Parental approval - good maternity policies don't seem to be enough
One thing is certain when the thorny issue of accommodating broody female lawyers comes up – UK law firms are not likely to be signing up to the Babies in the Office scheme, Addison Lee-style, any time soon. Whether it's flexible working or, as in the case of this week's research by Legal Week, maternity packages, it's an issue that City firms are still grappling with. In stark contrast to associate pay, which is disclosed openly by firms, lack of transparency with benefits like maternity pay means there are sizeable variations in the schemes on offer.
August 02, 2012 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
One thing is certain when the thorny issue of accommodating broody female lawyers comes up – UK law firms are not likely to be signing up to the Babies in the Office scheme, Addison Lee-style, any time soon.
Whether it's flexible working or, as in the case of this week's research by Legal Week, maternity packages, it's an issue that City firms are still grappling with. In stark contrast to associate pay, which is disclosed openly by firms, lack of transparency with benefits like maternity pay means there are sizeable variations in the schemes on offer.
And if there's less transparency about maternity pay for staff, getting indications on what firms offer their partners is like extracting blood from the proverbial stone.
But, in fairness, there are some pretty good deals on offer across the UK's largest law firms, with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer – a firm more commonly associated with sporty men and long hours – offering the most generous package, just ahead of Clifford Chance. Linklaters and Simmons & Simmons also have particularly good schemes.
As a very rough rule of thumb, the most prestigious City firms offer the best terms, though given that these firms generally have the lowest proportion of female partners and suffer the worst complaints about excessive hours, there is obviously more to engaging women staff than maternity pay.
Of course, maternity benefits are only one part of what is needed to keep women in law firms. Relatively generous policies in this regard certainly haven't proved enough to stop women lawyers leaving private practice in droves around the time they choose to start a family.
More important is what happens when women return to work. Ultimately, the real importance of maternity benefits is as one of many elements that create an atmosphere in which employers make women and working parents feel they can have a long-term career in an environment that supports them.
That law firms still struggle hugely on this front – despite having reasonably enlightened maternity policies – again illustrates the fundamental and unresolved conflict between the uncompromising demands of the partnership track on one hand and the biological realities and changing world-view of staff who long ago abandoned notions of a job for life.
Law firms won't make big improvements in female retention by pandering to workers who just don't want to make the kind of sacrifices involved in working in City law, but they should be ready to meet their high-performing female staff halfway. On maternity benefits, they have made some laudable ground. The real breakthrough will come by applying such thinking to the heart of their businesses.
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 All'I Was Getting Straight Nos From Absolutely Everyone': How a Tetraplegic Linklaters Lawyer Defied All Odds
6 minute readUK Black History Month: Four A&O Shearman Staffers Honour Their Unsung Heroes
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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