First to say that firms can jump as high as they want, its all just lip-service and PR maneuvers. The bottom line is billable requirements are in direct conflict with the 12-18wks policy. Remember PH and Ms. Oh?

After all, will always find ways to kill babies

This is such nonsense - do these firms pro-rate the billable hour requirements (ie billable hour requirements for a year based on a 34 week year as opposed to a 52 week year)? Didn't think so. Complete and total BS.

Allen and "Ovary"!?!

People who have children are selfish. We will all soon struggle to gain access to valued resources.

10:33: Of course they do. I know for a fact my firm (currently at 18 weeks) pro-rates, for both maternity and paternity leave. (I was pro-rated when I took my paternity leave.) As you suggest, it'd be nonsense without pro-rating.

It's a terrific arrangement for associates who receive lockstep bonuses. The soft target billable hours (ie as much as the next guy in your group) are adjusted accordingly for the parental leave.

That said, it may indeed be a hollow benefit at other firms where bonuses depend on hours billed and are not adjusted for the parental leave, but where's your proof that the firms calculate bonuses that way? This woudld be a useful follow-up question for ATL to put to firms who announce their parental leave policies for the positive publicity.

@10:33....you are an absolute moron.

Quote: "This is such nonsense - do these firms pro-rate the billable hour requirements.....? Didn't think so. Complete and total BS. "

First of all, yes, many firms do pro-rate the targets and bonus amounts in the manner you suggest (as others have pointed out above).

Secondly, nobody is forced to take 18 weeks (or 12 weeks or even two days) of paid maternity leave so if you believe these new policies are somehow designed to screw associates then you/your wife are free to take whatever lesser amount of leave you want. Believe it or not, some people will actually take the full 18 weeks!

What, precisely, would you have these law firms do with their leave policies since, in your view, this current apporach is "complete and total BS"? Should they scale back maternity leave to some lesser number of weeks (say, 4)? Why don't you float that idea at your firm and let me know the reaction of other associates.

You can add Cooley Godward to the 18 week list. They also just increased first year associate vacation time to 4 weeks -- not sure if that is at or above market.

My BigLaw firm pro-rates your time for the remainder of your year (we're still at 12 weeks, and less if you've been there less than 2 yrs). No pro-rate on bonus, at least not the year I took mat leave- I got the whole bonus.
Generally speaking, when will they up adoption leave, and make it PARENTAL leave instead of measly paternity leave? what if mom makes the big bucks and dad wants to stay home? nevermind if you have two dads...

When are they going to institute a 40 hour work week.

@ 10.56 - hold your horses!

My understanding of 10:33's statement is that Firms should stop pretending as if they care. Saying that you offer 18wk leave is an attractive statement to a 2L (or 1L), but when you actually crunch the numbers, its BS. The BS is even greater if u work at a firm where meeting the billable target is a prequiste to being eligible for a bonus. Plus billing is taken into consideration during evaluations (even if the yearly target is pro rated)

Additionally, pro rating hours sounds good, but what about the decline in hours once the belly starts to grow/show? what about the slow period that occurs once the associate returns from the lengthy leave. As you rightly suggest, associates are probably not expected to take the 18wks.

(Off topic, Its almost like saying, we dont work weekends in this firm, but that memo better be on my desk by monday morning despite the fact that i just handed u the assignment at 4pm on friday.)

Making an offer while simultaneously discouraging the associate from taking the offer equals BS

How dare law firms "penalize" people who choose to have children by not giving them full salary and bonuses and m/paternty leave? It's almost as if (1) their absence from the firm for those weeks would somehow affect productivity and the firm's ultimate profits; (2) having kids were a choice that someone can make; and (3) there's a reason in this overcrowded world to encourage people to reproduce--these policies made sense when families needed a lot of hands to harvest, but seriously, this is 2008 and you're being paid a freakin' fortune.

davis polk's website says 8 weeks . . . i guess this is a typo?

Regardless of what my firm offers, I'm taking as little as possible (likely zero as I'm male). I think taking the full amount might obstruct the all-important transition from Top Legal Talent to Partner Material. (T5-->V10)

My boss just bumped me from 2 weeks vacation to 20 weeks vacation!!! This is great news.

fn1
Billable hours will remain at 2000.

11:01, are we still on cooley deathwatch or has the storm passed?

Is it legal to give the mothers this much more parenting leave than fathers? Who does Ropes & Gray think they are kidding calling 14 weeks of leave for child birth "disability"? Notwithstanding the reality that mothers are more often the primary caretaker, it seems discriminatory to write that assumption into law firm benefits.

I agree with 5:06--and have wondered about this for awhile as an employment lawyer--How do these firms get away with giving differential paternity and maternity leave? Particularly where it is given for adoption---wouldn't it seem that a man and woman who adopt are similarly situated and that leave discrimination on the basis of sex therefore violates Title VII?

Boston firms listen up - 18 weeks is officially market.

There are rumors that some large firms will be instituting a 52 week leave policy for some of their associates. Stay tuned...

Generally speaking, when will they up adoption leave, and make it PARENTAL leave instead of measly paternity leave? what if mom makes the big bucks and dad wants to stay home? nevermind if you have two dads...
Well, when men breast-feed and need time to recover from labour and delivery (or be bed-ridden with preeclampsia), then we can talk about equal maternity and paternity leave. It is absurd, however, to suggest that they ought to be equal when the burden of making a baby is not equal. To answer the latter question - we're talking about BigLaw, not kindergarten. If mom wants to make big bucks, she's welcome to keep working. If dad wants to stay home, as he's not making much money, presumably, the question of what top law firms do for paternity leave is totally irrelevant.

I hope men and women both understand that if you take the full time, you will likely be asked to leave the firm.

i hope these firms counsel their men and women associates about the risks of having children well beyond the normal years (18-25) of fertility.

birth defects and other problems seem clearly linked to older people having babies.

Normal years of fertility is 18-25? You're kidding, right? Based on what?

9:09 - how ignorant you truly are with regards to child bearing years. Although my first child was born years ago, I had twins at 40 - easy pregnancy; easy, natural delivery; no complications or bed rest whatsoever and neither one of my kids has ANY type of birth defect or other disability.