One would think that the current global economic crisis would be taking a toll on women’s issues. Work-life balance? Please, any associate not on track with their hours is a candidate for a layoff. Retention of women? Whatever, welcome to the world of forced attrition.
But is the prevailing view accurate? Patricia Gillette, an Orrick partner and founder of The Opt In Project, doesn’t think so. Today on AmLaw Daily, Gillette makes the argument that now is the perfect time for firms to address issues traditionally important to women:
There is another school of thought, the one that I subscribe to. It is this–the economic crisis provides law firms with opportunities they never before had. Those include: to step away from the salary and bonus programs that destroyed collegiality and prevented flexibility; to make structural and organizational changes long overdue; to kill the billable hour once and for all; to get ahead of the sea change that is coming to the legal profession.
Now is the time to take advantage of the immobility of partners and associates and the weakening bargaining position of law students, to make changes that may not be popular with everyone, but are long overdue. And these changes, in the long run, will benefit women and will answer the cries of all Gen Y lawyers for a kinder and gentler law firm life.
It seems to me that moving away from lockstep compensation necessarily leads to more subjective forms of salary advancement. The billable hour might be the bane of a lawyer’s existence, but it is at least based on objective criteria. Will putting salary decisions in the hands of intra-firm politics and relationship building really lead to a “kinder and gentler” law firm? Or will it lead to an “eat-what-you-kill” approach that many partners complain about when it comes to their compensation structure?
After the jump, Gillette outlines three big moves that could help women in law firms.
First, Gillette adds her voice to the clamor to kill the billable hour:
The demise of the billable hour. For women, many of whom have worked efficiently for years and been punished by the billable hour system, it means being evaluated on quality and efficiency, rather than time. And that can only help.
The common view seems to be that if the billable hour dies, quality of work and efficient use of time will be more highly valued. But at the junior level, is it really so easy to make qualitative distinctions between one person’s low level work over another?
And most senior associates know that you can bill all the hours in the world, but if you are not putting in face time, with partners and clients and hopefully a mentor/champion, you’re not making partner anyway. The billable hour, alive or dead, has little impact on the relationship building it takes to become an owner.
Gillette, and I’d imagine most lawyers and clients, wants to see competency become more important for advancement:
Competency-based progression. Big law firms like Howrey and Orrick, where I am a partner, are promoting progression based on competencies rather lockstep movement determined by the year you graduated law school and started working. This allows women–and men–to adjust their careers to accommodate what is happening in their lives. Deloitte calls this a career lattice rather than a career ladder; that’s how I like to put it.
That is all well and good, so long as management doesn’t use competency-based reasons as a weak excuse to hold associates back (and pay them less). Given how some firms have reacted to the current crisis by instituting stealth “performance-based” layoffs — when everybody knows that “it’s the economy, stupid” — you have to wonder if firms will adopt objective measures of competency.
There’s also the problem of a firm punishing associates for its own inability to train people properly. If you stick somebody on doc review for two years and then ask them to draft a brief by the third year, that person is probably going to look pretty incompetent. Especially if that person is judged against an associate who skillfully avoided grunt, manpower work with a series of interesting, short-staffed, pro bono assignments (since we’re operating in a world where billable hours are no longer important).
Finally, Gillette hopes that this current spate of forced attrition will lead to firms rethinking the Biglaw model that relies on such significant turnover in the first place:
Rethinking the first two years. Firms are rethinking how they hire lawyers out of law school and how they treat new lawyers. New associates, women included, will no longer be fungible commodities. They will be investments in the firm’s future, as law firms choose associates more carefully, nurture them through the first years, and rebuild the trust partner-associate trust. This will, in turn, create a bond that encourages longevity and incents flexibility.
This sounds positively Utopian. But won’t new associates be fungible so long as they are easily replaceable in a cost efficient manner? Gillette is essentially asking firms to invest more time and more money in associate development. Enough time and money so that the firm would truly lose something if a person washes out after a year or two.
But will firms really commit more resources to junior attorneys in a market where A) law schools are a volume business that churns out new associates like a puppy mill? Or B) there are so many attorneys out there on the street right now that already have some skills and are desperate for work?
One hopes that Gillette is right. One hopes that firms will really be able to take all of these economic lemons and turn them into the best lemonade ever tasted.
But it is a little hard to see that future while law firms continue to squirt citric acid in everybody’s eyes.
Cracks in the Ceiling [AmLaw Daily]
Earlier: Twelve Crises for Corporate Women
i am first
Damn you, 1!
I am not first.
It seems to me that none of these issues (and proposed changes) are vagina-specific, or beneficial only to possessors of vaginas.
Women hating trolls in 5..4…3…2…
This article to me is wayyyy off. As studies have shown, female workers are less efficient with their time and ultimately less effective. So in a situation where promotion and pay is based on productivity it seems to me the females will be even more the minority in Law Firm Partnerships. Not that I mind, I have long said if I am working with a female on a project I need to budget in at least 1.5 hours a day extra to explain and correct their work.
