Biglaw, Kids, Women's Issues

Biglaw Mommy: The Case for Flex-Time

Maybe we should all embrace a bit more flexibility, and cut the working moms a little slack.

By  
on

I can already tell from the comments that there are some misconceptions about what it means to be on flex-time. (That or the commenters are just trolls, which many of you are. Hi trolls!) It’s a shame, because I think that flex-time policies are one of the keys to keeping women in the workforce, and also one of the ways in which law firms are at the forefront of progress — at least to the extent that firms actually implement these policies and encourage their use, rather than just paying lip service and putting them on paper. Obviously firms vary, but I know many women who have been on flex-time for years and done very well, and even women who have made partner while on flex-time. Not nearly enough, I should say, but it’s a start.

One of the biggest criticisms of women on flex-time seems to be some misconception that those women expect to be paid the same for less work. I would hope everyone knows this, but attorneys on flex-time are paid significantly less, generally a 20-30% reduction depending on the schedule. This is commensurate with the reduced schedule — if you work four days per week, you’re paid at 80% salary. To the extent firms have hours requirements, this is prorated based on the flex schedule, and bonuses are similarly reduced. And, from what I’ve heard, this is all very transparent and structured. So to all the snarky commenters who suggest that I’ll be singing a different tune come bonus season, I beg to differ. Everyone I know on flex-time is fully aware of the impact it will have on their compensation and thinks it is more than fair.

I also truly believe that law firms ultimately benefit by allowing and supporting flex-time arrangements. (Please indulge a few generalizations for the sake of argument.) Generally, the women I know who have had babies in Biglaw are all midlevel associates or above. They’ve been at the firm long enough to know the ropes and the partners’ preferences and quirks, and presumably they’ve done well enough not to have been culled out in earlier “performance-based layoffs” or what have you. Many of these associates also have begun to develop relationships with existing clients, and maybe even started to bring in their own clients. I can safely say that (almost) every woman I know who has had a baby while working at a firm is an excellent and valuable attorney.

It seems obvious, therefore, that firms should do whatever they (reasonably) can to retain these women. Even if a woman on flex-time is only billing 7-8 hours a day, four days per week, if she’s doing exemplary work during those hours, if she’s able to anticipate the partners’ needs and make their lives easier, she’s still more valuable than a new associate you might hire to replace her (after she leaves the firm because flex-time wasn’t available to her) who might bill 12 hours a day but spends half of those hours flailing around and redoing work that wasn’t to the partners’ liking. The flex-time associate will still be responsive to emails, except for maybe an hour when she’s putting the kids to bed. She’ll still get the work done. Okay, maybe you put her on a slightly smaller case, or maybe you split the work between her and another associate, to accommodate her reduced schedule. What’s wrong with that? If she’s good, it’s still better to keep her, especially because chances are very good that in a year or two, she’ll be in a position to come back full-time.

Equally important, everyone I know on flex-time is deeply appreciative of the arrangement, because it is actually a necessity for them to make things work. I know no one who has gone on flex-time just because they feel like it, no one whose husband stays at home to take care of the kids but they go on flex-time anyway just because they don’t feel like working. I’ve observed that the women who come back from maternity leave and realize that they’re just not interested in working anymore, or not working at the level that Biglaw demands, usually just quit. The majority of the people who are on flex-time are women who genuinely want to keep their careers, but who, since having a baby, are pulled in multiple directions and simply don’t have the time and resources (at least in those early years) to keep billing 50+ hours per week and also handle their obligations at home. So a firm offering an arrangement that allows a woman to keep her career under more flexible terms goes a long way towards securing greater future loyalty from that associate. Win-win, n’est-ce pas?

And yet, even as I wrote that sentence about billing less than 50 hours, my gut reaction was to feel… guilty. As a Biglaw attorney (and maybe any attorney, I don’t know), it feels blasphemous to suggest that an associate should be allowed to keep her job and bill less than 50 hours per week on a regular basis. And I have to admit, when I leave the office before 6 every day, I often feel that I’m doing something wrong, something to be ashamed of. But why should I feel that way? I’m working hard when I’m in the office (and in the evenings when I’m at home), I’m getting everything done, no one has any complaints (that they’ve shared with me), and besides which, I’m getting paid significantly less for this schedule.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a society with a very moralistic view of work: simply put, the more work, the better. Whether or not we openly acknowledge it, we place a premium on the quantity of work over quality. Look at the evidence: Americans work more and take less vacation than anyone in the industrialized world (for example, France has enacted a 35-hour workweek, and most employees in Germany receive 25 vacation days per year). Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the legal world, where not only do firms expect associates to bill outrageous numbers of hours, but many associates treat high billables as a point of pride. In the minds of Biglaw attorneys (at least the ones who drank the Kool-Aid), it’s a mark of honor and distinction if you can bill the most and sleep the least. In this social model, flex-time is the antithesis of all that is good and worthy. We don’t ascribe the same value to arrangements that allow people to both work and enjoy life, see their families, sleep — despite the fact that it’s obviously healthier and generally better for us, physically and mentally, to have some balance. And, studies show, balance leads to more productivity, and isn’t that what we’re really after?

Sponsored

So maybe we should all embrace a bit more flexibility, and cut the working moms a little slack.

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 [email protected].

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , , , ,