Data Key

Here is a key to understanding the data in the Scoop table:

"Reduced Hours Policy?" - "Yes" means the firm has a written policy; "no" means it does not, and "case-by-case" means that reduced hours are available only on a case by case basis. PAR considers "yes" answers to be best.

"Proportional Pay?" - "Yes" means the firm pays reduced hours attorneys a salary that is reduced proportionally with the amount by which the attorney's hours have been reduced (e.g., 80% pay for 80% work). Proportional pay is a best practice. 

"Benefits?" - "Yes" means that reduced hours attorneys receive benefits. "Full" means that they receive full benefits. PAR considers both "yes" and "full" to indicate best practices.

"Usage Rate" - The data in this column reflect the percentage of a firm's attorneys who are working reduced hours. For a point of reference, NALP reports that 5.4% of attorneys nationally work part-time. Use this statistic with caution, however; a low number could indicate stigma or that the firm is not a sweatshop so that attorneys can integrate person and professional lives without reducing their hours. Similarly, a high number could signal an excellent program, or could mean that the billable hours culture is so demanding that the attorneys will use the part-time program even if it is stigmatized.

"Eligible for Partnership?" - "Yes" indicates that reduced hours attorneys remain eligible for partnership. PAR considers "yes" to be a best practice.

"PT Assoc. Promoted?" - "Yes" means that the law firm has actually promoted a reduced hours attorney to partner. PAR considers this to be a key indicator, because what happens in practice is more telling than the words of a policy.

"No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?" - The data in this column reflect the numbers of associates, counsel, and partners who are working reduced hours. PAR considers larger numbers of part-time partners to be better.

"No. of Part-Time Men/Women?" - The data in this column reflect the number of men and women working reduced hours. PAR considers larger numbers of men to be better.

Note: We are in the processing of updating the information presented in The Scoop. Please check back for current information. If you have information you would like to add, please send an email to scoop@pardc.org.

What is it really like to work reduced hours at a particular firm? Which firms are best? Which are worst?

Over the last several years, we have seen more firms offer part-time schedules.  While laudable, many current part-time programs do not succeed in cutting attrition among lawyers because their use is stigmatized.  They often do not permit advancement to partnership or allow time for important non-billable work.  They also often do not have a mechanism in place to ensure that those on reduced schedules do not end up working full-time or wind up stuck with less desirable work.

The table below summarizes several essential features of part-time programs at selected law firms.  A key to understanding the data is provided on the right.

We have also posted comments about particular firms' programs, such as whether supervising attorneys respect the schedules of those working less than full-time and whether attorneys on reduced schedules believe they can advance at the firm.  Please note that many of the comments are not verified. They should be viewed in the same light as gossip and should not be relied on.  To read the comments, please click on the firm name.  If you would like to comment on a particular firm's part-time practices, or add information about your firm, please send an email to scoop@pardc.org.

Click on a firm's name to see comments about working at the firm.