4 = obvious femi-nazi
This article to me is wayyyy off. As studies have shown, female workers are less efficient with their time and ultimately less effective. So in a situation where promotion and pay is based on productivity it seems to me the females will be even more the minority in Law Firm Partnerships. Not that I mind, I have long said if I am working with a female on a project I need to budget in at least 1.5 hours a day extra to explain and correct their work.
This article to me is wayyyy off. As studies have shown, female workers are less efficient with their time and ultimately less effective. So in a situation where promotion and pay is based on productivity it seems to me the females will be even more the minority in Law Firm Partnerships. Not that I mind, I have long said if I am working with a female on a project I need to budget in at least 1.5 hours a day extra to explain and correct their work.
I wonder how many of the 20% of associates cut at Orrick were women? Was the firm conscious of “women’s issues” when making cuts?
woops sorry about the multiple posts, damn internet!
Good analysis, Elie. There is no way this is going to be good for female associates. When hit with hard times, firms inevitably need to find ways to increase profitability. Since their main capital is associates, that means squeezing more income out of them for less compensation. At the crux of it, the female associate argument has always been “it is simply not possible to be a mother and bill sixty hours a week, asking us to do that is inherently discriminatory, therefore we should be allowed to work less without derailing our careers”, so thinking that an economic downturn, which causes demands on associates to rise, will help women is pretty silly.
Good article, Elie.
11- Good analysis. Here’s the flaw in your thinking:
1) Women already are lower than 50% of biglaw.
2) When it comes time to cut the deadweight, the marginal efficiency gains between a deadweight female and a deadweight male are insignificant as compared to the perception losses of further decreasing the perceived underrepresentation of females in the firm. After all, you can just have the woman work additional hours to make up for her lack of productivity and then just charge the client what the more efficient male would have worked. This can be done at no additional cost to the firm.
3) Therefore, it makes more sense to lay off deadweight white males before you lay off the slightly less efficient deadweight minorities.
The recession is good for female lawyers who like to get pounded in the ass by partners as a way of furthering their careers.
The Ass Pounder of Cravath
Elie, contact Lauren Stiller Rikleen (author of Ending the Gauntlet) and see if she will comment on these recommendations. My sense is that anything rewarding ‘competency’ will actually end up rewarding the old-boy mentor network.
Memo: “diversity” is PR cover for firms and big corporations. Any entity whose main motivation is to make boatloads of money however possible does not care about your work life balance, motherhood, or whatever viewpoints you “contribute” because of the color of your skin. Do you think the partner (including female partners) really is all that happy to subsidize non-performance in the name of political correctness?
They pay lip service for PR purposes, but other than that its a non-issue. And appropriately so, btw.
Blah Blah Blah
Nothing new here, just abunch of regurgitated ideas. What else would you expect from a women, though?
Women pursue law as a hobby, until they can get married and quit work. Men pursue law in order to make money and support a family. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but not enough to change the rule.
For the love of God, Elie, please stick to reporting and stay away from the analysis. You aren’t insightful, persuasive, or thoughtful.
14, is it bad that I immediately assume that any women who had advanced her career in big law has done so on her back? I might just be speaking from personal experience but I put my vote in for female hires based solely on how much they put out. It is tough writing those recommendations though b/c there is no section on the form for aptitude at reverse cowgirl.
PE hasn’t weighted in so I’ll try to fill in:
Bad economy, sky is falling, new paradigms, peer firms, non-peer firms, anal dildos, peer firms
PE
City of Vague. Not helpful when authors don’t talk turkey (like how PRECISELY the recommendations will work) and just throw around fuzzy wuzzy ideas like “competency based”. Also:
1. The billable hour thing is changing but not how this article says. Clients aren’t gonna pay high billables. Our rates will be lowered and when atty’s get past 7th year when they’re too expensive, they’ll be asked to leave (unless they make partner).
2. In this here recession when there’s hardly any work anyway, salary and hour req’s should be reduced (maybe even half). Many women would like this for family and personal reasons (and so would men).
I would like to know the position of Paul Hastings on this matter.
Purveyor of Fine Monogrammed Coat Hangers
They let women be lawyers now?
Reports of the impending death of the billable hour have been greatly exaggerated…
13, 11 here -
In the short term, you are probably right. Firms are obsessed with diversity (or at least maintaining an appearance that they are diverse to outsiders) and may hesitate a little more to lay off minorities/women. I was more speaking of the long term. When the downturn ends, or at least begins to end, firms are going to maintain their new found cost consciousness and will squeeze associates like never before. The only institutional change that will result from all of this is that we will work even harder. That is not going to be a good thing for anyone seeking any sort of work/life balance, and especially not for mothers with children.
Another day – another faggoty, feminist article from MysTTTal. Elie, just because you have tits, doesn’t mean that women’s issues concern you.
Relationships, trust, nurturing, building bonds.
Waaaah, my tampon fell out.
The recession is not bad for me.
I’m bad for the recession, Bitches.
I think that firms should take this opportunity to get all women out of big law. They are putting us all at risk. Bears can smell the menstruation.
I simply cannot understand where modern discourse on women is. Are they separate-but-equal, or just equal?
