Its not a problem if you have a wife to stay home and take care of the kids.

I'm sure 10 minutes a day is a perfectly healthy amount of time to see your child. Keep it up, Mom of the Year!

I'm really curious what female associates think about when is a good time to have a kid. The poster seems to imply earlier. I'm 30 and a second year at a Vault 100 firm. Any suggestions? I'm not itching to have a kid, but I don't want to wake up and realize I should've done it sooner.

11:01 - you're a jerk. Way to rub salt in someone's wounds.

I bet you wouldn't have made that comment if that was a dad with a stay-at-home wife writing, since that's probably how everyone should live in your little world.

who are women associates trying to kid - only slight pun intended - having a child affects their career and it affects any other associate who works on their team! Mom now has to run out when kid gets sick at daycare or to take them to appointments or any other of the million things that moms do (and yeah dad's can do it to but lets be real - its normally the moms who do it).

and what does all that leaving early/coming in late/missed days mean - that everyone else has to cover for the Mom-associate. If you want to have kids - dont work in biglaw!! (not to mention how screwed up your kids will be - wealthy/ignored children = massive issues)

I'm a women and have zero plans on having kids - i wish there was a way to make that clear to employers -maybe I'll add it to my resume?!

If you are worried about losing prestige or your career or whatever over having kids, please don't have any. There are enough deadbeat parents out there, we don't need yours.

11:26 - if you're NOT worried about how having a family might impact your ability to provide for that family, then don't have children because you're clearly not responsible enough to make adult decisions and plan out life decisions in advance.

Not sure if 11:02 will actually be able to handle her own work alone...I guess that's why she's a "women." Maybe women shouldn't be lawyers at all...

Women who have children need to make a decision--do they love their career or their children more. I see way too many women attorneys at my Biglaw firm outsource their child-rasing duties. Many of today's problems are a direct result of outsourcing parental duties to people who don't give a darn about the kids they take care of.

Outsourcing parental duties is a huge problem, and many of today's ills are a direct result of this willingness to love the career more than the family. Parents who do this should feel ashamed and guilty. I don't direct this toward women--I direct it toward parents. I am a man with 3 kids. If my wife wanted to take my job, I would stay home with the kids without a second thought.

Resolve your conflict parents and parents to be. Either you're putting your career first or your children and family first. Frankly, the choice for me is easy: my kids and family come first. That means I'll keep doing my job so long as my V10 firm considers my work and effort sufficient to keep paying me. I have no intention of putting my career or my firm ahead of my family. So either the firm bends or I depart sooner. Either way, that's called life. No reason to bitch about it either way. The problem in my opinion is that everyone expects to have two first priorities which is unrealistic (actually it's impossible). So until people recognize that they everyone involved has choices and interests: for parents, hire nannies and see your kid whenever work allows or cut back your hours as the demands of parenting require, and for the firm, reduce your expectations, create reduced hour options or fire associates who don't put the firm first. Frankly, I've made my decision, now it's up to my firm to decide whether they want to retain me or replace me with a hungrier single person. Either way I'm not worried, there are plenty of options to work 45 hours or less, make enough money to be comfortable and spend time with my family.

"As for the real question -- whether you can participate meaningfully in a child's life while working in Biglaw -- my hope is that the answer is yes." Actually, its a big fat NO. Get used to it. Even for dads, if you want to be meaningfully involved in your kids life, BigLaw is not for you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but somebody has to tell you.

11:22 - A very sincere "thank you" for your decision not to reproduce. Here's to convincing more of your ilk to follow suit!

11:32 moving up the big law ladder is not necessary to provide for a family. My point is to make an adult decision to sacrifice (if needed) a bit of your career for your kids. If your career is so important to you that you can't give up a bit of it for you kids, you'll be a horrible parent. Making partner or getting a bigger bonus or whatever is no compensation for screwing up your kids.

You also talk about how important it is to provide for your kids. With even a part time big law salary or a non big law salary you can more than financially provide for your kids. You may have give up the nicer house, or bigger vacations, and such. What is needed in this world are more parents (moms and especially dads) who provide for their kids by giving them their time and attention.

