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.

The folks over at the WSJ Law Blog have just given us a late-night treat: an interview with Shinyung Oh of Paul Hastings.

Oh is the author of the famous (and fabulous) PH Farewell Email -- aka The Email That Launched A Thousand Blog Comments -- and a heroine in the eyes of many Biglaw associates around the country. Here are a few highlights from the interview:

[T]he former associate, Shinyung Oh (University of Chicago ’93, Georgetown Law ’98), a commercial litigation lawyer.... says she sent the now-infamous email because she didn’t want other associates who may be laid off because of downsizing by the firm – but told it is because of their performance – to doubt their own abilities.

“I want them to feel like they’re not completely alone and not to worry about their own performance when it’s the firm doing something for economic reasons” and because of a “desire to increase partner profits,” she said.

Inducing crippling self-doubt among associates is one of the most pernicious things about "stealth layoffs," in which economically-driven dismissals are cast by firms as purely performance-based. We know this from having spoken to stealth-layoff victims, who have described how their self-confidence was shattered when their firms dismissed them, purportedly for poor performance.

While there may be a "six of one, half-dozen of another" quality to this debate -- as Dan Weiner of Hughes Hubbard & Reed just told the WSJ Law Blog, "is it economic or is it performance-related is a false dichotomy," since if you have to make cuts, "you’re not going to pick people randomly" -- we still think it's the better part of valor for firms to take the reputational hit, rather than stick it to their associates. At any rate, it's certainly fair for law students and lateral candidates to shun firms that get called out for being less-than-candid about their personnel decisions.

Back to the interview. Here's the $64,000 -- or three-months-severance -- question: What was Shinyung Oh thinking when she sent out that email?

[Oh said] she knew that the email, which was sent to associates firm-wide, litigation partners in her office and the top management of Paul Hastings, could ruin her chances of landing another big-firm job. She said she isn’t considering suing the firm, and said she doesn’t feel she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.

Oh Shinyung, are you sure? After Aaron Charney settled with Sullivan & Cromwell, he got himself a nice new apartment. Then again, if you were planning to sue, you probably shouldn't have told the Wall Street Journal that you didn't feel discriminated against on account of your pregnancy.

As for what’s next, Oh, who immigrated from South Korea when she was eight and grew up in New York and Houston, said she’s not sure. But she said that since the email was posted online, she’s received an outpouring of support from lawyers in the Bay Area and across the country. Several are trying to help her find a new job.

Shinyung, if you're looking for headhunter recommendations, drop us a line -- we can hook you up. And if you ever get the urge to send out another barn-burning, firmwide email, definitely give us a heads up. Based on the way that your email resonated with readers, it's clear that you have writerly talent that deserves a wider audience.

In all seriousness, we wish Shinyung Oh the best of luck. We commend her for the courage it took to write that farewell email. We have every confidence that she will land on her feet -- recall our prior post, quoting a colleague who praised her as someone who "ran a huge class action and got excellent results" -- and we look forward to following her career in the years ahead.

Update: Jane Genova shares our optimism about Oh's future. She writes: Oh "has almost an infinite number of fresh career options, within and outside law.... [enumerates options].... Being the good solider, girl scout or boy scout has no payoff in the current career marketplace. Bold risks do.... Wild risk is the only secure path."

P.S. Congrats to Amir Efrati on the interview. Read the full post over here. Check out a copy of Shinyung Oh's 2006 performance review, also obtained by the WSJ, over here (PDF).

A screencap of her firm bio is saved for posterity, after the jump.

Fired Paul Hastings Associate Talks to Law Blog [WSJ Law Blog]
The New Risky Business - Shinyung Oh's E-Mail Strategy [Law and More]

Earlier: Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email (And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)
Miscarriage of Justice at Paul Hastings? The Blogosphere Reacts
Nationwide Layoff Watch: Paul Hastings

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey asks a question that a number of associates have been asking lately: Will your firm let you have children and a career at the same time?

Or, for that matter, are you even comfortable trying?

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has a feature article that is particularly timely in light of this week's firing debacle at Paul Hastings. The article, by Noah Schaffer, discusses cases filed by female attorneys in Massachusetts alleging pregnancy-related discrimination.

One recent complaint was filed against Mintz Levin in Boston. A female associate, Kamee Beth Verdrager, was offered a choice between termination or demotion shortly after returning from maternity leave. We discussed her case in more detail here.

Howard P. Speicher, of the Boston firm of Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, discusses the building of a discrimination claim in a different case, brought against the firm of Wynn & Wynn:

Typically, he says, the discrimination is "an inference that you have to draw. In that case, we had these two female attorneys who were horrified when they heard this statement made by the managing partner of the firm at a meeting. The partner had implied that [plaintiff Jill Carmichael] was having babies instead of concentrating on the law."

