|
Better on Balance?
The
Corporate Counsel Work/Life Report
Executive Summary
Work in corporate law departments has become increasingly popular and
prestigious. Attorneys
employed in law firms seek in-house positions because of the type of work,
to be part of a strategic decision-making team, to have a proactive role
in counseling clients, and, many say, to have a better quality of life.As reported in PAR's interim report issued last March, those who
move to corporate law departments to have a better quality of life may be
disappointed.
This study
focuses on whether, and the extent to which, the quality of life in house
is better than in law firms. It seeks to answer whether in-house attorneys can better balance their work
and personal lives, what work arrangements assist them in balancing, and
whether attorneys who work part-time schedules are stigmatized for doing
so. It also examines how
companies benefit from having attorneys with balanced lives, and provides
best practices recommendations for companies that want to implement
effective alternative work programs for their attorneys. Finally, it addresses the common assumption of law firm managing
partners that in-house counsel, as clients, do not want to work with law
firm attorneys who work part time.
The major findings of this final report are:
- Full time in house often
means a fifty-hour workweek, although this is changing in some companies.Fifty hours is a long week -- except compared to a law firm, where
billable hours can stretch even longer, and business development is
expected in addition. Many
attorneys who went in house seeking greater work/life balance are
satisfied to find exciting work on what they see as a reasonable schedule,
especially if weekend work is rare. This
is the reality behind the common perception that going in house is more
family friendly (or life friendly): hours
in house are long, but still allow time outside the office for a life. Nonetheless,
some corporate counsel do work law firm hours; one cannot assume that
going in house will yield a more balanced schedule.Recent economic conditions, which have required law departments to
do an increasing amount of work without a corresponding increase in
resources, contribute to increasing work hours in some contexts, as does
the influence of ingrained work patterns that attorneys from law firms
bring with them. PAR heard
from a number of in-house attorneys about law departments in which a
nominal full-time schedule is 45-50 hours per week, but where
attorneys work far more hours. These
additional hours may be spent in the office, or may be hours during which
an attorney is ìon call or working from home.
- Many attorneys can find balance on standard work schedules.In-house positions vary tremendously in their ability to offer
work/life balance -- much more so than law firms.Three models of law departments help to understand the variability. Some law departments are run like high-hours law firms.Attorneys in departments of this type are most likely to report
that they are not satisfied with their ability to balance. Other law departments operate like a typical corporate
division, with average hours and the ability to work at least somewhat
flexibly. Attorneys in
typical corporate environments generally report satisfaction with their
ability to balance. They find
they have some leeway in the times that they begin and end their day,
subject to the needs of their internal clients, and they can leave the
office from time to time to take care of personal matters or work from
home occasionally. The third type of department, the balance-supportive
department, is discussed below.
- A variety of alternative work arrangements can further help
attorneys create balance. Part-time
work does not play the same role in house as in law firms.In firms, the availability and quality of part-time programs is the
crucial work/life issue -- when one is working a sixty-hour week, finding
a way to work fewer hours is the key to work/life balance. In-house attorneys can create balance in ways typically not
available to lawyers in law firms, such as flextime, compressed workweeks
and job sharing. While some
typical corporate models of law departments may offer these options, they
are most likely to be found in the third model, balance-supportive
departments. Balance-supportive
departments have deliberately implemented flexible work and alternative
work arrangements as a business objective designed to improve retention
and productivity.
- Stigma plagues part-time work
in house. In many law
departments, part-time schedules are harder to come by, riskier, and more
stigmatized than in law firms. PAR
spoke with many in-house attorneys who said they would not consider
working part time because they felt sure they would suffer in terms of
status, assignments, promotion, and pay. PAR spoke with other attorneys who were expressly told they could
not be considered for promotion if they were part time. Some attorneys expressed a fear of vulnerability if personnel
reductions were made in the department, based on observations of other
part-time attorneys who had been fired first. Still others had had their part-time schedules abruptly terminated,
sometimes in a move by a new general counsel to eliminate all part-time
schedules. Additional
examples of part-time stigma included: getting 'dog' or routine work;
receiving no bonus or only a small bonus that was disproportionate to the
reduction in work hours; being evaluated more critically; and losing the
respect of colleagues and supervisors.
- Telecommuting is allowed in
some legal departments, but the in-house environment presents some
challenges to the potential telecommuter.
A recent study by Catalyst found that nearly three out of four of
the female and over half of the male in-house counsel surveyed wanted to
telecommute, i.e. to work some hours or days from home. PAR did find some legal departments in which telecommuting is
widely used. In general,
though, formal telecommuting arrangements (as opposed to occasional hours
or days working at home) are uncommon, and lawyers reported two challenges
that may make telecommuting difficult. First, some reported that, unlike law firms, their employers
have a ìculture of meetings they feel they have to attend. Second, others feel that their effectiveness depends on whether
their in-house clients consult them before making business decisions, and
that to ensure this consultation, they have to be readily available in the
office.
- Law firms' assumption that
clients will not work with part-time lawyers is often inaccurate.During its initial law firm study, PAR repeatedly heard from
law firm partners that they would like to offer part time ìbut the
clients wouldn't stand for it. PAR
tested this proposition in this study. Most in-house counsel stated they would not object to working
with part-time outside counsel. Many
expressed support for part-time work at law firms as an effective method
to cut attrition at law firms, thereby preserving institutional knowledge
and reducing the amount of time and money they must spend to educate new
outside counsel. The key concern for in-house attorneys was that outside
counsel be accessible when they were needed, and responsive to client
concerns. Some in-house
counsel noted that part-time attorneys could be more accessible and
responsive than full-time attorneys who were often in trial, traveling, or
were simply juggling a large number of clients.
In addition,
this study examined work/life best practices used by a variety of
companies for both their legal and non-legal employees. The best practices include:
- Creating
work/life programs that are individualized and fair. If alternative work arrangements are going to be effective
retention and productivity tools, they need to allow the creation of
individualized schedules that will address the balance needs of individual
attorneys. Some may be able
to balance by reducing or compressing their hours, but others may make use
of several alternatives, such as compressing and telecommuting. Additionally, alternative arrangements need to be available to
everyone who can make a business case for flexibility, not just mothers.
- Effective
implementation is the key to a successful program.Too often, companies stop their work/life initiative efforts once
they have created their policies. Carrying
the policies into effect is crucial. Some key implementation steps are leadership from the top,
leadership from the middle, holding managers accountable for achieving the
company's work/life objectives, benchmarking, and providing resources to
attorneys and their supervisors to use in planning and using alternative
work arrangements.
The full pdf
report can be viewed or downloaded here. [2.2 MB]
|