Agree wholeheartedly with 11.37 - that is my strategy too. I spent three years giving my career my "all" now it is time for my family to take the no. 1 spot and for work to decide if that is ok for them or not. I do think that it is worth putting in the hours/effort for at least a few years as a "training ground" for less intense career outside a law firm so that you can spend more time with your kids. I also think that this is easier while kids are younger. My eldest just turned 4 and now is the time to be there for him. I do not think that an infant really cares or knows who gives him his bottle or is pushing the stroller.

Agree wholeheartedly with 11.37 - that is my strategy too. I spent three years giving my career my "all" now it is time for my family to take the no. 1 spot and for work to decide if that is ok for them or not. I do think that it is worth putting in the hours/effort for at least a few years as a "training ground" for less intense career outside a law firm so that you can spend more time with your kids. I also think that this is easier while kids are younger. My eldest just turned 4 and now is the time to be there for him. I do not think that an infant really cares or knows who gives him his bottle or is pushing the stroller.

If you want to *afford* children, you can't have one parent working 40-50 hours a week and the other not working at all. Unless you plan on eating canned food and home schooling in the wildeness that's not going to work. Having one parent working biglaw while the others stays home is hardly the tragic end to child development and mental health that some bitter empty nesters wish it was.

11:52 - are you kidding me - an infant doent know or care who is there giving him a bottle or pushing the stroller!?! birth to 3 is the most important developmental period in a childs life - and you were too busy at work to be a part of it...instead of bonding with you he/she bonded with a nanny or some other daycare worker...

tell yourself whatever you need to to make yourself feel better about your callous decision but your child is the one who will suffer...

Based on my experience, if you are interested in having a family and working at Biglaw, you've got to determine if you can handle the consequences/compensation/risk of termination based on your place in the following hierarchy:
1) Married attorneys with non-working spouses (preferably of the trophy variety so they (both of ‘em) look good in the society columns) and no children (no soccer games, no calls to bail them out of jail, etc.)
2) Married attorneys whose spouses don’t work and whose kids are at college or boarding school (see above)
3) Married attorneys with non-working spouses, kids and round-the-clock childcare
4) Single male attorneys with hot girlfriends (see 1, above)
5) Single female attorneys with no social lives whatsoever
6) Single male attorneys with no social lives whatsoever
7) Single female attorneys with a social life
8) Married attorneys with working spouses having non-demanding or part-time jobs and no kids
9) Married attorneys with working spouses with more demanding jobs but no kids
10) Married attorneys with spouses with non-demanding jobs and kids, and who can’t afford round-the clock daycare
11) Married attorneys with spouses with more demanding jobs and kids and who can’t afford round-the-clock daycare
12) Single parents with nannies
13) Single parents who can’t afford nannies

I’m sure I’ve left out some of the categories, but you get the picture. When I was working for Biglaw, my husband was running his own business and was traveling all the time. His income was negligible at that time, so I was the major breadwinner. We could only afford to share a sitter with another lawyer; the sitter, who worked in the other couple's home, couldn’t stay past 6 p.m. I had no family in the area. We had a fax and a computer at home, where I could have done any work that would have otherwise required "face time," but this was not acceptable at the firm at which I was employed (this was in the early 90's, but it probably still applies). I fit into category 11, above -- and I was terminated 3 months after returning from maternity leave.

11:22 -- I'm sure your decision not to reproduce has something to to with the fact that no man will touch you with a 10-foot pole.

I really wasn't a "part" of my firm until I became a dad - only then did the partners start to take me seriously. It is what separates me from the "kid" associates who stay out all night drinking. I also think that - come raise/bonus time - needing to support a family and save for college will help me.

I guess there is a double standard for men and women in this respect - women who pump out babies see their careers negatively impacted, but men (at least me) can have a positive impact.

Sadly for that new mother, the answer is definitely a big fat NO as to whether she will be able to participate meaningfully in her child's life if she stays at her V5 firm. I worked at a V5 firm myself before seeing the light, and the decision to leave was made so much easier when I looked at the partners and said "whose life seems appealing?" -- the answer was "no one." Honestly, I didn't see a single partner who was able to spend a meaningful amount of time with his/her family. Now, that's fine if the partner is a career-obsessed workaholic and doesn't care, as many are, but the fate of the kids is another story. I heard so many horror stories about messed up kids of partners (often told to me by the partners themselves, oddly enough), and I did and still do wonder why people bother to have kids if they know beforehand that the job they have chosen (and intend to keep) will prevent them from spending time with the kids. And seriously, how many people really like their biglaw jobs, even at V5 firms? Not too many, as far as I could tell. Mostly, they like the prestige and, of course, the money. Escape now, before you lose your soul!!