I would just like a chart that says when it’s OK for me to identify a woman as a woman (like this post does) and when I should think of them only as lawyers. Why are we even talking about “women’s concerns” at all? I thought that was condescending. Or is it not now?
Thanks,
Confused at Cravath
My biggest issue with this is that, even if women are OPEN to sleeping their way to the top, most of them are so damn ugly they arent worth the hotel room. So obviously the women are not going to get promoted based on productivity sincre it is rare to find one who is effective, and if they can’t sleep their way to the top, then it is going to be a long depressing road of Staff Attorney jobs and contract review for these females. I think law school should start requring a picture with their applications and have a 10% hot-chick quota….that way you will have hot-chicks who are willing to sleep their way to the top. This solution will easily help the proportion of female partners to men…There! I have just solved the women’s rights issue…You’re welcome Jane Fonda
5/7/8: for someone who cares about efficiency, you certainly wasted a lot of time clicking the Post Comment button too many times, didn’t you?
19 – You’re not interesting in the musings of someone who lasted almost a whole year in BigLaw on the intricacies of the business model?
Wow. Gotta say – referring to these as “women’s issues” is inexcusably blatant stereotyping of both women AND men.
I’m no fan of the billable but doesn’t it make financial sense for a firm (in a simplistic scenario) to pay 1 attorney to bill 2500 hrs rather than 2 attorneys at 1250 hours? I mean the fixed costs are the same. 1st of all, your’e not going to pay the 2500 hr attorney twice what the 1250 hr attorney gets. And eve if you did, the benefits you have to pay 2 attorneys has to be more than for 1 attorney (even if you made the 1250 hr attorney pay some portion of it).
Personally, I’m tired of picking up the slack of part-time female attorneys. If they want to have a baby, that’s their decision, but it’s no excuse for being slack and I’l be damned if I’m going to let it impact my life and my team’s work product. Life is full of tough choices – you can’t have it all.
The Orrick partner is beyond unrealistic / naive. Her ideas aren’t bad – it’s just impossible to believe that with everything else on management’s platter that these ideas will take flight. Wait for the next boom. You may have to wait a while.
19 – Your critique of Elie’s analysis is similarly lacking in insight or thought. IRAC it bitch!
Any word on Howrey layoffs?
And the comments here remind me of why I generally don’t read above the law. I’d love to see “the studies” that have shown that women are less efficient.
And the comments here remind me of why I generally don’t read above the law. I’d love to see “the studies” that have shown that women are less efficient.
33,
I said I was interested in efficiency? I don’t think I said that. In fact I don’t think any of us can claim that since I assume most of us are in our Cubbie-Hole/Office and looking at this website. Although I am quite efficient with my tasks at work. And yes, I am an idiot with technology and clicked the button three times. Sorry!
Furthermore,
Generally what I see from Partners, at least here….is that they are fairly nice and cordial (at least nicer than to us guys) to the women, however when it comes to needing legitimate help…they usually turn to whoever their 1 or 2 favorite male associates are the knock something out in the most timely manner. Customarily what happens is this series of events:
1. hand us the work-who am i kidding, phone/email it in.
2. give you a smile and a wink when they pass your office
3. go talk to their cronies about how we need to hire hotter chicks.
Sorry girls, theres a reason why you are better teachers than men…ineffiency and ugliness don’t matter.
-#5
The downturn means less business for lawyers, which leads to more competition for the remaining business. No way does this lead to kinder and gentler law firm life. If associates aren’t squeezed for billable hours, they’d be squeezed to do as much work for as little pay as possible in order for firms to make money on fixed-price work.
The recession is good for female lawyers when Chuck Norris says its good for female lawyers.
three words: student loan debt
44, if the women at your firm are all inefficient, incompetent and ugly, then please let me know which firm this is so I can stay the hell away from that shit-hole.
Sounds like the problem isn’t the women, it’s the firm that can’t attract shit for associates.
Thanks
I liked MysTTTal’s gratuitous comment about the supposed death of lockstep pay, despite its continued use by non-TTT firms.
37- Hi there. Part time female associate here. Just wanted to point out that while you’re picking up my slack, you’re also picking up a significantly higher salary, bonuses, partner respect and miles on the partner/counsel track I will never ever have, because of my choice to go part-time. Your choice should be to keep pretending the female part-time associate saddled with you isn’t worth 10 of your lame ESPN.com surfing ass.
I’m going to assume commenter is joking about women being less efficient, since that’s a totally moronic statement with, best I can tell, no connection to reality whatsoever. As to male partners going to their preferred male associates with desired work, no doubt that happens. Not sure the conclusion you should draw is that that demonstrates female lack of efficiency.
The woman who wrote this article sounds like someone who’s never been a female associate in a law firm, which is ironic. None of these things are going to happen, and if all the moves to subjectivity happen, the environment for women will do far worse.
50 – another part time female associate here. Thanks. I was getting ready to type a similar response, but you did it for me.
50 – another part time female associate here. Thanks. I was getting ready to type a similar response, but you did it for me.
@52and 53, I know you are part time, but would you still let a senior associate or junior partner pound you in the ass for a raise in pay and benefits?
