Infobit: Since 1985, law schools have been graduating classes of new lawyers that are 40% or more female. Yet in 1996, only 14.2% of law firm partners were women, and in 2005, only 17.2% were women. (Note: this figure is for all partners; the number of equity partners is lower.) Source: Catalyst. At this rate of increase, women should make up half of law firm partners by the year 2115.

For past Infobits, check our the Infobit Archive.

Best Practice #2

Make Balanced Hours Available to All Attorneys

Making balanced hours available to all attorneys is a best practice that prevents several common problems traditionally faced by part-time programs.

In the past, it was common for law firms to limit part-time schedules to mothers of young children. This created resentment among other attorneys who might want to work fewer hours for reasons other than childcare, and did nothing to retain these attorneys. It also put firm administrators in the awkward position of having to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the reasons for which part-time was requested, and helped to maintain a "mommy track." To the extent that the practice resulted in the denial of flexible leaves for men who wanted to take care of their children, it also left the firms vulnerable to claims of sex discrimination.

Forward-thinking corporations, such as Fannie Mae, Ernst and Young, and Deloitte and Touche, stopped asking their employees why they wanted a flexible or reduced schedule more than a decade ago. They realized that if retaining good employees is the name of the game, it doesn't matter why they want to work a different schedule -- all that matters is whether the schedule the employees propose will allow the company to retain them while at the same time getting the necessary work done.

Since PAR's Balanced Hours report came out in 2000 recommending "universal availability" of balanced hours schedules, an increasing number of law firms have made flexible schedules available to all attorneys. A majority of the largest firms now permit attorneys to reduce their hours without regard to the reason, and PAR has heard numerous stories of attorneys working fewer hours so they can pursue interests outside of the office such as athletic training, political campaigns, writing, religious activities, and volunteer service.

One concern with universal availability that law firms sometimes voice is the fear that universal availability will "open the floodgates" and everyone will want to work part-time. It is entirely possible that more attorneys will use balanced hours programs if they are available, but if the alternative is having those attorneys leave the firm, the trade-off works in the firm's favor. It is unlikely, however, that all attorneys will want to reduce their hours. A number of law firms have good reduced hours programs -- firms such as Dickstein Shapiro and Hogan and Hartson -- and while their programs have healthy usage rates, they have not experienced a flood of requests for reduced hours. Why not? Several reasons: attorneys tend to be type A personalities who thrive on hard work and success, attorneys have different personal needs at different times in their careers and not everyone will want reduced hours at the same time, and not all attorneys want to trade money for time.

So, the right question next time an attorney asks for a reduced hours schedule is not "why do you need it?" but rather "how can we make it work?"