Such cases are usually much harder to prove, Speicher notes.

"It's an evidence issue," he says. "Usually, if a woman thinks she was fired because she's pregnant, she's not going to have anyone admitting that — like we had" in the Carmichael case. "Usually there is going to be the claim by the employer that it was for other reasons, like job performance."

That leaves the employee with the difficult task of convincing a judge, jury or hearing officer to draw an inference based on evidence that might not be as obvious, he says.

We don't know if this Paul Hastings associate plans to file a discrimination claim against the firm, but from the sounds of her e-mail, it seems likely. The Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly article says some firms settle discrimination claims "quickly and quietly to avoid negative publicity." Um, too late for Paul Hastings.

[Employment attorney Ellen] J. Messing says pregnancy discrimination cases are actually easier to prove than other types of discrimination, such as age bias.

"There tends to be a before-and-after picture where people report that they are treated as professionals until it is known or evident that they are pregnant," she says. "And then they are treated as bellies."

Surprisingly, some of the firms that have been hit with claims are known for their "family-friendly" policies. In fact, Mintz Levin was named as one of Working Mother magazine's best law firms for women attorneys.

Case in point. The diversity section of the PH website points out that they are "one of the top family-friendly firms in America."

Pregnant Pauses: Women's claims of bias persist despite family-friendly policies [Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly]

Earlier: 'I suppose we have your honeymoon to blame for this?'
Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email (And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)

Don't worry, commenters. We have every intention of giving the recent controversy arising out of layoffs at Paul Hastings the wall-to-wall coverage it deserves.

We're preparing a more detailed report on associate layoffs and the general state of affairs at PH. If you have information to contribute, please email us (subject line: "Paul Hastings"). We've been following the comments (750 and counting) on the post, but we prefer email, due to the greater accountability and opportunity for follow-up. (We keep our email tipsters anonymous, of course.)

Our Paul Hastings scoop has reverberated throughout the blogosphere. A sampling of reactions (excerpts; click on each link to read more):

1. Jezebel. From Moe Tkacik:

[A] female lawyer was laid off by the big law firm Paul Hastings days after suffering a miscarriage because they didn't want her to get pregnant again. This sort of s**t happens all the time in a lot of industries, of course, but in a firm whose specialty is employment law it's kind of outrageous....

"If this response seems particularly emotional, perhaps an associate's emotional vulnerability after a recent miscarriage is a factor you should consider the next time you fire or lay someone off," she writes.

Also, it really isn't that emotional in light of the fact that a male employee of the firm killed himself and his ex-girlfriend, a Paul Hastings secretary, at the firm's Atlanta office.

Excellent observations -- the past few weeks have been rough for Paul Hastings. And it is somewhat ironic that PH -- a leading employment-law firm, counsel to Sullivan & Cromwell in the Aaron Charney discrimination litigation -- now finds itself in hot water over how it treats its own employees.

2. Instapundit. From the ever-pithy Professor Glenn Reynolds:

WHEN NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS don't work.

3. Volokh Conspiracy. From Professor Orin Kerr:

It's David Lat's World, and BigLaw Partners Are Just Living In It: Remember the old days when law firms worried about getting sued if they fired an attorney? These days, I would think the greater fear is that the firing will get ugly and end up featured on Above the Law.

Thanks to Professor Kerr for the kind words.

Read more, below the fold.

This is, like, WOW. We don't quite know what to say.

This departure memo, sent by an associate leaving the San Francisco office of Paul Hastings, is extraordinary. It also confirms the rumors -- which have swirled about for quite some time, but without confirmation until now -- of associate layoffs at PH.

We're reaching out for comment to the associate in question and to Paul Hastings. But we wanted to put this up ASAP, to break the story first.

Farewell email below (with a handful of minor typos corrected). "Transition Agreement and General Release," after the jump.

*******************
From: [Redacted]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:14 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: My departure

The circumstances surrounding my departure from Paul Hastings have been deeply disappointing. It is one thing to ignore an email sent as a colleague is waiting to have her uterus scraped after a miscarriage, but it is wholly another level of heartlessness to lay her off six days after that. [Partner X] is the only one who expressed any sympathy after my miscarriage, and I am grateful to him for that.

A business is a business, but it takes very little to convey some level of humanity to carry out even the most difficult business decisions. We are human beings first before we are partners or associates. Had you simply explained that the department is unable to sustain the number of associates in the office, I would have completely understood. Had you explained that the office had been directed to reduce the number of associates and I was chosen because of my high billable rate and low billable hours, I would have appreciated such directness, even though the consequences of blindly raising billable rates to an unsustainable degree is plainly predictable. What I do not understand is the attempt to blame the associate for not bringing in the business that should have been brought in by each of you and to hide your personal failures by attempting to tarnish my excellent performance record and looking to undermine my sense of self esteem.