Curious at Cravath
36 – Of course it’s cheaper to have one person who bills at 2500 than 2 at 1250. The firm’s half of social security alone would push the costs higher, and that doesn’t account for other fixed benefits (like healthcare) or other fixed costs (like office space, computers, etc.).
But cost isn’t the main issue. If it were simply a cost question, most firms would just absorb the cost. The issue is that law firms are a service business and a lot of that service happens outside of the hours of 9 and 5. The firms are simply responding to client demands.
Whether people want to think it’s fair or not, if you’re not available to work 90 hours a week when the call comes, you’re not doing the most important part of the job. There’s a reason firms pay $160K/year to start and it’s not because you’re special.
Is that Bristol Palin in the picture?
The comments here should be cited as a “study” in inefficiency of male lawyers and latent misogyny in the legal profession.
The comments here should be cited as a “study” in inefficiency of male lawyers and latent misogyny in the legal profession.
50-
Then maybe you shouldn’t have chosen to go part time. But on the upside, now you get to do your shoe shopping from the comfort of your own apartment rather than in that icky office where all those boys just spend their time on espn.
ps learn how the fuck to use the plural form.
57 – If me wanting to not double the number of nights and weekends I work so that you can have flex-time makes me mysogynistic, so be it. You’ll pardon if I care more about seeing my kids than I do about what you think of me.
57/58-
Any particular reason why “study” was in quotes, or are you just an idiot?
59, don’t want to derail you in the middle of your pity party, but I think what 50 was saying is that you BOTH made choices (you to make more money while wasting your life at your desk, and her to make less money while changing diapers), but you were the one to come on here and start bitching about how some people make choices that differ from yours (post 37). You pick up her slack because you pick up a ton more cash. You both chose your respective positions.
I never knew that male lawyers were not interested in work-life balance, competence-based pay, adequate training, and building partner-associate trust.
Thanks women lawyer advocates for pointing out that these should be considered “women’s issues” and thus needlessly alienating half of your potential support base with your divisive worldview.
As a formerly part time female attorney, I was paid less to bill 1600+ hours a year instead of 200+. Along with that lower pay, I got less respect, worse assignments, less training, low or no bonus, and worse treatment by partners compared to my full time counterparts. No one picked up my “slack.” I was PAID less money to put in less hours than a full time associate.
As a formerly part time female attorney, I was paid less to bill 1600+ hours a year instead of 2000+. Along with that lower pay, I got less respect, worse assignments, less training, low or no bonus, and worse treatment by partners compared to my full time counterparts. No one picked up my “slack.” I was PAID less money to put in less hours than a full time associate.
57/58: Most of these misogynistic comments are actually posted by female trolls. Don’t feed them.
59-
Since I’m not 37 and was merely responding to 50’s retardation about how one part-time female is more useful than 10 full time males because oh noes they check espn, I don’t know how that’s relevant. Thank you for your concern though.
I thought the bit about a “career lattice” was hilarious. That was one of the buzzwords we learned in Organizational Behavior when I got my MBA. You know why HR-folks are re-branding your career as a lattice? Because the baby boomers above you are expected to work longer than their counterparts of previous generations, limiting upward mobility for younger workers. I suspect it will be a long time coming for i-banks and law firms start to “value their human capital” and change their models from up-or-out pyramids.
Also Elie, can we talk about women’s issues more often? I have hardly ever heard men complain about say, the billable hour system. Thanks!
62 – Male associates aren’t choosing to pick up the slack. They’re getting stuck with it because you’re not doing your job.
Trust me, the extra money that male associates are supposedly making doesn’t even come close to compensating them for the lost nights and weekends where they’re covering for you (and firms recognize that if they continually screw these lawyers they’ll leave). Male associates have lives/families too.
[I'm better than you because I can work efficiently 6 hours a day, half of those from home- you suck because you can't be efficient for 14 hours a day]
[I'm jealous that women who work less, get paid less, and will never make partner, are given that option while it's not socially acceptable for me to do the same thing]
[there's no misogyny in law, you worthless female who should be making me pie]
[grammar or spelling critique]
[ass-pounding reference]
-[random 1980's handle]
There once was a RINO named Spectre,
Who became just a shameless defector
He knew he would lose
Without votes from the Jews
Or from poor blacks in the welfare sector.
–Sir Frederick B. Limerick
(circa 2009)
62, when female associates go on four months of maternity leave, they are paid their full salaries while male associates pick up all the slack. Paternity leave, in contrast, is four weeks. But hey, we all know that male associates are not supposed to spend time with their newborn children.
So yes, male associates do pick up the slack of their female counterparts without getting compensated for it. And that is just one example.
How is moving away from lockstep beneficial to women? One of the FEW ways in which law firms are actually women friendly is that you don’t have to deal with the disparities in salary in the rest of the working world that result from men being taught that its OK to demand higher salaries and society looking down on women who attempt such behavior. I’m over simplifying due to time constraints but that’s my point.
Holy crap, Elie. You actually wrote a good analysis of this one.
Good to know that the commenters on this website are mysoginist, racist, and anti-semitic. What a distinguished group!
Get back to work you ne’er do wells.
