There have been many stories about how the big law firms coddle associates with lush perks and big bonuses. Now there is some tough love.

Kirkland & Ellis has sent a memo to its associates informing that should there be a dispute with their employer that cannot be resolved internally, they will have to go to arbitration rather than court.

The new policy, first reported by David Lat of the AboveTheLaw.com blog, asks employees to hit the "acknowledge" tab on this email by March 3.

"It's the first I've ever heard of it," says Leslie Corwin of Greenberg Traurig in New York, who counsels many of the largest law firms on their partnership agreements. He added, "I don't think any firm wants to deal with these disputes in a public forum."

The move appears to be a response to the publicity generated by the legal battle between Aaron Charney, a young associate at Sullivan & Cromwell, who sued the firm, contending that it discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation.

The Kirkland memo says that management believes "this program will provide a more efficient means to resolve disputes that cannot otherwise be resolved internally." An employee who initiates a dispute before the American Arbitration Association will pay only the first $25 dollars of the association's fees. Should Kirkland fire first in the dispute, there's no charge at all.

The policy will apply to all at-will employees, not just its associates. And while some young lawyers may try to find a way to challenge it in court—based on the fact that the associates are giving up their right to go to court without adequate compensation—employment lawyers don't hold out much hope.

"Continued employment in most states is adequate compensation for an arbitration procedure," says Michael Casey III, a Miami partner with Epstein Becker & Green, a law firm that specializes in employment and labor issues. Casey has advised several firms to put mandatory arbitration policies into place. He says a number of large law firms have them, but he declined to name names.

There's still hope for those Kirkland associates who toil in the firm's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices. A decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a mandatory arbitration policy at O'Melveny & Myers. The Ninth Circuit has generally found "these are contracts of adhesion and are unconscionable," says Gary Friedman, an employment partner with Weil Gotshal & Manges. But Friedman says arbitration agreements are "still relative rarities" in the world of law firms.

Once an associate gets the brass ring and becomes a partner, many law firm partnership agreements provide for mandatory arbitration of disputes between the partners of the firm, who are considered owners. Forcing associates, who are at least in theory being groomed for that brass ring while they slave over document production, may send a mixed message.

"It certainly changes the tenor of the relationship between associates and their firms," says James Cotterman of Altman Weil, which provides consulting services to law firms. "And I'm not sure it's going to be for the better."

For its part, Kirkland declined comment. "We don't comment about employment matters," says Jay Lefkowitz, a New York partner on the firm's global management committee.

Lefkowitz is a litigator, and, as it happens, Kirkland won "Litigation Department of the Year" in the latest American Lawyer contest. The firm doesn't seem to care for litigation when it involves itself, however.

Also on Portfolio.com:
Bonus Matching at Law Firms
The $2 Billion BFinisharristers' Club: Two New Members?
Corporate America Revolts Against Its Lawyers