Lawyers employed part time, tell us how your compensation is structured.

[Anonymous]

I negotiated for a percentage of my base salary based on an equal percentage of my billable hours. Example: my schedule was 50% of my prior billable hours and 50% of my prior salary with full benefits. End of year raises are based on my base salary, so that my base salary keeps up with other associates in my class. When I was ready to go back to work full time, I simply went back to my base salary. I've been part-time and full-time at different points in my career.

My boss is willing to let me do this because he doesn't want to train another senior associate to be "his" senior associate. I'm good and I'm trained and I know what he wants without too much hand holding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks to those who responded thoughtfully and in good faith. I have to say, I'm surprised that those responses have been so few.

Yes, I have the political capital and work history to negotiate a part time arrangement. I am at a small firm in a niche practice and the decision-makers are open to part time because they don't want me to leave. I am aware of all the pitfalls of working part time and recognize that I'll be making a sacrifice in terms of advancement, skills-development, and long-term marketability.

What I don't know is how other part-time lawyers in their prime working/parenting years (i.e. not brand new grads trying to get established and not semi-retired senior lawyers trying to keep a toe in throughout their sixties and early seventies) are getting compensated, and what they wish they could change about that compensation. I've heard a lot of part-time lawyers express dissatisfaction about their compensation, but for very good reason, most of them are reluctant to get specific IRL about what they are getting and why it feels unfair. I honestly don't know why people would be reluctant to share this kind of information on an anonymous forum. Knowledge is power, ladies. The more we all know about what other part-time lawyers are getting and how they feel about it, the more equipped we will be to negotiate better family-friendly opportunities for ourselves.

Seriously, is there no one out there willing to share this information?

I would be happy to share, but I've worked full time as a lawyer throughout my child raising years, so I can't. I find the women who work part time at my company work for a fixed number of hours a week with a concomitant reduction in salary.

[Anonymous]

One of my friends tried working p.t. and took a 25% pay reduction in order to take Fridays off. She ended up working from home on her "off days" because there was always something urgent that she needed to work on. She ended working the same schedule for less hours. She's back to FT now.

[Anonymous]

I was an employee (a non-equity partner) and my compensation was based on 40% of what I billed (billed, not what the firm collected, as I didn't control the later).

If they had agreed to a base salary, say $150k, with anything above that being determined by my billables, I would probably still be at the firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of my friends tried working p.t. and took a 25% pay reduction in order to take Fridays off. She ended up working from home on her "off days" because there was always something urgent that she needed to work on. She ended working the same schedule for less hours. She's back to FT now.

This pretty much describes my current situation. I am a non-equity partner at a mid-sized firm, came back from maternity leave at 80% so I could theoretically take a day off each week. In reality, because of my practice area, I can't really take a day off many weeks, so I still have child care for part of the day on my "day off" so I can deal with anything that comes up. I am paid 80% of the base salary I'd otherwise be paid, with an agreement stipulating that if I end up billing 1800 hours my pay will be "trued up" at the end of the year. Bonus is completely discretionary and based in part on hours. What is annoying is that many partners at my firm (and other firms) bill less than the expected number of hours and are still paid at 100% salary -- so I basically took a pay cut and am working more hours than many of the partners in the firm. It is still worth it to me at this particular point in time because of the immense flexibility I have, but still...not exactly fair.

In my view, the main things you should be concerned with are (a) will they pay you fairly based on hours worked even if you exceed whatever your actual commitment is, and (b) how unhappy will you be if you end up working more than part-time (i.e., how will you deal with childcare, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my friends tried working p.t. and took a 25% pay reduction in order to take Fridays off. She ended up working from home on her "off days" because there was always something urgent that she needed to work on. She ended working the same schedule for less hours. She's back to FT now.

This pretty much describes my current situation. I am a non-equity partner at a mid-sized firm, came back from maternity leave at 80% so I could theoretically take a day off each week. In reality, because of my practice area, I can't really take a day off many weeks, so I still have child care for part of the day on my "day off" so I can deal with anything that comes up. I am paid 80% of the base salary I'd otherwise be paid, with an agreement stipulating that if I end up billing 1800 hours my pay will be "trued up" at the end of the year. Bonus is completely discretionary and based in part on hours. What is annoying is that many partners at my firm (and other firms) bill less than the expected number of hours and are still paid at 100% salary -- so I basically took a pay cut and am working more hours than many of the partners in the firm. It is still worth it to me at this particular point in time because of the immense flexibility I have, but still...not exactly fair.

In my view, the main things you should be concerned with are (a) will they pay you fairly based on hours worked even if you exceed whatever your actual commitment is, and (b) how unhappy will you be if you end up working more than part-time (i.e., how will you deal with childcare, etc.).