Good to know that the commenters on this website are mysoginist, racist, and anti-semitic. What a distinguished group!
Get back to work you ne’er do wells.
Good to know that the commenters on this website are mysoginist, racist, and anti-semitic. What a distinguished group!
Get back to work you ne’er do wells.
75-77
lern2post and stop using words like “ne’er do wells” you douchebag. everyone laughs at you behind your back.
The biglaw world has changed forever – many firms are firing pregnant female associates. Heard Morgan Lewis New York office fired 2 pregnant associates.
50, that’s great. But don’t expect to make partner. I would gladly work 3 days a week for reduced pay if I could pretty much be guaranteed to keep my job. But as a white male associate, I’m shit out of luck in that department.
This is #5/44,
I am willing to guess most of the people who have shown a clear lack of BigLaw understanding (ie “part-time women associates have it hard” [tear]) were products of the lovely Thomas Cooley/Florida Coastal system. Part-time may oull their weight and small firms with one office, but here in BigLaw land they don’t even come close. Whatever you don’t finish when the clock strike 2:00 and you leave comes right over to us…and then we don’t leave at 2:00am b/c most of your work is shotty at best and we it needs to be corrected.
Why is your work shotty? B/C you don’t care about doing it correctly, you are worried about the clock striking 2pm; you just care about turning it in incomplete- knowing full well that when we go to finish it we will go over everything you have done and correct it.
63 – Whoaaaa cowboy. 35, here. Don’t paint all female attorneys with such a broad brush. I agree with you entirely (except that you seem more than willing to leap to the conclusion that one female attorney speaks for all female attorneys). I’d be pissed, too, if I had to work while someone else got four months of paid leave. It’s a public policy decision “for the greater good,” I suppose, but it sure seems unfair. Conversely, I think it’s very denigrating to assume that quality of life and prioritizing their family are lesser concerns to men.
Huge feminist, but I swear sometimes I think other feminists just dig the hole deeper.
78: 75-77 here. Learn to spell moron. And I can assure no, people don’t laugh at me behind my back. They do laugh at your though. ha-ha.
8====D
80- I seriously doubt any part-time associate anywhere harbors any illusions whatsoever about making partner at a big firm. Same with anyone who’s ever gone on parental leave for any length of time, regardless of gender. Absence is a sign of weakness.
81- the word is shoddy. I can tell you’re doing a bang up job fixing the work of others.
85, you can definitely take parental leave and become a partner, but only if you’re a woman. Firms don’t want to touch that sensitive topic, especially since many candidates in their female pool do take the leave.
But if you take paternal leave as a man, and want to make partner, forget about it.
81 – the proper adjective is “shoddy,” and that’s why I spend an hour and half marking up your crappy work before I can turn it into decent shape and pass it on to a partner.
–Female Associate
All,
This is #5, who previously posted as 44, etc..
I may have made some fairly bold statements, but don’t write a post pretending to be me. Whoever posted 81 was not me (and can’t seem to form sentences). I in no way assume that all work done by part time associates is incorrect. Nor do I think that anyone would be working as an associate part-time or full time in the legal world if their only concern was leaving at 2:00. In fact it is not very often I have worked on projects completing part-timers work. Whoever wrote 81 seems to think part-time associates are everywhere you turn…I only know of about 5 here?
That said, when I have taken over work done by part-timers there does tend to be oversight, and I probably look over it a bit harder (sorry, I know that seems prejudice).
My points are more the fact that women just don’t work as fast. I don’t know the science behind it, all I know is when I am working with women, it always takes longer.
Yes, perhaps we check a score on ESPN.com every now and then, but that takes far less time than all of the time the women take worrying about their split end, and then complaining they wouldn’t have split-ends if they slept more than 4 hours.
In a system which promotes work efficiency and productivity, it is going to hurt females in general because it takes them more time to accomplish tasks. Therefore, while their billable hours may be similar…they have achieved less, which in the current system keeps them on level playing field with us who bill the same amount of hours, but got a whole lot more done.
Lastly, whoever wrote 81…what is Florida Coastal?
Studies actually show that women are more efficient workers.
See this WSJ Law Blog Post : http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/24/childless-female-lawyers-bill-more-than-childless-male-lawyers-discuss/?mod=WSJBlog
And this blog post:
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2008/02/childless-women-are-most-productive.html
If you read the full study, the efficiency totem pole goes like this:
1. Women Without Children
2. Women With Children
3. Men With Children
4. Men Without Children
That study is from Canada. Everyone knows Canadian dudes are as smart as Sloth.
Additionally, what feminazi organization commissioned that study?
If we are going to generalize, my general experience is that most male attorneys I work with are incredibly skilled with great technique and pragmatic approaches or they are just not detail-oriented enough to do what they do. I don’t see a ton in the middle. I argue much more with male partners and associates on why something needs to be in a disclosure or legend due to a rule in securities or why modifying a sentence a certain way helps in a licensing deal. I catch more mistakes in male associates work and find that they just kind of go off on calls talking BS with clients when they really don’t have a clue. It’s maddening.
