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
Arent Fox yes yes yes 10.9 yes yes 5/21/9 21/14
Arnold & Porter yes yes yes 10.8 yes yes 41/2/18 11/50
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 - - - 4.9 - - 6/23/5 10/24
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
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
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 - yes yes 10/9/5 18/6
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
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?
Epstein, Becker & Green - - - 2.0 - - 6/1/1 1/7
Fenwick & West yes yes - 10.3 yes - 16/6/11 13/20
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner - - - 8.6 - - 9/14/3 14/12
Foley & Lardner yes - full 3.5 yes yes 27/0/7 7/27
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
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
Haynes and Boone yes - - 4.3 case by case no 0/15/3 9/9
Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe yes yes - 4.4 yes yes 10/11/7 6/22
Hogan & Hartson yes yes full 7.1 yes yes 33/1/28 8/54
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 J-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?
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 - - - - - - - -
Keller and Heckman - - - - - - - -
Kelley Drye & Warren - - - - - - - -
Kenyon & Kenyon - - - - - - - -
Kilpatrick Stockton - - - - - - - -
King & Spalding - - - - - - - -
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
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 - - - - - - - -
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw yes yes yes 6.1 yes yes 51/2/13 15/51
McDermott, Will & Emery - - - - - - - -
McGuire Woods case by case - - 2.7 yes yes 9/4/6 2/17
McKenna, Long & Aldridge - - - - - - - -
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCoy yes yes - 2.3 - no 12/0/1 0/13
Miller & Chevalier - - - - - - - -
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo - - - - - - - -
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius - - - - - - - -
Morrison & Foerster yes - - - yes yes 33/77/22 54/78
Nixon Peabody - - - - - - - -
O'Melveny & Myers yes yes yes 3.1 yes yes 24/0/5 2/27
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe - - - - - - - -
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?
Patton Boggs yes - yes 6.1 yes yes 17/7/3 4/23
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker - - - - - - - -
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison yes yes full 5.0 yes yes 18/8/5 0/31
Perkins Coie - - - - - - - -
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman - - - - - - - -
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy - - - - - - - -
Proskauer Rose - - - - - - - -
Quarles & Brady - - - - - - - -
Reed Smith - - - - - - - -
Ropes & Gray - - - - - - - -
Ross, Dixon & Bell - - - - - - - -
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?
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
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
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett case by case case by case - 4.2 - no 23/5/2 2/28
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom - - - - - - - -
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal case by case - - 10.9 yes yes 18/13/40 23/48
Spriggs & Hollingsworth - - - - - - - -
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey - - - - - - - -
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
Sughrue, Mion - - - - - - - -
Sulllivan & Cromwell - - - - - - - -
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan - - - - - - - -
Thelen Reid & Priest yes - - - - yes - -
Troutman Sanders - - - - - - - -
Firms V-Z
Reduced Hours Policy?
Proportional Pay?
 Ben