>

This must be the best piece of advice I've ever read on ATL. I remain humoured by people who go to law firms looking for work - life balance or women who look to their peers in the law for advice on when to pop out a kid.

Then we wonder why we are jumping out of windows and shooting at police officers from our tony homes in the burbs.

Does anyone think it is more possible to have both - the kids and the big law partner-track job - in certain practice groups? It would seem that tax law or trusts and estates, for example, are less time-intensive than M&A.

The most important thing to realize here is that, assuming you don't work for total assholes, many firms have ample flexibility and appropriate policies in place to allow parents to participate in their children's lives. What most women don't have is men who shoulder an equal responsibility for the childcare responsibilities. Until women have close-to-equal partners at home, firms will never be able to do enough to make it possible to have it all.

"Women who have children need to make a decision" - it should be "Parents who have children need to make a decision". Female lawyers/mothers would never achieve equality until male lawyers/fathers feel comfortable enough to take their parental responsibility as seriously as they take their career.

12:10, I think it used to be easier in some practice groups, but it seems that it is getting harder and harder to make partner if you want to have a life no matter what your practice specialty is. I am an ERISA attorney and have noticed that there are a lot more Of Counsels and part-time attorneys in my practice area, versus people getting kicked out when they don't/aren't going to make partner. However, there are very few people making partner who have what I would consider to be an attractive schedule or one that would permit a meaningful home life.

12:07

thanks for the immature response - you must be one of those dumb ex-frat boy attorneys who like to to show off how cool they are by making pathetic mindless comments...

i dont want kids because I know how much time they take, how much they cost and how unselfish you must be to raise them. I like to work hard and reward myself by traveling - two things that dont mesh with having kids

Unless and until law firms believe that women make essential contributions as attorneys that cannot be replaced (e.g., there is more value in an above-average woman who is a mother than an average man who is a father), women are going to be pushed out to care for their kids and men are going to be expected to put their jobs first.

Sucks for both parents, I think; unfortunately no one has the balls to do anything about it (except leave--which puts the law firm in the position of losing valuable talent).

12:21, kids are amazingly easy to travel with, especially when they're young. Just an FYI in case you want to consider your position on procreation.

You are not going to be able to meaningfully participate in your child's life and bill 2000+ hours a year.

You are not going to be able to meaningfully participate in your child's life and bill 2000+ hours a year.

"but it is not entirely up to me"

Tell that to your child in 18 years.

"The most important thing to realize here is that, assuming you don't work for total assholes, many firms have ample flexibility and appropriate policies in place to allow parents to participate in their children's lives."

Very true. I think too many people either assume you can't do both or don't make the effort. The key is setting your boundaries and sticking to them.

"You are not going to be able to meaningfully participate in your child's life and bill 2000+ hours a year."

(1) The idea that billing 2000 hours per year is some monumental task is ridiculous. The only two reasons not to make 2000 are inefficiency or lack of work.

(2) Once you have children, you may be suprised at how much your efficiency increases. In an 8 to 6 workday (which is what several parents here roughly work), it's not difficult to bill 8+ hours every day.

"I do not think that an infant really cares or knows who gives him his bottle or is pushing the stroller."

As someone already noted, the first several months are the most important. That's common knowledge.

It all depends on the firm and your strategy.

As a single mom graduating from a T10 law school, I was able to chose a specialty area that had relatively predictable hours. I also turned down NY and DC Biglaw offers (and the $$) in favor of starting out at a small suburban firm that had lower billable hour requirements, more flexible schedules and a nationally recognized expert in my chosen field, who became my supervising partner.

When my child got older and more independent, I moved over to Biglaw (T50) as a mid-/senior-level associate. The switch was surprisingly easy since the attorneys in the work group already knew me from my work with my supervising partner. And believe it or not, but the broader-based work experience I gained at the small firm gave me an edge over my big firm collegues who were completely clueless about anything outside their specific area. Yeah, the workload is heavier, but by managing both my time and client/firm expectations, it was possible.

I'm now a partner with an apparently well-adjusted child.

