linked to his job highlights the malaise that is believed to haunt the workstations of so many glamorous and successful law firms.

Even partners are not immune. A l friend, a former partner with the “magic circle”, quit in his late forties, embittered by the way he felt that the past 20-odd years had been stolen by the firm. Sure, he had earned lots of money. But that could not buy back the lost time.

When one raises these issues with senior and managing partners the response is usually one of genuine concern and puzzlement. They do not dismiss it — yet often, one suspects, they “just don’t get it”. The men — it still is predominantly men — who reach the top of these firms are survivors. They are the ones who have walked through fire, been tested relentlessly, lived lives out of hotel rooms and airline waiting rooms. And they have coped magnificently. In their late forties and early fifties they are bouncy, enthusiastic and full of zest. In the battle for survival they have proved themselves the fittest. And as the leaders of the firm they set the pace and the tone. Although most have latched on to the importance of work-life balance and the costs of career burnout their prime focus remains on the growth of the firm and the profits per equity partner.

And, as we know, those profits are enormous. They are the lure that attracts the most able graduates to these firms and they are the reason why the associates subject themselves to this gruelling regime. It’s not surprising then that associates anguish about blotting their copybook and imperilling their partnership prospects. And as “insecure high-achievers” they inject their own enhanced anxiety levels about success into what is already a stressful situation.

Fortunately, in very few cases does the story end in death. But a significant minority are seriously unhappy. As the mother of the young female associate commented: “She left university with such high hopes, delighted to have a traineeship with such a prestigious firm — and now she just wonders what happened to it all.”

The explanation is that a vicious circle has been created. The best quality work is undertaken at the top firms. To do it you must buy into the whole package. Managing partners want to ensure that they have enough associates to complete the work but don’t want them sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do. There is little slack in the system so when a torrent of work pours in the strain is taken by the associates. As Bill Cohen, a remuneration specialist at Deloitte and an expert on law firms’ pay systems, points out: “Although senior partners may talk about the need for a flexible approach I’m not sure the messages gets down to line partners, the people who are actually in charge of getting the work done.”

It’s hard to see how things will get better. The growing use of bonus payment might even make them worse. And the interesting point to emerge from websites such as Roll On Friday, where young lawyers air their views, is that there is considerable resentment that law firms are being put in the dock for working their associates so hard. In truth, most young lawyers in top firms are tough, go-getting types who dislike how hard they work but get on with it and cope. But for the small minority who can’t, well, it’s hell.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure