Featured Job Survey: Updated Leave and Flexible Schedules
Results are still flowing in from last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on leave and part-time arrangements. So far, we’re up to almost 700 responses, and we have received quite a few tips about maternity leave.
The running table of firms’ paid maternity leave policies that we posted yesterday has now been updated to include new information on Heller Ehrman, Nixon Peabody, Kaye Scholer, Cahill Gordon, Kirkland & Ellis, Freshfields, Kramer Levin, Thelen Reid, Goodwin Procter, and to correct information on Winston & Strawn and Mayer Brown.
Today, let’s talk about how associates view their firms’ policies, and also explore the availability of part-time, flex-time, and other alternative work/life-styles.
Overall, it looks like firms have room to improve:
Discussion continues, after the jump.
Fifty-four percent of female respondents said that a firm’s parental leave policy was an important or very important factor in their interest in working for that firm, and about a fifth of male respondents agreed. Flexible schedules may be an even more important issue, with roughly two-thirds of female respondents and a quarter of male respondents viewing a firm’s part-time or flex-time policy as an important or very important factor in their interest in working for that firm. (Roughly half of respondents reported that they would be interested in working fewer hours for reduced pay if their firms gave them a choice.)
So how much flexibility are firms offering?




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
My firm allows me to come to the office for about 12 hours a day. They are super flexible regarding which 12 hours.
how about a breakdown by firm of results?
100% of respondents enjoy the thought of taking 18 weeks off with pay.
I've heard from a good source that in the past 3 weeks a number of associates (>5) have been let go of Dewey & LeBoeuf in the corporate and litigation groups. Please investigate!
I've heard from a good source that Milbank has been firing associates left and right. This is probably a scheme to make room for the massive summer class they hired this year. Sad thing is, I bet they still no-offer 1/3 of the summer class...
How about a list of shame for firms that claim to be family or woman friendly but are not? My law school classmate worked at Paul, Hastings. They allow reduced schedules BUT prohibit reduced schedule partners AND you have to come back full time for TWO full years to even be considered. Applies even if you've put in a bunch of years full time. My law school classmate indicates this has caused a lot of top women to leave.
That just seems like bad business. I can understand not letting associates be part-time, since we're merely billing cogs in the machine, but you should only make partner if you have a book of business, and I'm not sure why you'd want to let that book of business go. I mean, sure, make the draw lower, but i don't think it's smart to cause the ladies to take their clients elsewhere
Your updated table doesn't seem to be so - Nixon Peabody is not on there as you indicated
orrick just sent a memo saying they are offering 18 weeks.
Way back when TMJB merged with Reid & Priest, the top brass sent out a memo boasting about how well the firm had done financially.
The very next day was a memo telling everyone on the east coast that their vacation/sick leave benefits were being cut back.
Pricks.