Comments on: Is the Recession Good for Female Lawyers? http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/ Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:42:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: googlepaiming http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484471 googlepaiming Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:04:52 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484471 It is very hard for wommen. But men can, wommen can as well. <a href="http://www.chinagooglepaiming.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.chinagooglepaiming.com</a> It is very hard for wommen. But men can, wommen can as well.

http://www.chinagooglepaiming.com

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484468 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:07:29 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484468 "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. “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.

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484465 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:29:43 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484465 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.

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484462 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:28:29 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484462 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.

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484459 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:25:52 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484459 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.

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484456 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:39:15 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484456 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. 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.

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484453 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:12:45 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484453 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 -

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

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484450 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:47:39 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484450 "Meanwhile male associates will keep getting dumped on." I believe you mean "full-time" associates. “Meanwhile male associates will keep getting dumped on.”

I believe you mean “full-time” associates.

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484447 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:02:19 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484447 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. 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.

]]> By: guest http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/comment-page-4/#comment-484444 guest Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:52:34 +0000 http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/is-the-recession-good-for-female-lawyers/#comment-484444 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. 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.

]]>