Family friendly - an in-depth look at the maternity policies of top UK law firms
Juggling motherhood and career progression has always been notoriously difficult in the legal profession, but with so many women leaving the profession, firms are being forced to face up to the issue. Kate Lofthouse investigates
August 02, 2012 at 07:03 PM
7 minute read
Juggling motherhood and career progression has always been notoriously difficult in the legal profession, but with so many women leaving the profession, firms are being forced to face up to the issue. Kate Lofthouse investigates
Although in recent years there has been some improvement, the legal profession remains notorious for its patriarchal structure of seniority, with men frequently dominating the upper echelons of major firms. In recent years women have fought back and the number of female partners grows every year, reflecting a universal desire for equal opportunity in the work place. However, one issue still seems to have eluded resolution – the question of maternity leave and its impact on career progression.
In order to develop professionally, law demands long, inflexible hours, hard work and commitment. We often hear of lawyers rising at the crack of dawn, working late into the night and frequently being called in to work weekends. This is not a lifestyle that sits comfortably beside motherhood, often causing young lawyers to delay having children until they have managed to climb further up the career ladder, fearing that maternity leave (and the pressures of motherhood that will inevitably follow) will mean an end to their ambitions of making partner.
Timing
The first stumbling block women face is the time they take off on maternity leave and the implications this can have on their career. This time off causes problems in all professions, yet it can be particularly inconvenient in law firms. With lawyers' work often centring around a few specific clients, it can be difficult to pass on to another colleague. This can cause expectant mothers additional stress as they worry about burdening their co-workers, as well as the concern that they may lose the client, increasing the pressure put upon them to return to work earlier than they wish.
In addition, the high stress, high salary nature of the profession doesn't automatically lend itself to the alternate career structure required by working mothers (and fathers).
In 1989 The New York Times published an article arguing that women's path to senior positions is "limited by the mommy track", stating that, although women had begun to overturn the masculine dominance of the workplace, motherhood could often bring aspirations of promotion to an abrupt end.
But a great deal has changed since 1989, with firms – not least law firms – becoming increasingly supportive of young mothers. As law firms struggle to keep the large numbers of women coming in at the bottom of the profession moving up through the ranks, there has been a general recognition that this attitude and culture has to change. Although there is certainly a lot of variation between the packages law firms offer, many of the larger firms are now offering generous packages to non-partner level lawyers and staff in a bid to retain their senior females.
Aside from the monetary benefits, the additional benefits on offer tend to focus around seminars and mentoring, with a few firms offering emergency child care provisions – recognising the problems with working unpredictable hours.
In general packages on offer seem to match those offered in other City professions, although law firms do fall short on some of the less tangible benefits on offer. Some of the larger banks for example offer in-house nurseries, ante-natal programmes and even pre-natal yoga classes.
Making partner
Many partner-level mothers argue that the impression that women must wait until they have made partner before having children is becoming equally outdated.
Helen Burton (pictured), a partner at Ashurst, says that going on maternity leave will not delay one's path to becoming partner: "It's like being out of the office on sabbatical for a period of time, you may lose some contacts but it will make no fundamental difference.
"I have very strong feelings on this point. You should have children when you want."
Her view is seconded by Sharon White, chief executive of Stephenson Harwood and one of only two women in firm management roles in the top 50 UK law firms, who says: "I had my son before I was made partner and it had no impact on my progression within the firm."
Some maternity packages seem to support this view, with Linklaters one example of a firm offering its most generous policy to all those that have not yet made partner. The firm's package for staff with at least a year's service is 26 weeks at 100% pay, 13 weeks statutory maternity pay (SMP – currently around £135 a week), and 12 weeks unpaid leave. This compares to a package for partners of 13 weeks at 100% pay, six weeks at 50% pay and 17 weeks unpaid leave.
Coming back to work
Vikki Wiberg, senior counsel at Taylor Wessing, has just returned from maternity leave and now works under the firm's flexible working policy, allowing her to work four days a week, spending one of those days at home. She comments: "Everyone in the office was really supportive, I took a full month of holiday off before I had the baby and then 12 months of maternity leave off after that."
And as schemes such as this are becoming more and more accessible in the top firms, young mothers now have more of an opportunity to succeed both at home and in the work place, a formerly impossible achievement in the legal profession. Although at most firms the options – including part-time working, job sharing, home working and remote working – are open to all staff, they have understandably proved particularly successful with mothers.
Alongside efforts to retain staff through flexible working, many maternity packages also offer incentives for lawyers to return to work after they have started a family.
For example, Eversheds is one of a number of firms that pays out a bonus if an employee agrees to return to work for at least six months after the end of their maternity leave, granting them a 'return to work bonus' which makes up the difference between the pay the employee received during her absence and 90% of their salary for the first 18 weeks of leave.
Similarly, if an employee at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer returns after only 26 weeks of leave, they will be paid the rest of their maternity package (six weeks of 50% pay) as a lump sum in the form of a bonus on their return.
It is clearly to the firms' advantage to have mothers returning to work as soon as possible, rather than getting out of touch with the legal market but, while the days of in-house mother and baby yoga classes are still only a distant dream, a lawyer's career is far from over following the decision to have a child as firms face up the reality of the measures needed to keep their female staff working.
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 AllUK Black History Month: Four A&O Shearman Staffers Honour Their Unsung Heroes
6 minute read'But We Exist': The Stigma Around Disability and Neurodivergence in Law Firms Persists
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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