It all depends on the firm and your strategy.

As a single mom graduating from a T10 law school, I was able to chose a specialty area that had relatively predictable hours. I also turned down NY and DC Biglaw offers (and the $$) in favor of starting out at a small suburban firm that had lower billable hour requirements, more flexible schedules and a nationally recognized expert in my chosen field, who became my supervising partner.

When my child got older and more independent, I moved over to Biglaw (T50) as a mid-/senior-level associate. The switch was surprisingly easy since the attorneys in the work group already knew me from my work with my supervising partner. And believe it or not, but the broader-based work experience I gained at the small firm gave me an edge over my big firm collegues who were completely clueless about anything outside their specific area. Yeah, the workload is heavier, but by managing both my time and client/firm expectations, it was possible.

I'm now a partner with an apparently well-adjusted child.

12:04 - What you're describing isn't all bad. I proudly attribute at least part of my mediocre Spanish-speaking ability to the Mexican-American nanny I had as a child. Muchas gracias mama y papa!

It largely depends on the firm and practice area. I am a regulatory attorney for a 900 plus attorney firm with a strong flexible work policy endorsed and enforced by upper management. I made equity partner on a 80% schedule and I'm expecting my second child this year. My family does not come before work or career but as with any job, flexibility, balancing, and the occasional sacrifice is required. More firms need to be supportive of women associates who choose to start families so they can continue on a sustainable career path with a realistic chance of making partner (and not just income partner). This is too important for the big firms to ignore.

It largely depends on the firm and practice area. I am a regulatory attorney for a 900 plus attorney firm with a strong flexible work policy endorsed and enforced by upper management. I made equity partner on a 80% schedule and I'm expecting my second child this year. My family does not come before work or career but as with any job, flexibility, balancing, and the occasional sacrifice is required. More firms need to be supportive of women associates who choose to start families so they can continue on a sustainable career path with a realistic chance of making partner (and not just income partner). This is too important for the big firms to ignore.

12:46 - what practice area are you in?

This survey was flawed for a lot of reasons, as many pointed out that the recipients do not already have kids. What good is information about what associates think they might do or what they would "feel comfortable" doing? Why don't you ask lawyers who have kids what they actually do?

I am a career prosecutor with a husband who is a litigation partner in biglaw. We have 2 kids and we both see the kids during the week, though I more than my husband. Part of the reason that I never made the jump to the private sector (having ample opportunities) is because we decided as a couple that 2 biglaw litigators could not be meaningfully involved in our kids' lives. My husband does a lot to make sure he is there for the kids but he has zero control over trials that take him across the country and last for months. We may reassess when the kids near college aged but for now, while they are both under 7 yrs old, I will stay in my low paying, but interesting, mom friendly position.

1:22, you deserve a medal for the huge sacrifice you are making for your kids. I mean, they should build you a statute or something. I can't believe you don't have your own holiday, or your face on a coin or something. I mean, wow.

1:22, not only should they build you a statute, they should build you a statue as well!

For men as well as women, "career," especially the kind where you trade all your free time and energy for money, isn't everything. Even the classic 1950s husband was working 40 hours a week. There's something else going on called "life." And we only get one. Maybe if more attorneys kept that in mind, they wouldn't all be so miserable. Of course, they might also not make as much MONEY. MONEY!!! WOO HOO!!!

1:22 here. Why the sarcasm? I'm just posting our family's solution to working with kids. Not trying to proclaim myself a hero, just contributing.

1:35, this isn't the 1950s. Try supporting a family on one 40-hour-a-week job. A family of four with one parent working biglaw and another either at home full-time or working part-time while the children are in school is hardly a life of lavish excess.

12:44, a 2000 hour billing committment in and of itself probably won't keep someone from being an involved parent if they are indeed efficient with their time. However, I don't know of many people who make Biglaw partner billing only 2000 hours/year and without investing a lot of non-billable time in their career as well. It also depends on your practice area and the other people you work with. I personally have only seen a very smal number of partners in my 6+ years at a firm who have achieved good work/life balance, and it is typically someone in a specialty practice area with very special skills. I truly hope that this changes over time, but it appears that it is becoming more difficult to become an equity partner in a law firm, not easier for people who care about having a normal work/life balance.

