Afraid to go back to a law firm - should I be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The biggest indicator of whether you would actually be able to be part-time is whether you are on partnership track. If you're "on track," there is no part-time position at most firms.

I don't agree with this. I think it depends on practice area. At my firm, which is generally considered one of the top in DC, many women - partners, counsel, associates - are part time.

Let me guess, none of the men are P/T.

Not nearly as many as the women, though the option is certainly available to them.

But there's probably a stigma against men working part-time. I don't like this, but it is what it is. As law continues to become less prestigious, more men will leave the miserable profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The biggest indicator of whether you would actually be able to be part-time is whether you are on partnership track. If you're "on track," there is no part-time position at most firms.

I don't agree with this. I think it depends on practice area. At my firm, which is generally considered one of the top in DC, many women - partners, counsel, associates - are part time.

Let me guess, none of the men are P/T.

Let me guess, none of the men were pregnant for 9 months, had a baby rip through their vagina and then faced the reality that the baby needs the mother, not the father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The biggest indicator of whether you would actually be able to be part-time is whether you are on partnership track. If you're "on track," there is no part-time position at most firms.

I don't agree with this. I think it depends on practice area. At my firm, which is generally considered one of the top in DC, many women - partners, counsel, associates - are part time.

Let me guess, none of the men are P/T.

Let me guess, none of the men were pregnant for 9 months, had a baby rip through their vagina and then faced the reality that the baby needs the mother, not the father.

NP here but rude and uncalled for.

[Anonymous]

This is the OP - just to bring this post back from the female/male divide. I have had further conversations with a firm from which I have an offer and they seem genuinely supportive of the 80% model so long as I don't take a punch the clock approach. I can see this working so long as there is respect, flexibility and understanding on all sides. If I end up accepting the offer, it won't be because I want to make partner but because, for the foreseeable future, I think I can work in a challenging work environment but maybe also have a personal life. As much as I would love to imagine I could some day have the skills and business development acumen to make partner, for now my ambitions are not so lofty! I suppose I've made the "choice" that I cannot have it all right now and that something has to give.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the OP - just to bring this post back from the female/male divide. I have had further conversations with a firm from which I have an offer and they seem genuinely supportive of the 80% model so long as I don't take a punch the clock approach. I can see this working so long as there is respect, flexibility and understanding on all sides. If I end up accepting the offer, it won't be because I want to make partner but because, for the foreseeable future, I think I can work in a challenging work environment but maybe also have a personal life. As much as I would love to imagine I could some day have the skills and business development acumen to make partner, for now my ambitions are not so lofty! I suppose I've made the "choice" that I cannot have it all right now and that something has to give.

I have this arrangement with a biglaw firm (at a lower %). For the most part, it works. I don't make the $ of a biglaw partner, but I actually have a life outside of work (again, for the most part).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the OP - just to bring this post back from the female/male divide. I have had further conversations with a firm from which I have an offer and they seem genuinely supportive of the 80% model so long as I don't take a punch the clock approach. I can see this working so long as there is respect, flexibility and understanding on all sides. If I end up accepting the offer, it won't be because I want to make partner but because, for the foreseeable future, I think I can work in a challenging work environment but maybe also have a personal life. As much as I would love to imagine I could some day have the skills and business development acumen to make partner, for now my ambitions are not so lofty! I suppose I've made the "choice" that I cannot have it all right now and that something has to give.

I have this arrangement (has varied 70-90) and think it is awesome. Interesting work, lots of autonomy, and no pressure to bill huge hours. I also came from government and don't regret it at all, even though I loved my govt job.

[Anonymous]

Are you a federal government employee or a contractor? If you are an employee, could you try to get an attorney job with the government instead of moving to a private firm? I wouldn't be so quick to leave the government if I were you.

Law firms are very unstable places these days. Whether or not you should go will really depend on the financial health of the firm. If you are working reduced hours and aren't interested in putting in the time to make partner, you may be first on the chopping block if things start getting slow.

It will be very difficult to get a full understanding of a firm's financial health when you are interviewing. Even a busy firm can be poorly run and unprofitable.

[Anonymous]

This is the OP. I am on a term appointment - one year into a two year tenure - where I have no status. Therefore, I cannot apply for USG-only jobs. This renders me no different than someone off the street applying. The main reason I accepted the job (non-legal) was to get "in the system." But, I later learned that the peculiarities of my status make me a quasi-federal employee. Yes, I'm at an agency where I accrue benefits and can contribute to the TSP and get matching benefits but that's about the only short-term upside I see. I've witnessed far too many people at this agency working in short-term roles and doing great work (through fellowships, details, term appointments) meet their expiration date and leave the building. Rather than risk that at the end of the term, I'd prefer to seize an opportunity at a firm, unstable as it may be, if it means getting back to my profession. I don't see a way of getting into the legal department of my agency from the policy role I'm in - far too competitive, even though I have "BigLaw" on my resume.