I had this experience in a prior part time legal job. My firm did not have a strict minimum billable hour requirement. There was a target, but no full time employees were actually meeting it. However, as a part time employee with a flexible schedule getting paid 70% of my full time salary, I was expected to produce 70% of the target billable hours, which ended up being about 90% of what my full time peers were actually producing. The firm would not make adjustments--just said that the FT employees need to get their hours up--and the bonus formula didn't reflect my "extra" hours in any direct or meaningful way. I went back to full time work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my friends tried working p.t. and took a 25% pay reduction in order to take Fridays off. She ended up working from home on her "off days" because there was always something urgent that she needed to work on. She ended working the same schedule for less hours. She's back to FT now.

This pretty much describes my current situation. I am a non-equity partner at a mid-sized firm, came back from maternity leave at 80% so I could theoretically take a day off each week. In reality, because of my practice area, I can't really take a day off many weeks, so I still have child care for part of the day on my "day off" so I can deal with anything that comes up. I am paid 80% of the base salary I'd otherwise be paid, with an agreement stipulating that if I end up billing 1800 hours my pay will be "trued up" at the end of the year. Bonus is completely discretionary and based in part on hours. What is annoying is that many partners at my firm (and other firms) bill less than the expected number of hours and are still paid at 100% salary -- so I basically took a pay cut and am working more hours than many of the partners in the firm. It is still worth it to me at this particular point in time because of the immense flexibility I have, but still...not exactly fair.

In my view, the main things you should be concerned with are (a) will they pay you fairly based on hours worked even if you exceed whatever your actual commitment is, and (b) how unhappy will you be if you end up working more than part-time (i.e., how will you deal with childcare, etc.).

I saw a partner comp chart from my old firm (apparently they didn't realize it was on the intranet and accessible to everyone...oops!) and I was amazed at how certain partners that neither billed nor originated a lot of business were still being paid in the $400s.

[Anonymous]

I am working at a small office (under 10 lawyers) part-time as a 1099 employee, no benefits. The work is fixed-fee and my compensation is a percentage of the work that I do. So if I do 1 project in a week, I am paid $X, and if I do 3 projects in a week, I am paid $3X.

It is very flexible and perfect for me, while the children are little. Once they are in school, I will try to work more, but still part-time.

[Anonymous]

I was on a 1600 billable track with full benefits for 80% of my salary. They did not care when I worked so long as my billables were met and I was present for any meetings/court dates. While this is a better arrangement than a set 4-day week (which strikes me as pointless as something will always come up on a day off) it still was not ideal as you basically still need to always be available to work late/weekends, which seems to happen a lot in litigation. I needed to bill, on average, 133 hours a month (as opposed to 166 hours) which was about 5 hours a day (assuming 26 work days in a month). But if there is a holiday/sick day/vacation I needed to bill extra to build that in. So say you want holidays off, plus 2 weeks vacation, plus 5 sick days, that is 25 days off for the year -- that is basically an extra month (ie, 133 hours) you need to bill. So now instead of billing 1600 hours, you need to bill 1730 hours. I found the billable hour tracking stressful and I was obsessed with billing and constantly checking to see if I was "ahead" of my billables so I could take vacation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was on a 1600 billable track with full benefits for 80% of my salary. They did not care when I worked so long as my billables were met and I was present for any meetings/court dates. While this is a better arrangement than a set 4-day week (which strikes me as pointless as something will always come up on a day off) it still was not ideal as you basically still need to always be available to work late/weekends, which seems to happen a lot in litigation. I needed to bill, on average, 133 hours a month (as opposed to 166 hours) which was about 5 hours a day (assuming 26 work days in a month). But if there is a holiday/sick day/vacation I needed to bill extra to build that in. So say you want holidays off, plus 2 weeks vacation, plus 5 sick days, that is 25 days off for the year -- that is basically an extra month (ie, 133 hours) you need to bill. So now instead of billing 1600 hours, you need to bill 1730 hours. I found the billable hour tracking stressful and I was obsessed with billing and constantly checking to see if I was "ahead" of my billables so I could take vacation!

But isn't this true of all law firm jobs, not just part time law firm jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my friends tried working p.t. and took a 25% pay reduction in order to take Fridays off. She ended up working from home on her "off days" because there was always something urgent that she needed to work on. She ended working the same schedule for less hours. She's back to FT now.

