Biglaw Mommy: Let's Hear It For The Dads

Flex-time for the dads? Mommy Dear is all for it. And firms should be, too, because it just might mean that a Biglaw mommy can bill more hours if someone lets dad come home once in a while.

Last week I used this column as an opportunity to make a case for flex-time. I received a number of very interesting responses: some were thoughtful and insightful (those generally come to my email), some made me want to pull my hair out, and one inspired me for this week’s column. Namely, what about the dads in Biglaw? The Biglaw Daddies?

Actually, this is a topic that’s been on my mind, and last week provided a great segue. I’ve been treating this column as a way to express some of the difficulties that women in Biglaw (and women generally in the workforce) face when they become mothers, and I still think it’s an incredibly important and underserved issue. But as I’ve researched for this column, I’ve come to realize that being a father and working in Biglaw presents its own set of challenges that don’t get nearly enough attention. At least we as a society seem to realize that we have a long way to go towards creating a workforce that is friendly to mothers. No one seems to care about the dads.

Well, dads, I care.

When it comes to parenting in Biglaw, I do think dads get the short end of the stick. While it’s not easy being a Biglaw mom, there does seem to be more of an understanding that Biglaw moms have responsibilities at home and firms at least tolerate that fact. On the other hand, it seems to me that Biglaw dads, at least the associate daddies, are expected to largely sacrifice their families for the sake of career. I know many male associates who have children, and would actually like to see those children and play an active role in their lives, but who have been told in no uncertain terms by partners that spending time with their families is a luxury they have no right to expect. I know of men who, after taking advantage of slow days to go home early for dinner or come in late on occasion in order to attend a school event, have been lectured, ridiculed, and even received bad reviews during the formal review process. Of course, the reviewers didn’t explicitly say the reason for the bad review was the associate’s schedule, but the partners’ opinion on the subject was no secret. Sadly, I’ve heard about a couple of instances of partners who, when they heard a male associate planned to go home early to see his kids, would deliberately sabotage the associate by scheduling a meeting later than the associate had planned to leave. How did those associates know the partner did it deliberately? He told them so.

I’m sure some of this happens for the same reason that many of Biglaw’s worst practices exist: it’s always been done this way. If current (male) partners were expected to spend every night away from their families, then by golly, they’re not going to go easy on their associates. I think some partners actually see it this way, while for others, it’s not so much a thought that’s present in the forefront of their minds. Rather their entire approach to working in Biglaw was molded by that expectation of sacrifice and they’re going to pass it down. I’ve even heard people compare the phenomenon to some version of Stockholm Syndrome.

That attitude isn’t directed only at male associates. Many times during my years in Biglaw, I’ve actually had partners say explicitly to me that if they did it, I can do it. I think someone even said something about the experience building character, a la the nerdy but awesome dad in Calvin and Hobbes. But there was definitely a shift once I had a baby. I got less of the “suck it up” attitude and more of the “okay, fine, do what you need to do” response. And as I’ve said, some partners have been quite gracious.

I wonder if there’s a certain element of sexism at play here. I know that the entire premise of my column up to now has been to talk about changes in Biglaw that could help working mothers. I still believe those changes are necessary, but I concede that, as I said, there is at least some semblance of understanding or appreciation for a mother’s need/desire to get home to her kids. However, the fact that men don’t get that same appreciation makes me worry that firms don’t accommodate because they recognize that babies demand more work/life balance, but rather because moms need to be home taking care of those babies. I’m not the first to suggest that law firms, and society at large, still don’t generally acknowledge that a man could be the primary caregiver at home, and don’t place enough value on even the simple presence of the father at home. I have no doubt whatsoever that some partners really believe that if a male associate has a wife at home who can take care of the kids, there’s absolutely no need for him to need to get home during the week, period. (Some of those guys probably also view Don Draper as aspirational, rather than the misogynistic, egotistical, and just kind of depressing character that he is. Sorry, I don’t really like Mad Men.)

Sponsored

On the other hand, I simultaneously wonder if we’ve paid so much attention in recent years to the issue of working mothers that we’ve lost track of the working fathers. Maybe it’s not so much a belief that women should be at home, and that’s why we’re allowed more flexibility in the workplace, but rather we’ve finally driven the point home that a woman can want to have a career AND be a present mother to her children. Maybe the sexism lies in the assumption that men don’t need the same flexibility that we’re finally giving women.

Lest I stray too far from my original premise, I’ll also put out there that if we could improve this attitude in firms towards Biglaw daddies, we would simultaneously be advancing the Biglaw mommy cause. It’s a simple fact that if fathers have a little more flexibility to get home on the early side, even once in a while, then their working spouse can stay a little later in the office to finish a brief, volunteer for a new matter, or just generally be present. When dads don’t have that flexibility, it all falls on the moms, who just might also be trying to have careers. I firmly believe this is why many women give up and stay home. After all, with the exception of the extremely small subset of people who can afford (and want) day, night, and weekend nannies, one parent has to be there at least some of the time.

In this day and age, I don’t think I sound like a crazy hippie to suggest that we ought to be supporting all the men who actually want to take an active role in raising their children. We’ve come so far in so many ways in challenging gender norms that it seems downright antiquated not to allow men to take advantage of some of the policies we’re (only just) implementing for women. Flex-time for the dads? I’m all for it. And firms should be, too, because it just might mean that a Biglaw mommy can bill more hours if someone lets dad come home once in a while.


Mommy Dear, Esq. is a senior Biglaw associate in NYC by day and a new mommy by evening, weekend, and 3:30 a.m. She’s currently trying to “have it all,” “lean in,” and sometimes even cook dinner. Mommy Dear, Esq. is very, very tired. You can email her at mommydearesq@gmail.com.

Sponsored