We received 1,669 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on children and careers.

Quite a few readers are pessimistic about the impact having a child would have on their careers. One comment summed it up:

Having a child would not, in itself, hurt anyone's career. Raising one almost certainly would, as would taking up stamp collecting or any other non-career-advancing hobby.

But just having a child, provided it was promptly deposited at a nearby orphanage (between conference calls), should not be too problematic.

Ouch. Another comment was a bit more hopeful:

I recently returned full-time from 5 months of maternity leave at my Vault 5 firm. At the end of the day, I don't think that the length of a single maternity leave is that big of a deal. No one is going to remember or care how long you were gone, particularly if you are junior and still more or less interchangeable with your peers. That said, my experience was that, with all of my matters having closed about 3 months before my due date, it was really tough to find work during that time because I looked like I was going to pop at any moment. So the time I was out of the game and not able to build skills was longer than the maternity leave alone. And reminding everyone of who I am and the good work that I do has had to happen a bit more since I returned, but none of this is career-ending. It just takes patience, but that kind of perseverance comes quite naturally to me now that I am a mother.

I worked until a week before the baby was born. Though 16-hour days or longer are possible for most of a normal pregnancy, they are not a good idea in the late stages (the last 6 weeks or so). Even a normal pregnancy is a lot of work, don't get me wrong, but, honestly, the talk [in the comments] about using surrogates because you don't want a pregnancy to slow you down is just silly, and clearly the idea of a childless person who has not seriously contemplated what surrogacy involves. A few months of being pregnant, and then taking maternity leave, in my experience, just isn't going to kill your career.

Read more -- the rest of this very thoughtful email, plus the overall survey results -- after the jump.

Last week, we posted Part Four of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, covering the range of firms from Akin Gump to Young Conaway. We've also posted results from our surveys on relocation benefits and whether you have to pay it all back when you leave. And between survey responses, comments, and tips, we have a few thousand data points.

Today, we're consolidating the three tables in one place, so that we can start filling in more blanks and squeezing out some nuances.

The table below now shows six things for each firm:

  * which bar exam expenses the firm will reimburse (send us tips to fill in the blanks),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a summer stipend or a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts,

  * whether the firm provides any particular relocation benefits,

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year, and

  * whether the firm will make you pay it all back if you leave. As a general rule, payback requirements will apply to everything but a stub bonus, and will include clerkship bonuses.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the aggregated table of bar reimbursements, stipends and bonuses, salary advances, moving expenses, stub bonuses, and payback requirements. Check it out, after the jump.

For the second installment of the Asia Chronicles, we're going interactive. Please click on this Youtube link, minimize, and read on.

Come with us, won't you, to a world of your imagination. Imagine that you're an associate at a major U.S. law firm in Asia, paid the same salary and bonus as your colleagues back home. Imagine further that $87,500 of your salary is excluded from federal income tax. Imagine that your firm pays your rent, and, even though this would normally be considered taxable income, it is excluded from taxation as well.

One of the ACLs who lived in this "world that defies explanation" paid off his entire $120K+ law school debt in one year and is on track to put away over a quarter million during the next two years. How? With extra salary and a much lower tax burden, he takes home approximately 15% more cash than he would in the U.S. He has no car or other transportation expenses (walks 10 minutes from home to office), usually works late enough to expense his dinners, and pays no rent. He takes so many business trips that frequent flier miles and hotel points take care of most of his vacation expenses. At least 80% of his paycheck goes straight into his 401K and other investments. The rest goes to magnums of Cristal (he admits he could do better).

Before we jump into the details, let's set out some assumptions:

Assumption #1: There are tons of U.S. firms in Asia; some pay less, some pay more. A sizable group of firms pays competitive packages (yes, we said "packages") at or near the top of the market. This entire discussion focuses on that group because, let's be honest, for most of us "the law" isn't our calling. We don't sit up at night thinking about Section 4(2) of the U.S. Securities Act or wonder about the components of a conversion formula in a share purchase agreement (wait, maybe someti... ok, no ... never). So, for the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume that it's mostly (almost entirely) about the Benjamins. (Or Maos? Lees?)

Assumption #2: There are U.S. lawyers in Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. But, to borrow from XOXO/Greedy Associates lingo, this discussion focuses on "BIGLAW" in the major Asian markets (i.e., Tokyo, Singapore and the greater China region) at "Vault"-listed firms. HTH.