The last few months have been surreal, at best. Just last year, I had celebrated my engagement and marriage with many of you. In fact, during the engagement party, the head of the department took my then-fiancée aside to express to him what a great attorney I am and what a great future I faced. Indeed, less than a week before this year's bizarre performance review, I was again told by the same partner that my work is great and that the slow business in no way reflected on my performance. A week later, I was given a mediocre performance review and told that I should worry about whether I have a future at Paul Hastings. When I asked for specific examples of my alleged deficiencies, I received no response. When I asked for an explanation as to why I had been downgraded in so many performance categories when I received absolutely no criticism throughout the year and my prior year's review was stellar, I was told that my prior year's performance assessment may have been "over-inflated." What a startling response.

After my miscarriage, I had discussed my concern with several associates that Paul Hastings may use that opportunity to lay me off quickly before I have a chance to get pregnant again. Those associates thought it unfathomable that a firm would be so callous and assured me that Paul Hastings isn't that kind of a place. What a lesson this has been for them - and for me. I would not have anticipated that a partner would tell me one thing and completely renege on his words a week later. I would not have anticipated that a female partner (whom I had looked to as a role model) with children of her own would sit stone faced as I broke into tears just days after my miscarriage. Even a few words of sympathy or concern would have made a world of difference. What kind of people squander human relationships so easily?

If this response seems particularly emotional, perhaps an associate's emotional vulnerability after a recent miscarriage is a factor you should consider the next time you fire or lay someone off. It shows startlingly poor judgment and management skills -- and cowardice -- on your parts. If you should ever have the misfortune of suddenly losing something or someone precious to you, I hope you don't find similar heartlessness as I have.

As for your request for a release, non-disclosure, and non-disparagement agreement in return for three months' pay, I reject it. Unlike you, I am not just a paid mouthpiece with no independent judgment. I will decide how and to whom to communicate how you have treated me. I find it ironic that you would try to buy the right not to be disparaged after behaving as you have. Your actions speak volumes, and you don't need much help from me in damaging your reputation.

I attach the proposed release for any associate who may be interested in reviewing its details.

[Redacted]

*******************
And that's all she wrote. The release that Paul Hastings wanted this associate to sign, after the jump.

Update (5:10 PM): We have heard back from the associate in question, who had no additional comment.

Update (8:20 PM): Previously posted in the comments, but now we can bring it up to the main page. Here is Paul Hastings's statement, from Eileen King, Global Director of Public Relations:

"We disagree with the person's description of what occurred, but unfortunately we don't comment on internal employment matters."

Update (5/6/08): Blog reactions to this story are collected here. Additional discussion of pregnancy discrimination cases appears here. Lawyer layoffs at Paul Hastings are covered here.

Further Update (5/9/08): The author of the email, Shinyung Oh, has gone public and given an interview. See here.

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.

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.

A few more firms have joined the 18 Week Club. New and improved parental leave policies, from WilmerHale and O'Melveny & Myers, appear after the jump.

We admit we can be a little idiosyncratic in terms of which firms' announcements we highlight. For more comprehensive information, check out Justin Bernold's handy-dandy, continually updated tables of maternity leave and paternity leave policies at different firms.

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.

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.

But another comment suggests a (quickly refuted) rationale for providing shorter paid paternity leave:

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).

Obviously, there's only one way to settle the debate . . . another running table. Check it out 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.

Results are still flowing in from last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on leave and part-time arrangements. So far, we're up to almost 700 responses, and we have received quite a few tips about maternity leave.

The running table of firms' paid maternity leave policies that we posted yesterday has now been updated to include new information on Heller Ehrman, Nixon Peabody, Kaye Scholer, Cahill Gordon, Kirkland & Ellis, Freshfields, Kramer Levin, Thelen Reid, Goodwin Procter, and to correct information on Winston & Strawn and Mayer Brown.

Today, let's talk about how associates view their firms' policies, and also explore the availability of part-time, flex-time, and other alternative work/life-styles.

Overall, it looks like firms have room to improve:

Roughly 30% of respondents of either gender felt that their employer's part-time and leave options were adequate, but 42% of female respondents and 28% of male respondents disagreed.

Fourteen percent of female respondents said that they felt uncomfortable asking for leave or part-time status, a discomfort shared by eighteen percent of male respondents.

Most other respondents weren't sure, but only twelve percent of male respondents and five percent of female respondents didn't care.

Discussion continues, after the jump.

Yesterday, we posted some preliminary results from last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on leave and part-time arrangements. Today, we're going to get a little bit deeper into the maternity leave data.