Firms A-B	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld	yes	-	-	4.8	yes	yes	13/30/0	9/34
Alston & Bird	yes	-	yes	2.3	yes	no	3/14/1	9/9
Andrews Kurth	cbc	-	-	4.4	yes	-	2/13/3	2/16
Arent Fox	yes	yes	yes	10.9	yes	yes	5/21/9	21/14
Arnall Golden Gregory	cbc	-	-	8.2	-	-	5/2/4	2/9
Arnold & Porter	yes	yes	yes	10.8	yes	yes	41/2/18	11/50
Baker & Daniels	yes	-	-	10.0	yes	yes	11/18/3	14/18
Baker & Hostetler	yes	-	yes	2.9	-	-	5/5/8	5/13
Baker & McKenzie	-	yes	full	1.8	yes	no	6/1/5	0/12
Baker Botts	-	-	-	4.7	-	-	18/11/6	4/31
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll	yes	yes	yes	7.5	yes	yes	18/19/1	9/29
Banner & Witcoff	yes	-	-	16.4	-	-	2/8/4	9/5
Beveridge & Diamond	yes	yes	full	15.0	yes	yes	4/8/7	10/9
Bingham	-	-	-	-	-	-	24/44/15	25/58
Blank Rome	yes	yes	yes	3.5	yes	yes	9/5/3	2/15
Bowditch & Dewey	yes	-	-	0	-	-	0	0
Bryan Cave	yes	yes	yes	9.0	yes	yes	20/40/9	17/52
Firms C-D	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft	-	-	-	2.7	-	-	7/8/0	2/13
Chadbourne & Parke	yes	-	-	-	yes	yes	5/4/1	1/9
Chapman and Cutler	yes	-	-	6.9	yes	yes	10/0/5	2/13
Cleary, Gottlieb	yes	-	-	-	yes	yes	22/3/2	5/22
Clifford Chance US	yes	-	-	4.6	-	-	10/1/5	1/15
Cooley Godward Kronish	yes	yes	yes	-	-	-	24/15/6	11/34
Covington & Burling	yes	yes	full	5.7	yes	yes	9/18/10	11/26
Cozen O'Connor	yes	-	yes	-	yes	yes	2/4/33	8/31
Cravath, Swaine & Moore	yes	yes	pro-rated	-	yes	no	5/6/0	1/10
Crowell & Moring	yes	-	-	10.5	-	yes	11/21/1	11/22
Darby & Darby	cbc	-	-	8.0	-	-	4/2/0	3/3
Davis Polk & Wardwell	yes	yes	yes	3.0	yes	no	12/4/0	1/15
Davis Wright Tremaine	yes	yes	-	5.2	yes	yes	10/4/6	2/18
Debevoise & Plimpton	yes	yes	-	8.5	yes	yes	32/5/7	2/42
Dechert	yes	-	-	6.9	yes	-	22/20/19	13/48
Dewey & LeBoeuf	yes	yes	-	1.7	yes	yes	3/4/0	0/7
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky	yes	yes	yes	7.0	yes	yes	8/13/6	1/26
DLA Piper Rudnick	yes	yes	full	8.0	yes	yes	42/34/40	37/79
Dorsey & Whitney	yes	yes	yes	3.3	yes	yes	2/7/7	6/10
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson	yes	-	-	9.6	yes	yes	3/3/8	2/12
Drinker Biddle & Reath	yes	yes	yes	5.9	yes	yes	14/12/1	4/23
Duane Morris	yes	yes	-	4.9	yes	yes	13/1/11	5/20
Firms E-H	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge	yes	-	-	6.4	yes	yes	13/13/5	3/28
Epstein, Becker & Green	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	6/1/1	1/7
Farella Braun + Martel	cbc	-	-	17.2	-	-	2/7/11	9/11
Fenwick & West	yes	yes	-	10.3	yes	-	16/6/11	13/20
Finnegan, Henderson	-	-	-	8.6	-	-	9/14/3	14/12
Foley Hoag	yes	yes	-	6.0	yes	yes	6/5/3	2/12
Foley & Lardner	yes	-	full	3.5	yes	yes	27/0/7	7/27
Ford & Harrison	yes	-	-	2.6	yes	yes	5/0/0	0/5
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson	yes	-	-	3.0	yes	no	14/0/1	3/12
Fulbright & Jaworski	yes	yes	full	8.7	yes	yes	13/50/17	40/40
Garvey Schubert Barer	yes	yes	yes	14.2	yes	-	2/4/9	7/8
Gibbons P.C.	cbc	-	-	4.3	-	-	3/1/2	0/6
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher	yes	-	-	1.2	yes	yes	4/4/1	1/8
Goodwin Procter	case by case	-	-	6.6	yes	yes	16/14/19	6/43