1:22 here, Why the sarcasm? I just posted our family's solution to raising kids and working in biglaw. I did not mean to tout myself as a hero.

Sure it might not have a direct impact on your career (i.e. will you have a job as a mid/senior level associate next year). You will still make money for the firm after having a kid even though your billables and availability will undoubtedly decline.

However, IT WILL have an impact on your chances for partnership. If you don't believe that you are delusional. Just look around at any biglaw shop. How many of the new partners are part-time and/or mommies that actually see their kids.

The answer to that is pretty much a negligible number.

That isn't the end of the world because as a (singlt male) mid-level I don't plan or want to make partner (to be awarded with even more work and shit to do, yay!) and my experience has been most of the other mommy associates around here feel the same way. Make some more money for the first few years of the kids like but after that they all start moving out of biglaw.

I think that, whatever the careers or jobs, there should not be two parents working full time. Kids need/should have one of the parents around most of the time during preschool age and around at least some of the time while they are in school (e.g.- get home by 5 p.m. to eat dinner with the kid). I don't think having both parents rely on a nanny or whatever to raise a child is a great idea -that's where problem kids and brats develop. Instead, one parent should suck it up and commit to working at most on a part time basis.

My wife used to earn $100k+ in a non-lawyer career, but she has given that up for part time work just so the kid can have a proper upbringing with at least one parent around to give the kid guidance every day - something a daycare center or a nanny could never do to the same degree that a parent could (or should).

I personally don't understand why everyone on this board seems to think it's more important for a woman with a JD to have a "meaningful" relationship with her kids, i.e., watch all of her kid's practices and chaffeur her kid around over doing something interesting career-wise. I'd go crazy if all I did all day was over-indulge my kid by attending their every soccer practice, flute lesson, bake cookies, etc. I don't see why this has to be entirely about sacrifice of goals and interests on the woman's part and why there can't be a balance, i.e., I work and attend soccer games on weekends. My parents both worked and didn't attend every game and every practice and it wasn't such a big deal. And I can't be the only person who went to school with plenty of kids who had a stay at home mom who did go to every game and were still really messed up and/or became alcoholics or drug addicts.

People who work 13+ hour days are obviously not efficient, or else very bad at setting boundaries. It is possible (but challenging) to be a working mother and have a successful career.

And the people who think that children will bond more with a nanny and turn out screwed up simply because mom works a lot clearly do not speak from a place of experience. Kids know who their parents are, and appreciate the good ones.

Very interesting comments. I'm a female associate at a large firm, married, no kids (and no desire to have them). I really admire the women around me who struggle with balancing law firm life and motherhood, but frankly I don't think I'm up to it! Maintaining a good marriage and a good career is work enough for me.

2:40 - " I think that, whatever the careers or jobs, there should not be two parents working full time."

That's easy to say if you are the parent working full time. I don't see you giving up your job to take care of kids.

Your wife made a nice sacrifice so that you can go on message boards and tell others in two full-time income househlds that you think the way they have chosen to do things is wrong. You weren't the one to "suck it up", which makes you no better than the people you are berating for continuing to work.

To all those people who dislike nannies:

My two older sisters spent most of the first four years of their lives with my dad and a nanny.

I spent all of the first four years of life with my mom.

As much as I would like to think that I am awesomer than my sisters, it ain't so. Incidentally, one of them is now a SAHM, the other shares childcare responsibilities with her husband and a childcare center.

It is true that children in average daycare settings have slightly larger behavioral problems. But their increased likelihood of having behavioral problems is so slight it is only just barely statistically significant. If you control for the quality of the daycare, the difference goes away.

That isn't to say that parents who completely ignore their children don't eff them up, but it is to say that daycare will not destroy our world as we know it. Historically, children did not get high-quality educational interaction. The wealthy were looked after by nannies, the poor were dumped with someone doing housework, or taken out farming, or taken out hunting and gathering, and were not always looked after by their bio. parents. That isn't to say that we can't do better, but spending 100% of the time with your bio. parent isn't a necessity.

"Monday, May 12, 2008 1:59 PM

1:35, this isn't the 1950s. Try supporting a family on one 40-hour-a-week job. A family of four with one parent working biglaw and another either at home full-time or working part-time while the children are in school is hardly a life of lavish excess. "

Sounds like 200k+...that's a life of lavish excess for the vast majority of Americans (and Earthlings). Maybe you spend too much? Needed a million-dollar house? Two Beemers?