We now have more than 600 responses, and roughly three-fifths of respondents have reported that their firms offer twelve weeks of paid maternity leave. Another 17% of respondents are at firms that have adopted an eighteen-week leave policy. Since some of you have been clamoring for charts (and others have been less enthusiastic), a chart showing the overall breakdown of responses is here.

Of course, the number of responses and the number of firms are different animals, so today we're going to start a running table of firms' paid maternity leave policies. Check it out, after the jump.

These announcements aren't the most exciting things to read (or report on). But we've spoken to a number of associates and law students, especially women, who follow them closely. So we'll continue posting them (and they're easy to skip over anyway).

The latest law firm to improve its parental leave policy is Mayer Brown. Check out their memo, issued earlier today, after the jump.

This blog has posted several entries over the last few months, and even this morning, about law firms updating their parental leave policies. That's a great trend in the industry, but there's probably not an associate pirate out there who doesn't still get at least a call a week from associates who want to go part-time, but just don't feel comfortable asking their firms.

So today's ATL / Lateral Link survey explores both the substance and the accessibility of your firm's policies.

Biglaw is becoming kinder and gentler. The number of large law firms enhancing their parental leave policies continues to grow. The latest to join the club: Debevoise & Plimpton.

From a (male) tipster:

18 weeks. Not bad. Of course, since I'm unlikely to give birth to a child anytime soon, I'll have to be satisfied with 10 weeks.

Also, what's with this "primary childcare giver" business? Of the new parents I've known, the first few months seemed like one needed at least two primary childcare givers, if not more. Eh, I doubt D&P will be sending auditors into associates' homes to check who bills the most hours with the baby.

The email announcing Debevoise's policy, plus a list of firms that have recently enhanced their parental leave policies, after the jump.

Congratulations to this quintet of five law firms, which just made Fortune magazine's annual list of the 100 Best Companies To Work For (listed below in rank order):

19. Arnold & Porter: "Staffers get 12 weeks paid maternity leave and profit sharing of 7.5% of salary. The less you make, the less you pay for health-insurance premiums."

Actually, a correction: 18 weeks (as of January 1, 2008).

31. Alston & Bird: "Both the legal and nonlegal staff get super benefits, including 90 days of paid maternity leave, coverage of fertility treatments, and concierge services."

Concierge services? Fabulous. Atlantans, stop yer whining!

41. Bingham McCutchen: "They're proud of their elite grads: 72 from nearby Harvard Law, 24 from Yale, and 20 from Stanford. They all start at $160,000 a year."

55. Perkins Coie: "They value fun at this law firm. At 2007's Lawyerpalooza battle of the bands, the Perkins Coie rock & rollers brought down the house (and took home the top prize)."

See also Nixon Peabody: "Fun is not prohibited here." Speaking of which...

66. Nixon Peabody: "The law firm excels on policies for GLBT employees (a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign); it targets 3% of billable hours annually for pro bono work."

Please send us any theme songs that are composed to commemorate these honors. Thank you.

100 Best Companies To Work For (2008) [Fortune]

Earlier: Bingham McCutchen: Land of the Amazons?

Sometimes we wish we had the breastses. Then we could enjoy the luxurious lactation room at Davis Polk & Wardwell.

Back in this post, we wrote about the lactation room at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. We're sure it's plenty nice. But we doubt it's as snazzy as what the competition on the other side of Lexington Avenue is offering.

Check out this Davis Polk email, which went out late last year (exclamation mark in the original):

From: **** On Behalf Of Associate Development
To: all.lawyers.ny
Subject: Nursing Room

We are pleased to announce that the firm now has a private nursing room!

Located on the 10th floor, this cozy room is equipped with brand-new furniture, including a comfortable chair and end table, refrigerator, and reading materials of interest to new mothers. Access to the secure room is available through the Security Desk. A small sign on the outside of the door indicates when the room is occupied.

We hope that this amenity will provide returning mothers who wish to continue nursing their babies additional support during this important transition. Your privacy and comfort are our priority.

Please do not hesitate to contact [xxxx] or any member of the Associate Development Department if you have any questions. Thank you and congratulations to all of our new DPW Parents.

We're curious about the "reading materials of interest to new mothers" at DPW. Draft asset purchase agreements? SEC proxy filings?

Meanwhile, in other happy news for parents, Arnold & Porter has jumped on the improved parental leave bandwagon. Following the recent trend, which we've been following in these pages, they've increased the paid leave they provide to women who give birth or primary caregivers of a newly adopted child. It used to be 12 weeks; now it's 18 weeks, which appears to be the "market" rate these days.

Transmittal email, plus A&P's full leave policy, after the jump.

Earlier: Biglaw Perk Watch: Lactation Rooms

Birth leave sought for girls [Denver Post via Drudge Report]

Earlier: Biglaw Perk Watch: Hogan & Hartson Announces Enhanced Leave for Childbirth and Adoption