Greenberg Traurig	yes	case by caes	case by case	0.9	yes	yes	9/2/2	2/11
Gunderson Dettmer	cbc	-	-	0	-	no	0	0
Haynes and Boone	yes	-	-	4.3	case by case	no	0/15/3	9/9
Hogan & Hartson	yes	yes	full	7.1	yes	yes	33/1/28	8/54
Holland & Hart	cbc	yes	-	13.1	yes		15/16/17	9/39
Holland & Knight	yes	-	-	4.5	yes	yes	30/6/17	18/35
Howrey	yes	-	-	4.9	yes	yes	9/9/6	3/21
Hunton & Williams	yes	yes	-	7.1	yes	yes	38/18/2	10/48
Firms I-L	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Ivins, Phillips & Barker	yes	cbc	-	0	-	-	0	0
Jackson Lewis	case by case	-	-	3.9	yes	no	7/7/1	0/15
Jenner & Block	yes	-	-	5.8	-	-	14/0/12	6/20
Jones Day	case by case	-	-	4.7	yes	yes	54/21/3	4/74
Katten Muchin Rosenman	yes	-	-	5.0	yes	yes	12/4/17	8/25
Kaye Scholer	yes	yes	-	2.8	yes	no	4/6/0	2/8
Keller and Heckman	yes	-	yes	2.9	-	-	1/1/0	1/1
Kelley Drye & Warren	yes	-	-	4.9	-	no	16/0/2	4/14
Kenyon & Kenyon	-	-	-	0.6	-	-	0/0/1	0/1
Kilpatrick Stockton	yes	-	-	8.3	yes	yes	12/4/21	12/25
King & Spalding	yes	yes	-	3.9	yes	yes	11/15/4	1/29
Kirkland & Ellis	yes	yes	pro-rated	4.0	yes	yes	15/14/21	7/43
K & L Gates	yes	yes	yes	5.6	yes	yes	37/15/13	13/52
Latham & Watkins	yes	-	-	4.8	yes	yes	30/24/20	13/61
Lowenstein Sandler PC	yes	-	-	7.8	yes	yes	19/0/2	2/19
Firms M-O	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips	yes	cbc	-	4.7	yes	yes	5/2/11	0/18
Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand	yes	cbc	-	15.5	-	-	4/6/3	6/7
Matthews, Shepherd	no	yes	yes	-	yes	-	-	-
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw	yes	yes	yes	6.1	yes	yes	51/2/13	15/51
McCarter & English	yes	-	-	6.7	yes	yes	14/4/8	5/21
McDermott, Will & Emery	yes	cbc	-	5.8	yes	yes	13/17/30	14/46
McGuire Woods	cbc	-	-	2.7	yes	yes	9/4/6	2/17
McKenna, Long & Aldridge	cbc	-	-	3.6	yes	yes	5/8/1	7/7
Merchant & Gould	yes	yes	-	0	-	-	0	0
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCoy	yes	yes	-	2.3	-	no	12/0/1	0/13
Miller & Chevalier	yes	yes	yes	8.8	yes	yes	5/0/3	2/6
Mintz, Levin	yes	yes	-	10.3	yes	yes	24/10/12	10/36
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius	yes	yes	yes	7.6	yes	yes	27/55/19	19/82
Morrison & Foerster	yes	-	-	-	yes	yes	33/77/22	54/78
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg	cbc	-	-	9.6	yes	yes	0/7/12	3/16
Nexsen Pruet	cbc	-	-	0	-	-	0	0
Nixon Peabody	yes	yes	-	4.0	yes	yes	16/8/5	1/28
Nutter, McClennen & Fish	cbc	cbc	-	8.3	-	-	2/8/3	2/11
O'Melveny & Myers	yes	yes	yes	3.1	yes	yes	24/0/5	2/27
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe	cbc	yes	-	6.2	yes	yes	26/17/4	12/35
Firms P-R	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein	yes	-	-	8.9	-	-	5/9/4	4/14
Patton Boggs	yes	-	yes	6.1	yes	yes	17/7/3	4/23
Paul, Hastings	yes	yes	yes	1.9	cbc	cbc	12/6/1	6/13
Paul, Weiss	yes	yes	full	5.0	yes	yes	18/8/5	0/31
Pepper Hamilton	yes	-	-	0	-	-	0	0
Perkins Coie	yes	yes	yes	7.7	yes	yes	22/8/20	9/41
Phelps Dunbar	cbc	cbc	-	4.2	-	-	4/7/0	3/8
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman	cbc	yes	-	13.0	yes	yes	29/36/36	47/54