Anyone have any advice for a woman at a Biglaw firm on the fence about having kids? (Husband could go either way, grandparents are twitchy, I feel like I'm just getting the hang of this associate gig.)

3:54 - I am also a married Biglaw female associate, starting to think about having children. The reality is that if you don't do it soon, you may never have the option to have kids at all (at least biologically). You decide if you can live with that or not. Personally, I am not comfortable with the idea of getting to 35+, deciding that I want children after all, and then spending years trying to have them after my fertility has declined. Therefore, I am going to try for my first child before I turn 30, and then see what happens. Despite what all of the trolls on this board have said, I do think it is possible to have a happy family with two working parents, as long as you don't hold yourself to unreasonable expectations, and remember that only your child has the ability and the right to decide if you are a good parent or not.

By the way, my mother has always worked full time, and I personally think that SAHM set a terrible example for their daughters.

3:54, 4:06: Would your lives be really empty without BigLaw?

This is 4:06 responding. My life would not be empty without Biglaw. However, it would be empty and dull without a sense of accomplishment, and I know that raising children would not provide that for me. I am capable of too much more to be fulfilled with that.

Furthermore, I never want to be financially dependent on another person, even my husband, and I grew up in a family that never had enough money so I know that having more money does make life easier. I hope to own a business one day, and that will probably have nothing to do with law, but in the meantime I get a lot of fulfillment and satisfaction from a career where I am compensated well to use my mind.

4:06/4:18: Are you for real? Raising another human being is a very fulfilling task. It's complicated, frought with issues - the answers to which cannot be found in any treatise or statute. Seems you might have a poor impression of what motherhood entails. It's not for everyone, but only for the most capable people. If you think it's so easy, that you are too talented and capable to find fulfilment in it, try telling that to any other mother who left your shiny firm. I'm sure they'd love to hear it and then they would rip you a new one. Well deserved, I might add. Don't you get that you are just a cog? Get over yourself!

Wow, 4:06 is totally reading my mind!

"Only...the most capable people" are mothers?? Please. I don't even know the last time I heard something so ridiculous. There are too many examples of bad mothers to count.

3:54 and 4:06: I worked very hard my first few years in Biglaw to establish myself at my firm. Then, I had a baby, took an extended maternity leave, and returned at an 80% schedule. It really has worked beautifully. My firm is quite family-friendly for a large law firm, which helps. But, I know women doing the same thing successfully in firms with less of a family-friendly reputation.

There are a lot of long, hard days, and that doesn't change after you become a parent. But, you become more efficient. You also learn to dash out of the office in time to spend some time with your kids and then work from home later most of the time. But, for anyone on the fence about having a child, note that simultaneously succeeding as a parent and in Biglaw requires an extraordinary level of sacrifice of your personal interests and leisure time. You can be a great parent and a great lawyer, but those will basically be the only two things that you do. You can't also be well-rounded and regularly host dinner parties and see every (or any) new movie. Nor can you even just relax on the couch and watch some TV at night. You and your spouse, assuming that the spouse also works a full-time job, will basically devote every non-work moment to spending time with your child and keeping the basics of the household under control. It's tiring and it's not for everyone. But, if you can maintain the pace until your kids are older, you will have both a rewarding career and kids who know and love you.

Here is the bottom line anyone working in BIGLAW needs to understand. The amount of work you are going to be given does not generally vary depending on your outside activities (e.g., taking care of kids, learning spanish, having hobbies, dating, etc.) If there is 60 hours of work that the partner or client needs for you to do that week, then you had better either (i) work 60 hours that week and get it done, or (ii) accept the fact that you will be viewed as a sub-par performer. If you choose number (ii), understand that not only will the partner write you off, your fellow associates will come to resent you because they will have to work extra to cover your share of the load (or simply because you are working less and getting paid the same). The reason you are unable or unwilling to work, be it childcare duties, eldercare duties, cooking classes, or a hot date at a trendy new wine bar, will play no role whatsoever in how you are viewed by the partners and your co-workers. (Over time that is, at first they will support you and your childcare duties but that will fade when they realize they are constantly being asked to do extra because you are doing less). To them, you are either doing the work and pulling your load or you are not because you are putting personal matters above your duties to the firm.

