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
© 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 AllDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
What Practices Are Driving Law Firms’ ‘Remarkable’ Performance in 2024?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
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