On to the main event. Salaries. Three words: New York levels. Bonuses. Three words: New York levels. That's right. When you guys over in New York rejoice over the raises, so do we. But, there's more. A few years ago, there was this evil little SOB of a concept called "tax equalization" whereby firms, for whatever reason (well, we know the reason; you do the math), decided to pay their overseas U.S. associates an amount in salary that was equal, after tax, to what an associate in New York would be paid. Yes, that means poor little Billy in Asia was "theoretically" paying New York city and state tax. Firms have since moved away from this model. In a low-tax region like Singapore or Hong Kong, this means associates can take advantage of the low tax rates. What's that, you say? The U.S. taxes on worldwide income? Fear not. Certain provisions in the tax code are geared towards providing tax breaks for U.S. citizens working worldwide. Bottom line, associates in Asia at U.S. law firms also pay less in taxes each year.

Ohhh, and it doesn't stop there. Remember the reference we made to "packages" above? Firms in Asia (except in, only God knows why, Singapore ) foot the bill for their associates' housing expenses. Many firms pay this housing allowance in cash each month, some pay the rent directly to the landlord. Many firms then let associates keep the difference between the rent and the allowance. The word on the street is that a certain Wall Street law firm whose name begins with an S and ends with a T pays top of the market at about $80,000 a year. So, if you're an associate at this unnamed Wall Street firm that rhymes with Pimpson Cratcher and your rent is $40,000 each year, you're pocketing an extra $40,000. It's the "special bonus" that never stops giving.

According to Evan Jowers of Kinney Recruiting (who has eyeballed perhaps more offer letters from the major US and British firms in Hong Kong / China than any other person in the industry), "The housing / expat packages at the top U.S. and British firms in Asia are likely to go higher in the next year or two. Many of these firms have substantially raised their packages in only the past 6 months, with there now being many more firms in the what I consider to be competitive housing allowance range in Hong Kong, $65,000 to $80,000, than a year ago. In fact, the number of firms with housing packages over $70,000 in Hong Kong has more than doubled in the past six months."

More delicious details, after the jump.

Last week, we posted Part Three of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses (which covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Proskauer Rose). We got quite a few tips in response, as well as quite a few comments in person, at the NALP conference in Toronto.

Find out whether today's installment will at last make it to Wachtell, Weil, WilmerHale and beyond . . . after the jump.

But before we get there, let's quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. Also feel free to let us know whether these stipends and bonuses are subject to repayment if you leave, and whether your firm helps out with relocations, both topics of surveys last week.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the fourth batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses. Check it out, after the jump.

Some of this information is -- or soon will be -- reflected in Justin Bernold's nifty tables of maternity leave and paternity leave. But in the spirit of positive reinforcement, we thought that we should separately highlight -- and commend -- the following firms for recent enhancements to their parental leave policies:

1. Akin Gump: Now at the industry-standard 18 weeks for "[b]irth or adoptive parents who serve as primary caregivers." Memo after the jump.

2. Andrews Kurth: Also now at 18 weeks. More details in this press release.

3. Morrison & Foerster: They moved to 18 weeks last month, actually, but we haven't noted it until now. Several MoFo tipsters wrote in requesting a shout-out, including one who pointed out:

[T]he new policy has something I've not seen elsewhere: an automatic option to go on reduced hours for the first year after a child is born. Can't say whether that's the de facto policy elsewhere, but it is the first time I have seen any firm put it in writing.

Memo and more details, also after the jump.

So far this year, our ATL / Lateral Link survey results have produced tables on clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses and bar expenses, and relocation benefits, as well as parental leave (kudos, by the way, to Akin Gump and Andrews Kurth for moving to 18 weeks maternity leave recently).

But for many of these charts, there's a worrisome question lurking in the background: will you have to pay the firm back if you leave?

We received almost 400 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on payback policies, and the most common answer appears to be "yes, but only if you leave relatively quickly." Most of you reported that your firms would require you to return clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses, bar stipends and expenses, and even moving expenses if you left your jobs within a year after starting. But relatively few firms imposed longer terms, and a fair number reported no payback requirement at all.

Find out which firms fall where, after the jump.

We received almost 500 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on relocation benefits, and it seems like another table-worthy set of results.

As with our running tables on clerkship bonuses, maternity leave, paternity leave, and signing bonuses and bar expenses, the moving-expenses table is a work in progress that will be updated from time to time, based on your greatly appreciated tips.

Is your firm missing? Spot an error? Please let us know.

In the meantime, last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you might have to pay everything back is still open.

Check out the full table, after the jump.