90, the study looked at the number of hours worked. I do not think “efficient” means what you think it means, as it does not mean the total number of hours worked. The study also did not control for a comparison between the sexes; it just compared within the sexes and whether having children affected the hours worked.
Nice try though.
Why is it in the corporate world employers regularly judge employees by criteria unrelated to the number of hours they work but in the legal world this is somehow impossible? I think too many lawyers who log long, unproductive hours are afraid to be judged against those who can accomplish just as much in fewer hours. It is time for those folks to get a life, learn how to work efficiently, and shut their pie hole about how long hours necessarily means they are harder workers.
There was an associate at my old firm who was inefficient because she would shop online all day. The firm hit her with a promissory estoppel suit, which she settled for about $8,000. She was fired.
Just a lesson to watch out for promissory estoppel if you choose to be inefficient.
90… what does hours have to do with being productive? If you had 4 kids, worked full time, and attended law school, you would be considered productive in my book. However, if you spent 100 hours a week working on law school alone, you would be a moron and insanely inefficient and unproductive. Let’s hope this recession gets rid of the idea that more hours means more productive. The problem is that the law firms package hours worked as a product rather than the fruit of those hours (e.g. an agreement or memo). You all know you sit on your ass all day just so you can say you worked 20 hours and stayed in the office until 3AM. In 99% of the cases if people were actually productive, there would be no need to stay until 3AM.
77- Female associate here (formerly part time). No doubt about it, male associates get completely fucked with “paternity leave”. 2 weeks but you have to check voice mail and blackberry and everyone thinks you’re a pussy for taking the leave. Adoption and paternity leave needs a drastic overhaul. But PS, lots more firms have part time men these days. If you want it, to hell with ego and ask for it.
Every male lawyer who offers the “tough choices” BS should also be made to chose between having a career and having a family.
I don’t understand any of this. It’s called “work” for a reason. It’s not called “fun” or “self-discovery.” You want to make real money, then you almost always have to do real work. Those that want part-time or reduced schedules or whatever the hell it’s being called simply don’t want to be real professionals. Women have choices, but men have to pay the price for those choices. So what’s new.
98, you’re right. Males with careers never have families, and males with children never have careers. Oh wait…
If you’re a woman and your husband is unwilling to help with raising the family, then maybe you should have evaluated his family-rearing inclinations before you got married. Don’t be a bitter whiner who shunts work off to your colleagues simply because you made a poor life choice.
“I’d be pissed, too, if I had to work while someone else got four months of paid leave. It’s a public policy decision “for the greater good,” I suppose, but it sure seems unfair.”
Well, I think it’s unfair that, as the child’s mother, I have to be the one to push him or her out of my vagina (and have a C-Section) and have weeks of recovery from the process, but them’s the breaks.
What’s interesting is my wife feels like she made the best choice ever by having a family and giving up on the career. I slave all day in a crappy ass office while she colors with the kids, goes on vacations with the in-laws, hangs out with friends, and yes, takes care of the kids and house, but she loves it. Instead of trying to please some group of people that don’t give two shits about her except for her ability to produce money for the firm, she gets hugs and kisses from little kiddies all day and helps with the community where things really matter. Somehow I think I made the “poor life choice.”
I’d like to thank Pat Gillette, formerly of Heller Ehrman, for giving my boss the chance to present a layoff to me as an “opportunity.” For God’s sake, recessions aren’t good for ANYBODY.
102: Well, your “poor life choice” enables your wife to have it so easy so, if that’s purpose enough for you, it’s not a poor choice at all. And what choice do you have, really, under those circumstances?
101, the “unfairness” of your own pregnancy is caused by your own actions. The “unfairness” of male associates supporting others who are on four months of paid leave is not caused by any action of the male associates (unless they’re the father, but that would be at most one of them).
So there is that tiny difference about what’s fair in life. It’s like comparing the unfairness of hospitalization for breast implants and for thyroid cancer.
105 – hahaha, awesome.
So, as usual, what we learn from these “women’s issues” threads is that male attorneys are a bunch of whiners looking for anybody at all to blame for their misery, other than themselves. If you wish to spend more time with your family, find a wife who will work and then take the part-time track yourselves, or better yet, find a saner job. If you don’t, you’re simply choosing $$ over family, so don’t be haters on people who choose otherwise.
107, if you replace “male” by “female” and “wife” by “husband”, your post is absolutely on point.
107, who put the sand in your vagina?
You know, I read all the way down the comments and finally found 82, the diamond in the rough. Excellent comment, 82, you validated my .25 hours on this.
This article is inaccurate. I’ve never seen a big law associate even half as attractive as the girl in your picture….
catch the ugliness
105,
as far as picking up absent associates’ slack goes, the non-married and/or childless female associates do it as much as do male associates.
