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.

Interim Report

April 2003

Many lawyers have moved from law firms to in-house corporate law departments in an effort to find a better balance of work and life, in addition to having a more pro-active role with their clients. While many have found fewer hours and less travel, many have also found that life in a corporate law department can be very similar to life in a law firm, just with a smaller paycheck and fewer advancement opportunities. Full-time hours for in-house attorneys can be as high as for law firm attorneys, and in-house attorneys who reduce their hours face the same risk of stigma as law firm attorneys. The bottom line for attorneys who want to move in-house is a warning that they had better research their potential employers carefully.

The Project For Attorney Retention

The Project for Attorney Retention ("PAR") is an initiative of the Program on Gender, Work & Family of American University, Washington College of Law, funded by the Alfred P. Sloan foundation and supported by the Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia. PAR began studying work/life issues for attorneys in 2000 with its research on part-time work at law firms in the Washington, D.C. area. That research resulted a report, Balanced Hours: Effective Part-Time Policies for Washington Law Firms, that explored why part-time schedules are typically not successful in law firms, and included best practices recommendations for more effective part-time programs. The report and more information about PAR can be found at PAR's website: www.pardc.org.

When PAR studied part-time work in law firms, its researchers talked to many attorneys who left firms and their high billable hour requirements to go in-house in search of better work/life balance. Some found or created in-house positions that allowed them flexibility in scheduling and/or reduced hours, and these attorneys reported high satisfaction with their career move. Others, however, found long workweeks and a culture similar to that of the law firms they had left; they reported high dissatisfaction with their move. PAR began its Corporate Counsel Project with three principal goals: one, identify the types of work schedules that in-house attorneys use successfully to find work/life balance; two, develop best practices and a model policy; and three, test the perception of many law firm partners that corporate counsels, as clients, would not want to work with law firm attorneys who were working part-time.

PAR's work on the Corporate Counsel Project has included: surveys and interviews with in-house counsel, including general counsels; interviews of representatives from corporations that have best practices with respect to work/life balance; literature reviews; and conferences with sociologists, psychologists, and work/life consultants. PAR has also had meetings with several bar associations and conducted a focus group.

PAR's advisory committee includes leaders from the D.C. legal community, representatives from corporations that have notable work/life programs, and work/life experts:

KEY INTERIM FINDINGS

 Background

Numerous recent studies of attorneys and their lifestyles have concluded that both male and female attorneys are stressed by the competing demands of high-powered workplaces and high-need personal lives. While childcare often comes to mind as the main reason attorneys feel the need to work fewer hours, these same studies show that other reasons also compel attorneys to spend more time on non-work matters: care of elderly parents or a sick partner; personal health issues, particularly those related to stress; religious commitments; volunteerism; and desires to pursue activities such as writing, travel, and athletic competitions. When attorneys cannot find balance in their current workplaces, either they suffer silently with stress-related symptoms, including depression and addiction, or they leave their employer or even the law. Legal employers have strong incentives to retain bright, productive attorneys who have experience, skills, institutional knowledge, and client relationships, and retention may require rethinking the way legal work and schedules are structured.

1. A Family-Friendly Corporate Environment Is No Guarantee of a Worker-Friendly Law Department:

In recent years, corporations have instituted a variety of work/life programs designed to retain workers and improve morale and productivity. A 'family friendly' or 'worker friendly' culture that does not penalize the use of such programs is typically present in these corporations. PAR researchers found little correlation between the general, non-legal culture of a corporation and the culture in the corporation's law department. PAR found corporations that have good reputations for offering work/life balance to their workers, but have law departments that discourage or even prohibit the use of alternative work schedules. PAR also found corporations that are not known for their work/life balance offerings, but have law departments in which attorneys are very satisfied with their ability to create balance by structuring their schedules and work loads to meet their individual needs.

2. In-House Schedules Can Average More than 50 Hours Per Week:

Anecdotal evidence gathered by PAR and information generally available in the media shows that in many law departments a full-time schedule typically averages 45-50 hours per week. The same sources indicate, however, that in-house hours vary widely. In some law departments, attorneys reported working an average of 40 hours per week and in others, attorneys reported working more than 60 hours per week on a regular basis. Recent economic conditions, which have required law departments to perform an increasing amount of work without a corresponding increase in resources, contribute to the higher hours, 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 40-45 hours per week, but where attorneys seeking to stay on a promotion track or to be regarded as high performers work far more hours. These additional hours may be spent in the office, or may be hours during which an attorney is 'on call' or working from home.

