Redefining Hard Work in the Legal Profession for Working Mothers
U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz and law clerk Fabiana Cohen discuss navigating the legal workday in a way that doesn't require rigid daytime face time.
October 14, 2019 at 02:34 PM
6 minute read
In May, I was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As the son of Cuban immigrants and a first-generation American, serving on the federal bench has been a dream come true.
Many factors motivated me to pursue a federal judgeship, not least of which was my experience clerking — almost 15 years ago — for an extraordinary judge in my district who, early on in my clerkship, made clear that his law clerks were part of his family. So when I got confirmed this year, a clerk family is exactly what I strived to create.
The first clerk I hired, Fabiana Cohen, is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School who worked for two years in one of our nation's largest firms and came highly recommended by my peers and her supervisors. She also has three daughters, all under the age of 5.
At the time, I did not give much thought to the fact she was a working mother. Perhaps I was accustomed to seeing my wife, a successful attorney, navigate the legal workforce as a working mom, or perhaps I instinctively knew Fabiana and I would find a way to make things work.
It was not until months after hiring her, upon attending a discussion panel for young lawyers, that Fabiana expressed dissatisfaction with the traditional definition of "hard work" and the disparate impact it has on working mothers.
Fabiana lamented that by placing too much emphasis on requirements that young lawyers be in the office at all hours of the day, supervisors inadvertently discourage qualified primary caregivers from pursuing valuable opportunities like clerkships.
In our discussions, we sought to answer the following question: how can legal employers help working mothers be present and engaged in the lives of their children without sacrificing career development? After numerous conversations on this topic, we resolved to write this piece together in the hopes of providing an answer.
Although much progress has been made in the realm of women's rights, an issue of overriding importance remains: working mothers, many of whom shoulder the burdens of after- school pickups, sick days and the like, are disadvantaged by a system that conflates hard work with rigid success metrics like the number of hours spent in the office.
Employers that adhere to strict face-time requirements do so at the expense of working mothers who ordinarily need a measure of flexibility to succeed in their careers while caring for their children. Similarly, strict face-time requirements disincentive qualified applicants who have children from pursuing competitive positions that demand impossibly high in-office or after-work hours.
Put simply, working mothers do not have the luxury of spending an infinite number of hours in the office to demonstrate their commitment and drive — nor should they be required to do so.
It is incumbent upon employers to stop promoting the idea that the best lawyers are those who are in the office around the clock. The value of a lawyer is not defined by the number of hours spent in the office. Instead, it is dedicated work ethic and quality work product that matter.
As such, we need to redefine what it means to be a hardworking lawyer to include indisputably qualified candidates who need flexible work hours to attend to young children or other parental obligations.
This requires recognizing that "hard work" need not be defined by rigid tropes that blindly reward face time. Rather, we must develop policies and hiring practices to accommodate the needs of working mothers.
One approach is to embrace technological advances that enable primary caregivers to work from home and adopt more flexible work schedules.
In our chambers, all my clerks have laptops that enable them to work from home, if necessary. I also subscribe to the notion that my clerks are more efficient when they have the flexibility they need to meet family obligations.
When Fabiana is late because it is her daughter's first day of school or leaves early for a pediatrician appointment, I do not think twice about it. Nothing about her leaving early or working from home impacts the quality of her first-rate work product or her efficiency.
I also try to schedule events that I would like my clerks to attend during the workday as opposed to after hours. For example, my preference is to participate in speaking engagements and other social events during the lunch hour when I know that all my clerks can attend.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I have an open line of communication in my chambers. From the start, Fabiana was unafraid to share that she hoped to make it to dinner every night with her family and, frankly, I was equally motivated to get home to see my young children before their bedtime.
Nonetheless, after spending time with our respective families, we routinely find each other logged into our internal network late into the evening. While this works for us, we are cognizant of the fact that family structures differ. and primary caregivers in each family will face unique challenges in the work place.
We also recognize that increased flexibility is in no way a panacea for the difficult balancing act many working mothers face between being an involved parent and a successful lawyer.
None of this, of course, is meant to diminish the hard work it takes to be a successful law clerk or young attorney. Our profession does not lend itself well to the idle worker.
Moreover, there are undoubtedly times when professional advancement will require personal sacrifice. But promoting a legal culture that rewards long hours over efficient hours does a disservice to our community. And it forecloses opportunities to candidates who would otherwise enrich the workplace with invaluable viewpoints and exceptional skill sets.
Until we discard the false dichotomy between being an effective and diligent lawyer and an available parent, highly qualified candidates will continue to be marginalized in our legal profession.
In our chambers, I have concluded that to have a successful law clerk family is to recognize the importance and value of family, both in and out of the office.
U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz joined the federal bench in May. Fabiana Cohen was the first law clerk he hired.
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
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