In other words, plan on working the same number of hours and with the same intensity after you have children as you did before. Your may have greater flexibility, in the sense that you will be allowed to leave at 6 to pick up your kid at daycare, but that simply means that you will need to log in from home at 8 after your child goes to bed and work until 2 a.m. or however long it takes to get the work done. You may be able to go to that "well baby" appointment, but that just means you will have to get the brief done later that evening. Missed work on Friday because kiddie was sick, plan on spening all of Saturday making up the work. If you understand and accept this, you can continue with reasonable career prospects at a big firm. Where you will have problems is if you begin to expect that since childcare is "work" (very hard work, in fact), your firm, its partners and your co-workers should cut you a break and permit you to work fewer hours without sanction. That folks, is never going to happen over the long run, although it will for the first few months you are back from leave.

After 9 years in BIGLAW, I find that most parents (usually mothers) that leave do so because taking care of kids and pulling your load at BIGLAW is backbreaking, exhausting, work. It is a hard, grinding life that will age you 5 years in 2. It is a life where you are worn out and tired every single day, with no relief in sight.

Make your own decisions about trying to have a career at a big firm and taking care of children as primary caregiver, but do so with full information and your eyes wide open. It can be done, but you will have to work very, very hard, and spend most of your life in a state of sleep-deprived misery.

"Seems you might have a poor impression of what motherhood entails. It's not for everyone, but only for the most capable people. If you think it's so easy, that you are too talented and capable to find fulfilment in it, try telling that to any other mother who left your shiny firm. I'm sure they'd love to hear it and then they would rip you a new one. Well deserved, I might add. Don't you get that you are just a cog? Get over yourself!"

Get over yourself. Plenty of seventh grade dropouts have children. In fact, demographic trends suggest that the lower your IQ and level of education, the more likely you are to have lots of kiddies. People, apes, dogs and other animals have been doing it for millions of years, so please don't act like it is something that requires talent, skill, education, or intelligence.

I plan on staying in biglaw and my husband does not. He would enjoy a job with less demanding hours and where he feels he's helping people. So when he gets home at 6pm he'll be helping with the kids when I'm still at work. Doesn't seem like such a radical idea to me. If women want to stay in biglaw they should marry men who don't.

Good lord, 5:08. There's a range of possible performance. The suggestion was obviously that the upper end of those performances is more demanding and rewarding than being a biglaw cog.

Why don't biglaw lawyers care about personal interests, regular leisure time, relaxing, just hanging out with family (not "making it to the school play" or whatever), travel, weekends, etc.?

5:08. I guess you could say that about anything. Building a sandcastle is something any idiot can do, but it probably takes hard work and talent to be a champion sandcastle builder. I guess motherhood is the same in that sense. Good point.

FYI, if you think being a good mother is more "demanding" than being a good biglaw associate, you are crazy. Being a good mother is not all that difficult. What is "demanding" is being an upper middle class obsessive compulsive freak mommy that reads 20 baby books before the kid is born and 50 after, goes to 20 birthing workshops, dolts over the kid 15 hours a day (won't let him/her just cry it out, etc.) and generally devotes her entire life and energy to the kid to the incredible annoyance of everyone she comes into contact with.

4:49 - this is 4:06 responding. I don't disagree that raising children is difficult and challenging work (if done right, which many mothers who stay at home with their children don't do, in my opinion). It's just that I wouldn't find it *fulfilling*.

But you know what, if I was a man, that would just go without saying, wouldn't it? You wouldn't for a minute suggest that a man could be fulfilled by spending all day with a baby. So why should I be?

As to being a cog - who isn't, really? You need to get over YOURSELF. What are you doing that's so meaningful? I'll tell you what - nothing, or you wouldn't be on this board.

Does she mean Davis Polk when she says I work at a V5?

"It is a hard, grinding life that will age you 5 years in 2. It is a life where you are worn out and tired every single day, with no relief in sight."

Doesn't that describe biglaw in general, with or without a kid? Speaking of which, I haven't met many partners who seem fulfilled, or happy, or "well aged."

This list of comments is a train wreck, and I'm disappointed in myself that I read through it all without turning away. Let's all keep telling each other how to live!! Yeah!!!