One subject that we've covered extensively here at ATL is parental leave. If you're lucky enough to be blessed with children, presumably you want to spend time with them, despite the demands of law-firm life.

But what about individuals who want to have kids, but are having difficulties? A few readers have submitted inquiries about infertility treatment. This one is representative:

Your posts on maternity and paternity benefits are interesting; thanks for posting. One benefit that I don't think you've touched on -- if you have and I've missed it, I apologize -- is the availability of coverage for infertility treatment. Not the sexiest topic, I know, but certainly significant.

How significant? Some details:

For example, one IVF (in vitro fertilization) cycle might cost $15,000 or more, and many people have to to go through several tries before any success (everyone's always hoping for success). Some firms offer this coverage as a part of their insurance packages. Baker & McKenzie in Chicago, for example, is a firm I've heard of that has this coverage available. [Ed. note: This is just hearsay, which we haven't confirmed with the firm. If it's important to you, you should verify it before acting upon it.]

If you're unfortunately in the position where you have to seek infertility treatments, they are ridiculously expensive. Doctors visits, fertility drugs, IVF, etc. Ridiculously expensive. My firm does not offer the option of insurance coverage for these expenses, meaning that I may be out $20k to $50k (who knows how it will go) over the next year, whereas an associate at Baker might have full coverage (in addition to what is probably a higher salary in the first place).

It might be an interesting piece of info for folks to know. Not one that everyone needs to consider in law firm decisions, but maybe more than you'd expect. People don't like to advertise infertility.

True enough. So here's an open thread, where you can discuss the subject of infertility -- and which firms will cover the cost of infertility treatment -- on an anonymous basis, in the comments.

Last week, we posted Part Two of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, and covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Kirkland & Ellis (or K&L Gates, depending on how you choose to alphabetize). We got quite a few tips in response, as well as quite a few comments in person at the NALP conference in Toronto.

Find out whether today's installment will make it to O'Melveny, Pillsbury, Quinn, Skadden, or all the way to Weil and beyond . . . after the jump.

But before we get there, let's quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. Also feel free to let us know whether these stipends and bonuses are subject to repayment if you leave, and whether your firm helps out with relocations, both topics of surveys last week.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the third batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, after the jump.

While we continue to update our ATL / Lateral Link tables on clerkship bonuses and signing bonuses and bar exam fees, a few of the clerks I have been working with lately have asked an interesting, but often critical question: "Do I have to give it back if I leave?"

Stay tuned for results next week, and, as always, please feel free to send us tips.

In the meantime, a quick shout-out to two firms making nice strides lately: Hogan & Hartson now offers a $50K clerkship bonus in all of their offices, and Fried Frank has increased their paid maternity leave to 18 weeks.

Both of our running tables have now been updated to reflect the good news.

Last week, we posted Part One of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, and covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Drinker Biddle. We got quite a few tips in response, as well as one of my favorite comments of the week:

Nooooo. I need to know about firms in the 'W's! I hate waiting.

Find out whether today's installment will get far enough to satisfy our poor reader at Weil, WilmerHale, Wachtell, Winston, or Whatnot . . . after the jump.

But before we get there, let's quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. (Or, if you're going to be at this week's NALP conference in Toronto, feel free to say hello in person.)

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the second batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, after the jump.

Over the past few months, we've devoted several of our ATL / Lateral Link survey posts to compensation issues like base salaries, bonus amounts, and clerkship bonuses. But we've received quite a few requests to do another survey or open thread on another compensation issue: starting bonuses and stipends.

Associates at four New York firms (anonymized) have recently e-mailed the same general question:

Next year top law firms in New York, as well as those around the country (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.), will pay their incoming associates $160,000 plus a $10,000 STARTING BONUS. [My v5 firm], on the other hand, will pay incoming associates $160,000 with a $10,000 SALARY ADVANCE. Simply put, I will be going on a bar trip this summer with money I loaned myself from my first year salary! I find this very strange considering that [my firm] considers itself to be the cream of the crop in New York in terms of pay.

i'm wondering if you can post a thread on firms giving incoming associates stipends for the summer. i'm at a v5 nyc firm and just learned that they don't offer a summer stipend but do allow an advance (up to 12k, i believe). some friends i know at peer firms mentioned that they'll be receiving stipends (10k from what i hear) as opposed to advances. any assistance in shedding some light on this would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

I read your blog and I have a suggestion for a thread - the types of loan/stipend firms give to cover studying for the bar. I've heard that some firms give out-right cash bonuses, whereas others (including my Vault Top 5 firm) give a no-interest loan that you must then repay over your first year. Since these amounts are usually around $10,000, it can make a not insignificant difference in first year compensation.

