Unlimited Vacation Policy: A Perk or Punishment at Law Firms?
What seems like an attractive law firm perk has proven to be a source of frustration for some associates who say they end up taking less vacation time than they normally would.
August 28, 2019 at 01:02 PM
4 minute read
What's not to like about unlimited vacation? Ask a Big Law associate, and you might find that the answer is "a lot."
Associates of at least 11 big firms expressed disapproval with unlimited vacation policies, according to submissions from The American Lawyer's Midlevel Associates Survey. Young lawyers say they want work-life balance, but what sounds like a promising policy has been a source of stress and worry to many junior lawyers.
"Unlimited vacation is a joke," a Mayer Brown respondent wrote. "No one takes it, or you end up taking less than you would if there [were] a traditional vacation policy."
"Actually [have] a vacation policy rather than 'take what you dare!'" a Dorsey & Whitney lawyer said in response to a question about what they would like to tell the managing partner.
"Switch from unlimited vacation to a specific number of PTO days," a Latham & Watkins lawyer suggested.
About 20% of big firms offer unlimited vacation time for associates, said Kate Reder Sheikh, a San Francisco legal recruiter at Major, Lindsey & Africa who focuses on placing associates, adding it's an "emerging" trend within the legal industry that could recede due to some backlash.
At most firms, she said, associates get an average of three weeks off a year, with some firms offering two or four. In these cases, most associates are still accruing vacation days or paid time off in the traditional manner, as they work.
It's not clear when unlimited vacation first appeared in Big Law, but it often pops into the headlines when a big tech company offers it, as Netflix has done and LinkedIn did in 2015. Its benefits are extolled both for workers, who worry less about punching a clock, and managers, who don't have to worry about paying off accrued vacation when an employee leaves.
Unlimited vacation policies, however, can sharply conflict with a business model still centered around the billable hour.
An associate at DLA Piper called the policy a "big joke," noting in the survey that a supervisor, responding to a request to take two weeks off, asked the associate whether he or she was on track to bill a certain amount of hours in 2018.
The benefits of the policies can depend on a firm's culture and case staffing practices, lawyers and industry observers say.
In an interview, an associate at a Pacific Northwest law firm who takes about four weeks of vacation a year under an unlimited-vacation policy said it can be hard to find others to cover his workload when he's gone, and the burden for finding coverage falls on him. His last firm didn't offer unlimited time off, he said, but at least it was "true vacation."
By contrast, an associate at McDermott Will & Emery, an unlimited-vacation firm, said partners in his group were respectful of his time off for the roughly two weeks a year he selected for his vacation. "Everyone wants to take more vacation," he said in an interview. "But it's a hard job. I think that two weeks is about right."
To be sure, some lawyers enjoy unlimited vacation policies, saying in interviews that they feel they can take a good deal of time off when they hit their targets. And even at firms where vacation accrues in a standard fashion, a firm's culture affects the amount of associates' vacation time. One associate at a firm with four weeks of paid vacation told ALM that he wasn't comfortable with the idea of using all of it.
As with parental leave and other forms of time off, said Sheikh, the recruiter, "there's a written policy and then there's in actuality the way partners respond."
Spokespeople for Dorsey and Mayer Brown confirmed that they had unlimited time-off policies, but declined to comment on the associate criticism. A Latham representative declined to comment, while representatives for DLA Piper and McDermott didn't respond to comment requests.
Joshua Abbotoy, a corporate associate at Kirkland & Ellis, said he thinks uninterrupted time off can benefit both employers and employees. He said his colleagues at Kirkland self-regulate and tend to be conservative with their vacation time. He takes about a solid week of vacation a year, plus a few four-day weekends here and there when the work slows down, but he keeps in mind that the bottom line is doing the work and being there for clients.
"Clients don't care about what our vacation policy is," he said. "They just want to get their deals done."
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
© 2025 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 AllKPMG's Bid to Practice Law in U.S. on Indefinite Hold, as Arizona Justices Exercise Caution
Orrick Hires Longtime Weil Partner as New Head of Antitrust Litigation
Sidley Adds Ex-DOJ Criminal Division Deputy Leader, Paul Hastings Adds REIT Partner, in Latest DC Hiring
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Greenberg Traurig Launches Munich Office with Eight Hires, Including McDermott Group
- 2Midlevel Appellate Court Reinstates New York's Voting Rights Act
- 3Consumer Protection Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Irritating Eye Serum
- 4COVID-19 Was Still Relevant in Securities Class Actions During 2024, Report Says
- 5After Botched Landing of United Airlines Boeing 767, Unlikely Plaintiff Sues Carrier
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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