Pircher, Nichols & Meeks	yes	-	-	7.6	-	-	3/3/0	1/5
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy	cbc	-	-	10.3	yes	yes	3/4/16	3/20
Proskauer Rose	yes	yes	-	6.1	-	no	34/8/2	3/41
Quarles & Brady	yes	yes	-	5.2	yes	yes	11/3/10	6/18
Quinn Emanuel	yes	yes	-	18.6	-	-	1/81/0	45/37
Reed Smith	yes	yes	yes	5.7	yes	yes	45/27/21	17/76
Ropes & Gray	yes	cbc	-	5.0	yes	yes	13/27/3	5/38
Ross, Dixon & Bell	yes	cbc	-	14.4	-	-	10/0/5	3/12
Firms S-T	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Schiff Hardin	yes	yes	-	10.3	yes	yes	7/14/20	18/23
Seyfarth Shaw	yes	-	-	5.2	yes	yes	19/12/6	6/31
Shearman & Sterling	case by case	-	-	3.2	yes	yes	14/5/0	4/15
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton	yes	cbc	-	2.8	cbc	-	1/12/1	5/9
Shook, Hardy & Bacon	case by case	-	-	3.1	yes	no	3/12/0	1/14
Sidley Austin	case by case	case by case	-	6.3	-	-	33/31/25	12/77
Sillis Cummis & Gross	cbc	-	-	4.7	-	-	5/2/1	1/7
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett	case by case	case by case	-	4.2	-	no	23/5/2	2/28
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom	yes	yes	yes	4.5	yes	yes	81/0/14	20/75
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal	case by case	-	-	10.9	yes	yes	18/13/40	23/48
Spriggs & Hollingsworth	yes	-	-	1.8	-	-	1/0/0	-
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey	yes	yes	-	6.2	-	-	27/19/8	26/28
Steptoe & Johnson	yes	yes	yes	5.5	yes	no	8/11/2	0/21
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox	yes	yes	-	7.0	yes	-	4/3/0	1/6
Stradley Ronan Stevens & Young	yes	-	-	14.4	-	-	11/6/9	7/19
Strasburger & Price	cbc	-	-	4.7	-	no	0/6/2	2/6
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan	yes	-	-	5.9	cbc	cbc	8/8/1	2/15
Sughrue, Mion	yes	-	-	1.9	-	-	2/0/0	1/1
Sulllivan & Cromwell	yes	yes	-	3.8	yes	yes	18/6/3	6/21
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan	yes	yes	-	1.7	cbc	no	6/1/1	0/8
Thompson HIne	yes	yes	-	4.9	-	-	6/8/6	4/16
Townsend and Townsend and Crew	cbc	yes	-	2.8	-	no	0/3/3	2/4
Troutman Sanders	cbc	-	-	4.1	yes	yes	7/13/5	5/20
Firms V-Z	Reduced Hours Policy?	Proportional Pay?	Benefits?	Usage Rate	Eligible for Partnership?	PT Assoc. Promoted?	No. PT Assoc/Cnsl/Prtnrs?	No. of Part-Time Men/Women?
Van Ness Feldman	yes	yes	-	7.1	-	no	2/1/2	2/3
Venable	yes	-	-	6.1	cbc	-	18/7/7	0/32
Vinson & Elkins	yes	yes	full	6.3	yes	no	22/20/6	11/37
Vorys, Sater, Seymour, and Pease	cbc	-	-	3.4	yes	yes	4/8/1	1/12
Weil, Gotshal & Manges	cbc	no	-	2.7	yes	yes	17/4/5	3/23
White & Case	cbc	yes	-	3.1	cbc	no	20/5/0	1/24
Wiley, Rein & Fielding	cbc	yes	-	10.9	yes	yes	4/12/15	12/19
Wilkes Artis	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Williams & Connolly	yes	cbc	-	6.4	-	-	7/2/6	1/14
Willkie Farr & Gallagher	yes	-	yes	5.3	yes	yes	20/4/2	0/26
Wilmer Hale	yes	yes	full	5.5	yes	yes	24/22/9	6/49
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati	yes	yes	yes	7.9	yes	-	19/19/14	16/36
Winston & Strawn	yes	-	-	2.9	yes	yes	13/7/6	3/23
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice	yes	-	-	6.3	yes	yes	5/4/24	14/19