If DH is a law firm partner, must I be the default parent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a partner, not senior associate, DH should have more control over his schedule. He will still work long hours, but is not at the back and call of a partner. Also, there are female partners who are still the default parent, in the sense that they are the ones who keep track of schedules, appointments, kids clothes, parties, presents, etc. sure, they have full time nannies, but they are still managing the household while being partner.

BTW, I know of big law male partners who still have time to coach their kids sport teams or volunteer on school committees.

Parenting is gendered, whether you are a big law partner or not. This means, OP, that if DH has enough time to get a coffee at Starbucks or had enough time to join a football fantasy league, or watch games on the weekends, he has enough time to go onto amazon and buy some presents for your kid. He just thinks he doesn't have to because it's a mother's job more so than a father's job.

No, he is at the beck and call of the clients, which is the same thing. Yes, OP's husband has time to shop online, but in the big picture, she will have to be the default parent unless he changes jobs.

Agreed. But this should be the topic of discussion between OP and her DH. Her DH should not depart from the assumption that she will work around his job, if that was not the express joint agreement.

This is crazy talk -- what is an "express joint agreement"? Unless she told him to decline the offer of partnership, she accepted the hours that come with it. The job is not flexible. If she is the higher earner, she should talk to him about changing his job to be the default parent. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe he didn't consult her on whether to take it.

Maybe she didn't know what being partner would entail in terms of his availability.

Maybe they didn't have, or were not planning on having kids when he took the partnership.

Maybe she is the higher earner.

Maybe she works, or wants to work more, or advance.

We don't know. All we know is that OP's DH - who presumably agreed to become a father - assumes that he can do what he wants, and she will be the default parent.

None of these are likely, but if any apply, maybe OP can come back and enlighten us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

In any case, pp, what your spouse did is not relevant. OP chose to have a child with her DH, who appears to have most certainly been committed to the partner track when she became pregnant. OP never mentions wanting DH to change jobs, only that she doesn't want to be default parent. Sometimes we can get everything we want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

In any case, pp, what your spouse did is not relevant. OP chose to have a child with her DH, who appears to have most certainly been committed to the partner track when she became pregnant. OP never mentions wanting DH to change jobs, only that she doesn't want to be default parent. Sometimes we can get everything we want.

can not get everything we want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^IDK, the big law wives I know, are well aware of the tradeoffs. But we married our DHs before they were big law and love them nonetheless.

And you understand that you are the default parent, right? OP does not. She wants her cake and to eat it too.

Actually, OP did not sign up to be the default parent. Her DH signed her up for that, without consulting her.

The underlying assumption for many people on this thread seems to be that OP must work around DH. That he dictates the terms.

And the assumption underlying that underlying assumption is that the mother is the default parent by default.

Exactly. And it is so very ingrained in our societal psyche that few seem to see it for the assumption that it is.

Not really accurate, plenty of women and gay men who are BigLaw partners have a spouse/significant other who is the default parent. It is a question of economics, not gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

In any case, pp, what your spouse did is not relevant. OP chose to have a child with her DH, who appears to have most certainly been committed to the partner track when she became pregnant. OP never mentions wanting DH to change jobs, only that she doesn't want to be default parent. Sometimes we can get everything we want.

can not get everything we want.

Well, the problem here is that it's not clear that DH even WANTS to be a committed dad or spouse. It is clear that he chooses to be committed to his work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

This is bizarre. The modal government worker works far less than the modal big law attorney. Obviously your mileage may vary when talking about specific individuals, but overall the expectations are vastly different. You can't go to a law firm and move up while working only 40-50 hours a week, but you can in government. You can't succeed in a firm and make it home for dinner every night, but you can do that in government without fearing for your job.

Agree that this doesn't help OP, but it should be a lesson to others, esp. big law wives who don't have kids yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^IDK, the big law wives I know, are well aware of the tradeoffs. But we married our DHs before they were big law and love them nonetheless.

And you understand that you are the default parent, right? OP does not. She wants her cake and to eat it too.

Actually, OP did not sign up to be the default parent. Her DH signed her up for that, without consulting her.

The underlying assumption for many people on this thread seems to be that OP must work around DH. That he dictates the terms.

And the assumption underlying that underlying assumption is that the mother is the default parent by default.

Exactly. And it is so very ingrained in our societal psyche that few seem to see it for the assumption that it is.

Not really accurate, plenty of women and gay men who are BigLaw partners have a spouse/significant other who is the default parent. It is a question of economics, not gender.

I agree that that the choice of who is the "default parent" is more an economic issue. More likely the man will earn millions over the female -- that's a fact. But I certainly know female big law partners and other high earning female execs who have DHs who SAH or have the flexible job.

[Anonymous]

Depends on the husband and the firm, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

This is bizarre. The modal government worker works far less than the modal big law attorney. Obviously your mileage may vary when talking about specific individuals, but overall the expectations are vastly different. You can't go to a law firm and move up while working only 40-50 hours a week, but you can in government. You can't succeed in a firm and make it home for dinner every night, but you can do that in government without fearing for your job.

Agree that this doesn't help OP, but it should be a lesson to others, esp. big law wives who don't have kids yet.

You can't be a federal prosecutor in a high profile section or office and work less than a big law attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

This is bizarre. The modal government worker works far less than the modal big law attorney. Obviously your mileage may vary when talking about specific individuals, but overall the expectations are vastly different. You can't go to a law firm and move up while working only 40-50 hours a week, but you can in government. You can't succeed in a firm and make it home for dinner every night, but you can do that in government without fearing for your job.

Agree that this doesn't help OP, but it should be a lesson to others, esp. big law wives who don't have kids yet.

You can't be a federal prosecutor in a high profile section or office and work less than a big law attorney.

+1. DOJ trial attorneys wouldn't leave for Big Law if their quality of life already weren't so bad and pay so low. When you are prepping for trial, and in trial, you are working Big Law hours and then some. Also, you are involved in trials far more frequently than a Big Law attorney, have a lot less support staff, and have a pay cap--no matter how senior--at just shy of $160.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Well, as another PP described it, "As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations."

I certainly think my standard for who is a parent is a lot better than that one.

well, of course. But for many government lawyers, the case comes first, too. It has little to do with the job, more to do with the person.

I was a DOJ trial lawyer. The workload was crazy but more collaborative in some ways. If a hearing conflicted with a family obligation, I could ask someone to cover for me (and I would do the same for others). If I had a conflict (kid's recital or something) I could just tell the judge I have a conflict and request another date. It seems that private practice clients are more demanding than judges.

[Anonymous]

AUSA here (who did biglaw). It's a lot of work but completely different. We work together to further the agency's mission. There's no mission in biglaw except to survive. That usually entails taking anyone who is a threat down and going out of your way to not be collaborative, and to be overly critical over stupid things to justify your existence. That's the toxic environment people are talking about.

When you spend 60-80 hours a week with people vested in your failure, it takes a toll. So, OP, your husband is probably not the best person right now. You wouldn't be either under the same circumstances. Trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. There is a mom in my son's class who is a law firm partner and she is the only one I have ever seen at drop off or pick up or at any type of school function. It's like the dad doesn't exist. So seems like she's the default parent.

What a shock - it probably depends whether law firm partner is the husband or the wife.

I wonder if that is me you see. I am default 3/4 of the year because DH is a teacher. It is not all that good for my career. The good news is that I have my own clients, and therefore can set my own schedule, more or less. Makes it hard, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much. One of you has to do it, and if he is a partner, he can't.

Says who? I am a BigLaw partner and I am the default parent. Welcome to 2014.