3. Part-time In-House vs. Part-time in Law Firms:

In law departments, 'part-time' often equates to far fewer hours than 'part-time' in law firms. As PAR found in its law firm study, a typical part-time schedule in a firm is 80% of full-time. Given the high number of hours full-time law firm attorneys work, part-time law firm attorneys often work more than 45 hours per week. By contrast, PAR interviewed in-house attorneys for whom part-time meant working an average of 30 or fewer hours per week. The lower number of hours is attributable both to the shorter in-house workweeks and to the fact that many more in-house attorneys work a smaller percentage of a full-time schedule, usually 60%.

       A second distinction between part-time in law firms and in-house is the perception that one can find work/life balance in-house without going part-time, whereas in a law firm it is much more difficult to find work/life balance without going part-time. Many of the attorneys interviewed by PAR chose not to work part-time when they left law firms and began working in-house, despite the fact that their desire to have shorter hours was a major consideration in making the move. One often-stated reason for not choosing part-time was the ability to work fewer hours on a full-time in-house schedule. Other common reasons included flexibility in scheduling, flexibility in the place from which one could do work, the ability to control one's workload and deadlines, and the ability to assign time-sensitive work to outside law firms.

4. Part-Time Stigma is Alive and Well In-House:

Attorneys interviewed by PAR often gave an additional reason for choosing not to work part-time: stigma. PAR heard repeated reports that in-house part-time attorneys suffer in terms of status, assignments, promotion, and pay. A number of attorneys stated that they were expressly told they could not be considered for promotion if they were part-time. Some 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. Still others said they had their part-time schedules abruptly terminated. 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.

5. Job Sharing Is A Viable Option in Some Law Departments:

Job sharing, in which two attorneys share one position, has proven to be a very satisfactory arrangement in several law departments. By contrast, PAR did not receive reports of any job shares in law firms during its law firm study, and in fact found strong skepticism among law firm partners about the viability of such a work model.

PAR received reports of job shares in corporations that have formal job sharing policies, and also of job shares that arose in an informal or ad hoc way. Ad hoc job shares have grown out of workload and personnel budget issues, such as when an attorney wanted to reduce his or her hours but the amount of work that had to be accomplished by the department required a full-time person. Two basic models of job shares emerged during PAR's study: a model in which the job share partners work on the same matters for the same internal clients and have a high degree of communication and coordination (the 'twins' model); and a model in which the job share partners share a full-time equivalent slot but work completely independently, sometimes even in different practice areas (the 'islands' model). Supervising attorneys and internal clients have found both types of job shares to be very satisfactory. The twins model provides the benefits of consistent client coverage, of two heads thinking about a legal matter for the price of one, and of coverage during vacation and other leave. The islands model provides flexibility within a law department to cover different types of practice areas that may not justify a full-time attorney, and also can be structured to assure coverage during vacation.

PAR's final report will explore the job sharing examples in depth, because job sharing has been shown to be a workable model that other legal and non-legal employers can adopt.

6. Corporate Counsels Support Law Firm Attorneys' Use of Alternative Schedules:

During its law firm study, PAR repeatedly heard from law firm partners that they would like to offer part-time as an option at their firms, 'but the clients wouldn't stand for it.' PAR tested this proposition in its corporate counsel study. Overwhelmingly, 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 attorneys. In-house counsel also indicated that even full-time law firm attorneys are rarely available to one client all the time, so there is little practical difference to them whether a law firm attorney works full-time or part-time. Some attorneys interviewed by PAR recounted situations in which they had worked successfully with a part-time law firm lawyer, noting that the part-time attorney was particularly conscientious about returning calls and checking email. Specific comments and examples will be provided in the final report.

THE NEXT REPORT
MORE FINDINGS, MODEL POLICY AND BEST PRACTICES

PAR's final Corporate Counsel Project report will include more findings regarding work/life balance for in-house counsel and best work/life practices used by some legal employers. Its anticipated release date is summer 2003. Copies may be requested by sending an email to report@pardc.org, or may be downloaded from the PAR website, www.pardc.org. 

Joan Williams, Co-Director, PAR

 Cynthia Thomas Calvert, Co-Director, PAR

 Holly C. Cooper, Research Director, PAR

Feedback about this report is welcomed. Please send comments to interim@pardc.org.