1:01 - trusts / estates

Although I know people in tax, ERISA, real estate/bankruptcy and IP who have done similar things. If you have great training and contacts, you can lateral into Biglaw when the child is older, if it turns out that is still what you really want to do.

If you're already in Biglaw, then I think the best time for motherhood is around 3rd year. (Of course, it doesn't seem to matter when guys become parents -- but I'm not looking to join that debate.) By the time you're up for partnership, your life should be back on an even keel and you should have a couple of good years under your belt. If your firm allows it, you could always hold back your nomination for an extra year or so to build up your client base before being nominated.

But the person above who said you can't be superwoman is absolutely right. You can't be a great attorney, great parent, great wife, great cook and great housekeeper -- or at least you can't for very long. You have to have a great support network and be willing to let 1 or 2 areas slide or else use some of the Biglaw $$ to pay someone else to do them. I accepted long ago that I could not be Martha Stewart on top of everything else, so meals are very simple and a housekeeper keeps the dust bunnies at bay!

Go 4:06!

If you're a wonan staying in biglaw and raising a kid, I don't see what the harm is paying someone to do the cooking and housekeeping and having your husband be equally responsible for being a great parent.

I worked my ass off as a junior associate. I don't know what happened to my 20s. It's all a blur. I did wind up with a house, but if I had gotten so much as a pet I would have been beaten by my partner had I ever had to leave work for a vet appointment. Probably as a result, I ditched big city big law and moved to a smaller city (but still large enough to have professional sports teams). I didn't get married until I was a counsel (see above for likely explanation) (had my own book of business by then) and am now pregnant. The benefit of this is that it will be easy to walk out the door should current firm get jerky with me. Otherwise, if I were fungible, I'd be sweating. Recessions suck, family-friendliness be damned.

What a mom of the year! Working 16 hours a day. I bet her child really has bonded with her!

It's pretty clear a lot of you know jack about the actual raising of children.

I'm the child of two working parents, both with demanding careers, and I am closer to them (and have more respect for them) than most of my peers (mid-twenties) do for their parents. They're still married and in love, and still working happily. I went to daycare and (mostly) loved it, then came home to family dinner every night, and (mostly) loved that, too. I don't really get all the daycare hate; it was a lot more fun than my friends had with their bored and bitter hovering mothers at home.

Based on my experience, I would never want to raise a kid with a SAHM. From what I saw growing up, I had a far happier home than my peers with SAHMs. For one thing, my parents respected each other, which I didn't see in my friends' homes. My parents didn't yell at me, didn't scream, were truly happy to spend time with me, and I always knew it -- and I didn't get that sense from my friends' homes at all. My friends with SAHMs used to beg to spend the night at my house.

Plus those peers have serious daddy issues because in order to keep mom at home for 30 years (at least prior to the divorce, when dad trades mom in for a younger model, and that seems to happen a huge amount of time), dad disappeared from their children's lives. No thanks. Not for me and my kids. I'll parent like my parents did, thank you very much, and that involves two working parents.

I think it's weird that all of you are insisting that SAHMs are the ideal way to parent for all families. It seems borderline delusional to me.

As for working I suggest you do what my parents did: specialize and be really, really good at what you do. The world doesn't need another general litigator with no specific skills, and firms reflect that by making those folks work insane hours with or without kids. They're fungible units. But if you specialize, you can write your own hours -- and you can do it in BigLaw.

6:01: Hilarious and true (unless you have a child who truly presents difficulty, such as a child with a serious disability or behavioral problems). Confronting the challenges my child presents benefits him, me, and our entire family. Confronting the challenges BIGLAW presents benefits, um, yeah, nobody. My child's a pleasure, even at his worst, compared to the passive-aggressive assholes I worked with in BIGLAW.

To 10:35--Let's not bash all stay at home moms, okay? Mine was one, and although it is not a choice that I would make, she and my dad had a great marriage even when she didn't work at all. Because he never looked down on her for it, and they didn't have very traditional expectations for their marriage. On the other hand, my mom was strict, but didn't hover. So I had a lot of time to play with sibs. and friends and even around the neighborhood by myself, which was really good.

I really think it is bad for parents to be so child-centered that they are always sacrificing their interests and hobbies and desires in life for the child's. What is the kid supposed to do when it grows up? Keep expecting its happiness to be the center of all things?