Take a Long Parental Leave and Make Partner? Dream On, Baby
Repeat after me: Firms want to make moolah. And if you're costing them moolah, you better move on.
July 19, 2019 at 02:54 PM
6 minute read
Editor's note: Since the original publication of this post, we've heard from Susman's managing partner Neal Manne. His comments are now included in the post.
Big Law must believe that lawyers are hopeless romantics. Why else are they selling the fantasy that lawyers can make oodles of money, do cutting-edge work and spend as much time as their heart desires on babies and leisure?
I'm talking about those eye-popping perks making headlines. No, I don't mean gourmet snacks, yoga breaks or free dog-walking services. I'm talking about unlimited vacations and unlimited parental leaves—benefits that take lawyers away from what they are put on earth to do: create billable hours.
Unlimited vacation policies are proliferating like bunnies across the Big Law landscape. Among major firms that offer this goody: Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; DLA Piper; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; Mayer Brown; Orrick; White & Case. (You can check out Chambers for a more comprehensive list.)
Not to be outdone, litigation powerhouse Susman Godfrey upped the ante last fall by offering unlimited paid (!) leave for new parents—male or female and you don't have to be the primary caregiver—in addition to its unlimited paid (!) vacation leave.
So how's the unlimited parental leave working out? (I'm going to assume that people don't have the chutzpah to indulge in months and months of paid vacations.)
Just beautifully, say Susman lawyers who spoke to Law.com's Dan Packel recently. The lawyers using the leave policy “depict a firm culture that appears diametrically opposed to the depictions in recent lawsuits targeting Morrison & Foerster and Jones Day, where women who returned from maternity leave allegedly found their work environment changed dramatically,” Packel writes
I don't doubt that Susman's uber-generous parental leave policy makes fabulous headlines, but can we get real? Seriously, does anyone really think an associate can take a long leave (say a year or more) at the firm's expense and not pay a price?
First of all, Susman is not exactly some laid-back, lifestyle firm. It's an intense, high-stakes litigation boutique. It's also incredibly profitable, hauling in $2.585 million in profit per equity partner. And it makes a point of beating Cravath, Swaine & Moore in associate pay. (Last year, first-year associates started at $195,000 and got a median bonus of $110,000.)
Not to be crass, but firms are in the business of making money. As profitable as Susman is, what firm can afford to shell out big salaries to nonbillers, especially if a critical mass of new parents opt for extended tours of diaper duty? I think there'd be a partners' revolt.
Susman's managing partner Neal Manne doesn't completely disagree: “We are very much a for-profit enterprise. But my view as managing partner is that in the medium and longer term our business success depends on continuing to attract and retain the absolute very best associates.”
Manne insists that the firm's paid vacation and leave policies “are not gimmicks.” He adds: “We really mean it and our associates know we mean it. It works because we know that our associates are responsible and reasonable. They work very hard. They do fantastic work. They allow our firm to succeed the way it does—no.1 litigation firm in the country for seven consecutive years, according to Vault. We have a unique business model and a unique group of associates. Maybe our policies wouldn't work at other firms but they do at Susman Godfrey. That's our happy reality. Our policies are here to stay—and we hope our associates are, too.”
That said, Manne agrees lengthy leaves entail compromises. “Realistically, if someone took off an entire year then, of course, they would be delayed by a year for partnership,” adding, ”we haven't had someone take off a year.”
“It's all about economics,” says Betiayn Tursi, who heads Women in Law Empowerment Forum, an organization that promotes women in the legal profession. She adds that if a lawyer is taking off a big chunk of time and wants to remain on partnership track, “you need an honest assessment of their chances of making partner. Without that, all bets are off.”
Karen Kaplowitz, an adviser to Working Mother's Best Law Firms for Women Initiative, says, “Some research, not law firm specific, suggests that more than six months of leave can actually hurt women professionally.” She says firms need to monitor the careers of women who take extended leaves to see if such policies are working. “Women lawyers will only believe they can take longer leaves and make partner when firms share success stories of parents who have done that—and help new mothers do the same.”
So far, such success stories are rare. Why then do firms offer these tantalizing goodies?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSkadden's Big China Cuts and What They Mean for the Market
It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250