Thought you might want to run a story on advances/stipends offered by law firms for incoming associates. I'm an incoming associate at [big prestigious firm], and was frustrated when I heard that most other top law firms pay a stipend of $10,000 to their associates for the summer of the bar, while [big prestigious firm] is offering only a "$3,000 signing bonus" and a 7k loan, which will be deducted from our first 6 months of salary.

I know several other incoming associates who are surprised to see [big prestigious firm] below market, but are afraid to communicate this to the firm.

About a year ago, when ATL previously posted an open thread on the subject, commenters suggested that firms in New York were more likely than non-NY firms to pay stub bonuses (first year bonuses pro-rated for the number of months worked), which made up for the lack of a signing bonus. But is that true today?

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey will probe your firm's policy on signing bonuses and salary advances. Feel free to speak up in the comments, too. Or send us information by email. If we get enough responses, we'll put together a table like the clerkship, maternity, and paternity leave tables (each of which will be updated this weekend, by the way, so feel free to send tips about those as well).

Despite the recent turmoil in the economy and the stock market, all appears to be well at Milbank Tweed Hadley McCloy. A tipster provided us with the highlights of chairman Mel Immergut's "State of the Firm" address from last week:

1. Primary caregiver leave is now 18 weeks paid.

2. Blackberries will get replaced every two years instead of three.

3. "We're not getting fired."

It appears that Milbank has effectively made a "no layoffs" promise. It learned that lesson the hard way:

Mel stressed that in the last downturn, they had slowed hiring, and then found themselves at a loss for mid-level associates when things picked up later. So the plan is to continue to hire new people (our summer program is the largest to date at 100+) and retain, but not really hire laterals.

Will other firms make a similar pledge? We'll see.

Last week, our colleagues over at Dealbreaker reported on changes to the "Evening Meals and Taxis" policy of Goldman Sachs in London. The upshot: the firm's dining@mydesk service -- okay, that doesn't sound fun, but it's still a perk of sorts -- and a GS-covered taxi home will kick in at 10 PM instead of 9 PM, the old cutoff. Memo here.

Similar changes to car and dinner policies appear to be happening on this side of the pond. For example, we hear through the grapevine that Mayer Brown's New York office recently pushed the free-car cutoff back to 9:30 PM.

At your law firm, when do you get a free dinner and / or transportation home? Has the firm changed its policy recently? Any thoughts on what the cutoff ought to be? Some firms have deadlines that vary by season. E.g., Debevoise (9 p.m. during the summer).

Please weigh in, on these and related matters -- e.g., stories about crazy and/or incompetent car service drivers -- in the comments.

Update: According to this comment, "MBRM has always moved cars back to 9:30 once the clocks change."

Unacceptable [Dealbreaker]

We received 1,046 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on vacation time.

Roughly two thirds of respondents reported that their firms offered four weeks of vacation, but sixteen percent are at three-week firms, six percent are at firms with only two weeks of vacation, and a handful are at firms with but a single week. Five percent of respondents are at firms that do not offer vacation time at all, while six percent are at firms that offer more than four weeks.

Among the firms offering four weeks of paid vacation, about a quarter of respondents took at least 20 vacation days, with another twelve percent of respondents taking 16 to 19 vacation days. Another quarter of respondents took between 11 and 15 vacation days. Almost a fifth of respondents, however, took fewer than five vacation days.

At firms offering three weeks of paid vacation, almost a quarter of respondents took at least 15 vacation days, with another seventeen percent of respondents taking 11 to 15 vacation days. Thirty-six percent of respondents, however, took only 6 to 10 vacation days, and thirty-five percent took one week or less.

Roughly two fifths of respondents who didn't take all their vacations explained that they simply had too much work to get done. Another quarter, however, felt they needed the hours, and about the same number felt uncomfortable taking vacations. Five percent of respondents skipped vacations because they wanted to impress people, and roughly the same number were actually instructed by a partner to stay at the office. Twenty-two percent of respondents actually cancelled vacations last year.

Of course, not every vacation was really a vacation. Roughly 63% of respondents said they did work while on vacation last year.

Will there be better luck this year? Maybe not. Only 37% of respondents said their firms allowed them to roll over unused vacation days. Fifty-one percent were at use-it-or-lose-it firms, and the rest were unsure.