Thank you, 82. As a female attorney in a big firm, I have made the same observation as you. I happen to be available to work 24/7 (and do so when necessary), but I would welcome the opportunity to work less and get paid less. However, as long as I am getting paid the ridiculous salary found at big firms, I am not going to bitch and whine about how miserable I have it. I am free to leave, and plan to in the near future (although the recession is making a leap to a different employer difficult). I do not think women should be treated differently, whether the “different” treatment is to my benefit or detriment. There are certain male attorneys (see certain comments above) that presume all women are baby machines/golddiggers/princesses/idiots that should not be taken seriously. However, there are just as many female attorneys that hijack every law firm meeting (regardless of the stated topic) to whine about oppression and use the royal “We” when discussing female attorneys in general. There are many men that would prefer flextime, and would gladly take a lower salary in return for it. The unfortunate reality is that it is in fact more socially acceptable for women to do this than men. Another unfortunate reality is the fact that many people of both genders presume that only women want flextime or a life outside of work. This is not a “women’s” issue – it is an issue that affects men and women that don’t buy into the big firm b.s. model. For every female attorney that wants flextime to spend more time with her precious baby, there is a male attorney that wants the same…..and there is yet another female attorney that just wants to leave the office at a decent hour to park her ass in front of the television and watch Southpark reruns, drink and eat cheesy poofs.
Thank you, 113. Those of us who choose not to have babies (male or female) get the raw deal–from working while others get maternity leave to paying extra property taxes to subsidize baby’s education. This isn’t a women’s issue–it’s a mother’s issue.
112, yes it is true that the non-pregnant female associates also pick up the slack, but at least they have the opportunity to go on four months of paid leave eventually, whether or not they take advantage of it. The male associates do not have such an opportunity, barring a sex change operation.
Imagine if your law firm gave every white associate four months of paid leave. Even if not every white associate takes advantage of the offer, we can all say that the policy is unfair toward non-white associates.
I agree with #92. If we’re playing the generalizations game, most of the male juniors with whom I work at least seem better at “getting things done.” But often the female juniors catch more things and I’m not worried about reining them in on every call because they talk less bullshit. I work with talented juniors of both genders, but often the males are perceived as stronger largely because they talk a bigger game and more BS.
Firms offer generous maternity leave and flextime options because they offer the firms a competitive advantage – and it isn’t just about “diversity” either. Most importantly, if a firm can’t attract women, it will have to dip lower into the applicant pool.
There is no law requiring paid maternity leave. Firms offer it to retain qualified women, because mid-level associates that produce quality work, of either gender, are hard to come by. A firm that offers below-market maternity leave / flextime policies will have a harder time hiring and retaining qualified women. Women that are sub-par or inflexible when there are pressing deadlines will get “the talk,” just like their male counterparts with performance issues. Those that are productive, relative to salary, and are flexible when needed, will be kept around. Additionally, even the illusion of a good flextime policy is enough to keep female associates around until their 4th or 5th year, when they discover part-time isn’t as great as it sounds. So, it’s good to have a few part timers to serve as the example of the “carrot” for junior female associates, who may or may not have children while at the firm.
No one has to “cover” for the part-timers or those on leave either. To the extent there are always 2-5 people out on maternity leave in a given office, the firm will just hire 2-5 more people. If you weren’t up until 2 writing the brief for the case you took over from the new mom, you’d be up until 2 writing another brief on a different case. Or, in this economy, you’d be laid off. “Covering” for part-timers works out the same.
Partnership is somewhat different, however, as there are usually far more qualified senior associates that come up for partner than there are partnership slots, so when it comes down to choosing between the mommy and the 24/7 billing machine . . . well, the firm finds a nice in-house job for the mommy.
The bottom line is that this should all be fairly obvious to anyone with reasonable analytical skills – “mommy-tracked” moms and 24/7 billing machines alike. No one has any cause to whine.
I wonder how much time the co-workers of 5, 7, 8 (and 10) have to build in to any project to accommodate his incompetence in the simplest things? Not to mention asshattery.
Nice story, commentary, and at least a few intelligent comments. Cool read, tough issue in a number of careers.
The Opt-In Project Website — Reports and Resources tab — brings you to: http://www.hellerehrman.com/en/optin/Generation%20Y%20handout.pdf
Chapter 11 Filing Inquiries – 1/26/09
Please direct inquiries pertaining to Heller Ehrman LLP’s Chapter 11 filing, including questions regarding the Verified List of Creditors, Statements of Financial Affairs and Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, to HellerEhrmanManagement@hellerehrman.com.
Irony?
117 is clueless:
“No one has to “cover” for the part-timers or those on leave either. To the extent there are always 2-5 people out on maternity leave in a given office, the firm will just hire 2-5 more people. If you weren’t up until 2 writing the brief for the case you took over from the new mom, you’d be up until 2 writing another brief on a different case. Or, in this economy, you’d be laid off. “Covering” for part-timers works out the same.”
Obviously you’ve never been faced with having to cover or pick up the slack of a part-timer. It’s not just about doing extra work, it’s about them not being available for emergencies, and about them not being up to speed with what is going on on a daily basis because they “check out” on the days they aren’t in the office. Everyweek I find myself having to stop and explain something to a part-timer on our team that she would know if she were around more than 3 days a week.
They are also more likely to view their job as a part time job, so the incentive to get ahead, stay engaged, and do great work is lessened. If someone doesn’t have an incentive to work harder and do great work (be it the goal of partnership or simply to avoid getting fired), to paraphrase one of my favorite movies (“Office Space”), that person will work just hard enough to avoid getting fired — nothing more.