This pretty much describes my current situation. I am a non-equity partner at a mid-sized firm, came back from maternity leave at 80% so I could theoretically take a day off each week. In reality, because of my practice area, I can't really take a day off many weeks, so I still have child care for part of the day on my "day off" so I can deal with anything that comes up. I am paid 80% of the base salary I'd otherwise be paid, with an agreement stipulating that if I end up billing 1800 hours my pay will be "trued up" at the end of the year. Bonus is completely discretionary and based in part on hours. What is annoying is that many partners at my firm (and other firms) bill less than the expected number of hours and are still paid at 100% salary -- so I basically took a pay cut and am working more hours than many of the partners in the firm. It is still worth it to me at this particular point in time because of the immense flexibility I have, but still...not exactly fair.

In my view, the main things you should be concerned with are (a) will they pay you fairly based on hours worked even if you exceed whatever your actual commitment is, and (b) how unhappy will you be if you end up working more than part-time (i.e., how will you deal with childcare, etc.).

I saw a partner comp chart from my old firm (apparently they didn't realize it was on the intranet and accessible to everyone...oops!) and I was amazed at how certain partners that neither billed nor originated a lot of business were still being paid in the $400s.

Old white-shoe, lock-step firm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on a 1600 billable track with full benefits for 80% of my salary. They did not care when I worked so long as my billables were met and I was present for any meetings/court dates. While this is a better arrangement than a set 4-day week (which strikes me as pointless as something will always come up on a day off) it still was not ideal as you basically still need to always be available to work late/weekends, which seems to happen a lot in litigation. I needed to bill, on average, 133 hours a month (as opposed to 166 hours) which was about 5 hours a day (assuming 26 work days in a month). But if there is a holiday/sick day/vacation I needed to bill extra to build that in. So say you want holidays off, plus 2 weeks vacation, plus 5 sick days, that is 25 days off for the year -- that is basically an extra month (ie, 133 hours) you need to bill. So now instead of billing 1600 hours, you need to bill 1730 hours. I found the billable hour tracking stressful and I was obsessed with billing and constantly checking to see if I was "ahead" of my billables so I could take vacation!

But isn't this true of all law firm jobs, not just part time law firm jobs?

No, 2100 and more hours were expected when I was an associate (before the crash). Even though I was given 3 weeks vacation, I never took it. It wasn't considered "wise".

[Anonymous]

60 percent FT salary with 85 percent or more of FT work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you work for a large law firm, small law firm, the government, a corporate legal department, a nonprofit organization, or some other entity?

Counsel to/for an association.

How many hours a week do you work? What percentage of full time does your employer consider that (e.g. 80% of full time,50% of full time?

~24-30 hours, depending on the week. Three days.

Do you get paid as a W2 employee or a 1099 contractor?

W2.

Do you get paid a fixed annual salary? If so, does your part time salary correspond pro rata to the salary you’d earn if you worked full time? E.g. you work 80% of full time and get 80% of the salary you’d earn if you worked full time.

Yes, fixed annual salary at 60% of compensation.

If you get a fixed salary and work extra hours some weeks to meet client needs, do you get paid for this time? No, not in money. But I do get comp-time/extra vacation time equal to whatever extra I worked. I never ask/put in for it unless I worked 4 or more hours on one of my off-days - usually I just call it the price of being a professional. If so, how? E.g., comp time, additional pay at negotiated hourly rate, reflected in discretionary end-of-year bonus, etc.

Do you get paid for every hour worked, without regard to whether those hours are billable vs. non-billable? If so, how many years experience do you have and at what hourly rate do you get paid?

Yes.

Do you get paid per billable hour worked with no compensation for non-billable hours? If so, what is your per-billable-hour pay rate and how does it compare (as a percentage) to your client billing rate?

See above.

Do you get paid a percentage of revenue billed and collected? If so, what percentage to you get? Does the percentage vary according to who generated the client?

N/A

What, if any, health insurance benefit you do get and how does it compare to what full time employees of your organization get?

Full health benefits but I don't use them as I'm on DH's employer's plan.

Are you eligible to participate in your employer’s 401(K) plan? If so, do you get the same employer contribution (as a percentage of income) that you received before going part time?

Yes and yes.

How much, if any, paid vacation and sick leave do you get and how does this compare to what full time employees of your organization get?

It is pro-rated, 60% of paid leave and 60% of paid holidays.

Do you feel fairly compensated?

Mostly yes, but I definitely work more than 60% time. I think I have likely lost out on some bonus and pay increase money over the years simply because I am not as visible as my colleagues, but that doesn't bother me.

What, if anything, would you like to change about your compensation or other aspects of your part time arrangement?

None.

How satisfied are you with your part time attorney job?

Very.

I am in a similar situation but with little to no benefits ... would you mind giving a ballpark of where your salary is and how experienced you are?

[Anonymous]

I got a straight percentage of the full-time salary. 80% salary for 80% of full-time billable expectations. I accrued leave on an 80% rate but other benefits were no different from full-time folks (health care, etc.). It worked OK.