Over the last couple of weeks, we've posted four sets of results from last month's ATL / Lateral Link survey on leave and part-time arrangements:

 • your thoughts on whether you would rather work fewer hours for less pay,
 • a running table of firms' paid maternity leave policies (mirrored here),
 • a breakdown of part-time and flex-time availability, and
 • a breakdown of childcare options (with slightly more detail provided informally here).

Today we address a fifth set of results, by popular demand: paternity leave.

As one tipster put it:

Can you also keep track of paternity leave? Firms will never really embrace work-life balance issues until they recognize that they affect both women AND men. Moreover, having lengthy maternity leave and poor paternity leave discriminates against gay couples and assumes that a woman will always be the primary caretaker.

The reason maternity leave is provided is because pregnancy is a legal disability. Therefore, employers (most of them) must provide you with the same rights as if you were disabled in any other way (if you've been there for a year), even though pregnancy is a voluntary disability. So if your firm has a 12-week disability, then it's 12 weeks etc. (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act if I'm wrong on any of this, I've only seen it tangentially).

We received quite a few tips and comments after posting yesterday's table of clerkship bonuses, so we have updated the table (four times) to reflect new information on Arnold & Porter, Covington & Burling, King & Spalding, Patterson Belknap, Wilson Sonsini, Debevoise, Katten Muchin, and Munger Tolles. We also updated the running table of maternity leave policies (mirrored here) yesterday. Please let us know if your firm's information is out of date or missing.

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey continues our exploration of perks and benefits by investigating the often overlooked subject of vacation time.

We received 826 responses to last Thursday's ATL / Lateral Link survey, which asked you what kind of benefits, leave or part-time policies you would most like your employers to offer.

Both men and women found a reduced-hours track with lower compensation a particularly appealing policy, with roughly a third of male respondents and a quarter of female respondents ranking it their top choice.

However, roughly the same number of female respondents ranked on-site childcare as their top choice, and almost twelve percent of male respondents agreed.

A telecommuting option was also appealing, with more than a quarter of male respondents ranking it as a first choice, and a fifth ranking it #2. Fewer women, 14.4%, ranked a telecommuting policy as the most appealing option a firm could provide, but roughly seventeen to eighteen percent of female respondents ranked telecommuting as their second, third, or fourth choice.

Less than ten percent of men and only 15.7% of women ranked a flex-time policy as their top choice, but it was actually the most popular second choice for respondents of each gender.

Both men and women also generally preferred the idea of a two-year part-time track, treated as one year for seniority purposes, to either longer parental leave or a six-month part-time option.

See charts of responses by both genders, after the jump.

Pity the poor partners of McDermott Will & Emery. Sure, their firm is highly regarded and highly profitable. But when they head off to try cases in far-off places, they often get benchslapped silly.

You may recall the case of bankruptcy partner William Smith, who found himself in the deep-fat fryer after telling a judge she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." Although the judge was upset, in the end Smith got a slap on the wrist.

Things didn't end as happily for Terrence McMahon and Vera Elson, MWE partners based in Silicon Valley. Judge Richard P. Matsch -- the tough, well-regarded trial judge who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing case -- sanctioned McMahon and Elson for "cavalier and abusive" misconduct and a "what can I get away with?" attitude during trial. From the Denver Post:

A federal judge recently got so infuriated by the conduct of two highly regarded trial attorneys that he overturned a jury's $51 million verdict, then ordered the lawyers to pay the fees and costs of the opposing lawyers, a sum that could total several million dollars.

Ouch. So is that coming out of their partnership draws?

Or maybe the firm will find other ways to cut costs. Read more, after the jump.

Update: Please note that this post has been corrected since it was first published. The correction appears after the jump.

So far, we've posted three sets of results from last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on leave and part-time arrangements:

 • your thoughts on whether you would rather work fewer hours for less pay,
 • a running table of firms' paid maternity leave policies (mirrored here and updated today to add King & Spalding), and
 • a breakdown of part-time and flex-time availability.

Today we'll discuss a fourth set of results: childcare support. But first, a fresh survey! One reader of the maternity leave results made an interesting point in the comments:

I would imagine these stats to be far less important to working moms than how permissive a firm is with flexible schedules. The maternity leave is a one time deal at the very beginning of the baby's life, but the child will need the mom to be there for far longer.

Also, family friendly policies such as long maternity leave and flex schedules provide significant benefits to society in general. Firms too benefit in many ways.

Some of yesterday's results suggest our tipster is right, but which policies really matter most to you? Let's find out:

We'll post results next week. In the meantime, find out how law firms fare on childcare options after the jump.