121: But it IS a part-time job for that person, so why should they treat it as anything but that? They’re being compensated accordingly and miss out on all of the career-advancing benefits that you’ve addressed. If you have an issue with taking on extra work, take it up with the firm that permits this kind of arrangement. There’s got to be something in it for the firm, otherwise it wouldn’t be offered as an option. I’d imagine the striver/slacker divide exists with *all* workers, not just part-time workers.
From 1900-1960, billable hours were 1300, firm lawyers made tons of money, and no one worked past 7pm. Partnership was in 3-5 years.
And they didn’t even have the internet or word processing to make their jobs easy!
Now we have all the conveniences in the world and are expected to work the equivalent of two full-time jobs for a 10-12 year partnership track.
Let’s go back to the good old days, when there were no women or minorities in the profession, there were no crappy law schools, and the law was civilized.
Life was better for us then; and besides, women and minorities don’t want to practice in law firms anyway since they never seem to last. Let them be public defenders or DOJ lawyers.
first to say I would give the female in the picture above a raise.
-Lotsalove.
121 -
If your case is staffed inadequately, and you need another full time associate, take it up with the partner in charge. If there isn’t a “better” associate available, you prove the point that firms keep part-timers around because they are, everything considered, better than the alternatives. Presumably, if your firm has two part-timers working 3 days a week, the loss of both of them would cause the firm to hire another associate that it would otherwise choose not to hire based on that associate’s qualifications.
Generally firms have policies that require attorneys to be employed by the firm for 1-2 years before they can be put on part-time status, so the really poor performers crash and burn long before they can request to go on a reduced schedule.
So, would you rather have someone that does good work 3 days a week or someone that does crappy work 7 days a week? Or, would you prefer not to have the extra person on your team at all and simply do whatever work she would be doing yourself?
Of course, if the associate in question fails to do good work 3 days a week, or at least work that is comparable to other associates in good standing at your firm, then that person should be pushed out like any poor-performer and her part-time status has nothing to do with it.
125 – I would prefer to have 1 good associate replace the two part timers, so I don’t have to answer all of the stupid fucking questions the part timers have that a full timer would not have and i don’t have to pick up their slack (which does not always translate to more billable hours for me, just more headaches).
Firms don’t fire the part-timers because they are afraid to, plain and simple. It has nothing to do w/ quality of work or other options, they are simply worried about perception (and lawsuits). Meanwhile male associates will keep getting dumped on.
“Meanwhile male associates will keep getting dumped on.”
I believe you mean “full-time” associates.
126 -
Where would you find this hypothetical good associate that you couldn’t get staffed on your case in the first place? And how would you replace all of the smart women that only stay past their second year because there is the possibility of a flexible work schedule once they have children?
Also, how do you generally keep junior associates in the loop? Do you have every junior present at every meeting (and bill for it), or do you update them on a regular basis? If it is the latter, I don’t see how it matters if you do it daily or every few days. If it is the former you’re wasting a lot client money by having unnecessary juniors at every meeting.
In any case, I believe I stand corrected. Based on your apparent analytical skills I have no doubt that your firm would have little trouble attracting and retaining plenty of full time associates of a quality similar to your level. Therefore, if you are an average or better associate at your firm, there is no need for your firm to have any part-time associates.
Indeed, unless you’re already making less than $95,000, I would bet that the partners could get away with some pretty severe salary cuts without any loss in quality.
Of course, if the part-timer is on your team to compensate for a lack of trust in your performance that would explain a lot. Is she the brief writer while you are the “go to” guy for day-to-day tasks, fact investigation and discovery? Perhaps the annoying questions are just what is required for you to fill her in on the facts so that she can write the briefs that you are not trusted to draft?
125
126 – No, more like I have to re-write the small section of the brief that the part-timer was given to write because she has no clue what the hell is going on and really doesn’t give a shit because she has no ambition to work harder and get ahead and is not worried about losing her job because as a part-timer and a woman, she is almost bullet-proof.
THAT’s the point. Which you so eloquently missed. There is little incentive for part-timers to do quality work and stay engaged.
129,
Well Said. I can’t tell you how many times I have had a part-time associate contradict the rest of the brief because she wasn’t up to speed with the issue. It happens almost everytime I work with a part-timer. Now it could just be the part-timers at my firm, but I am willing to guess that’s not the case.
129,
Well Said. I can’t tell you how many times I have had a part-time associate contradict the rest of the brief because she wasn’t up to speed with the issue. It happens almost everytime I work with a part-timer. Now it could just be the part-timers at my firm, but I am willing to guess that’s not the case.
129,
Well Said. I can’t tell you how many times I have had a part-time associate contradict the rest of the brief because she wasn’t up to speed with the issue. It happens almost everytime I work with a part-timer. Now it could just be the part-timers at my firm, but I am willing to guess that’s not the case.
“There is little incentive for part-timers to do quality work and stay engaged.”
Yeah. In stark contrast to the significant incentive for others in BIGLAW to excel.
It is very hard for wommen. But men can, wommen can as well.
http://www.chinagooglepaiming.com