Big Law for moms: a survey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That is what op is asking about. Much easier to make nonequity partner ( I did) and the demands are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That is what op is asking about. Much easier to make nonequity partner ( I did) and the demands are different.

DP: OP doesn't use the word equity anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That is what op is asking about. Much easier to make nonequity partner ( I did) and the demands are different.

DP: OP doesn't use the word equity anywhere.

New poster here.

Ultimately this confusion is the result of firms misusing terms and muddling things. But it bears noting that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "nonequity partner." "Partner" in the context of a "partnership" means one who shares in the profits and liabilities of a venture. That is, someone who has an equity stake in the partnership.

A "nonequity partner" is in fact an oxymoron. Someone who does not have equity -- ie, someone who does not share in the profits and liabilities of the partnership -- is by definition, not a partner. "Nonequity partner" is a made up term to elevate the status of employees who are not actually partners.

[Anonymous]

I worked in Biglaw for two years at two different firms. I agree with your assessment overall. I know of one woman who had a baby while she was a relatively junior partner (she was late 30s and had been partner for maybe 5 years). She only wanted and only had one child, and her husband was a partner at another Biglaw firm. A few years later, she quit. I also know one woman who made non-equity partner while she had one toddler. She was divorced and shared custody with her xdh. She does not want any more children (assuming she marries again) before making equity partner. I know a third woman who had one child before making non-equity partner and then had a second afterwards. The latter two women are in their mid 30s now, so I think it's changing a little but very slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That is what op is asking about. Much easier to make nonequity partner ( I did) and the demands are different.

DP: OP doesn't use the word equity anywhere.

New poster here.

Ultimately this confusion is the result of firms misusing terms and muddling things. But it bears noting that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "nonequity partner." "Partner" in the context of a "partnership" means one who shares in the profits and liabilities of a venture. That is, someone who has an equity stake in the partnership.

A "nonequity partner" is in fact an oxymoron. Someone who does not have equity -- ie, someone who does not share in the profits and liabilities of the partnership -- is by definition, not a partner. "Nonequity partner" is a made up term to elevate the status of employees who are not actually partners.

You can be a party to the partnership agreement without holding an equity stake. Non-equity partners do exist and are a sort of hybrid. They don't profit share but are often responsible for their own insurance costs, e.g.

[Anonymous]

I know a couple. Both lateralled to "more family-friendly" firms to make partner. Still BigLaw, and "family friendly" seems to be code for "telework friendly". One has one 4yo, the other has two kids under the age of 10. They're happy, I guess?

I know one better than the other. The office is very flexible about teleworking. Her DH works parttime and they have a parttime nanny to help with school pickup and the like. But she drops the kids off everyday, has dinner and puts the kids to bed almost every night, and rarely misses key school events (although I'm pretty sure she has an umbilical cord to her phone). she also works most evenings from 8 to midnight or so, including weekends. I don't honestly know where she gets the stamina.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That has always been the goal. If anything, the two-tiered partnerships are a more modern practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That is what op is asking about. Much easier to make nonequity partner ( I did) and the demands are different.

DP: OP doesn't use the word equity anywhere.

New poster here.

Ultimately this confusion is the result of firms misusing terms and muddling things. But it bears noting that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "nonequity partner." "Partner" in the context of a "partnership" means one who shares in the profits and liabilities of a venture. That is, someone who has an equity stake in the partnership.

A "nonequity partner" is in fact an oxymoron. Someone who does not have equity -- ie, someone who does not share in the profits and liabilities of the partnership -- is by definition, not a partner. "Nonequity partner" is a made up term to elevate the status of employees who are not actually partners.

You can be a party to the partnership agreement without holding an equity stake. Non-equity partners do exist and are a sort of hybrid. They don't profit share but are often responsible for their own insurance costs, e.g.

Partnership is defined as co-ownership and sharing of profits and liabilities. Non-equity partners are not considered "partners" under either partnership law or employment law.

[Anonymous]

According to the IRS, any firm has to file a K-1 form to report each shareholder's share of profits, deductions, etc.

Do "non-equity partners" do a K-1 form as the IRS requires? Employees who don't have a K-1 are not partners, they are employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That is what op is asking about. Much easier to make nonequity partner ( I did) and the demands are different.

DP: OP doesn't use the word equity anywhere.

New poster here.

Ultimately this confusion is the result of firms misusing terms and muddling things. But it bears noting that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "nonequity partner." "Partner" in the context of a "partnership" means one who shares in the profits and liabilities of a venture. That is, someone who has an equity stake in the partnership.

A "nonequity partner" is in fact an oxymoron. Someone who does not have equity -- ie, someone who does not share in the profits and liabilities of the partnership -- is by definition, not a partner. "Nonequity partner" is a made up term to elevate the status of employees who are not actually partners.

You can be a party to the partnership agreement without holding an equity stake. Non-equity partners do exist and are a sort of hybrid. They don't profit share but are often responsible for their own insurance costs, e.g.

Partnership is defined as co-ownership and sharing of profits and liabilities. Non-equity partners are not considered "partners" under either partnership law or employment law.

Partners are defined however the partnership agreement defines them. It is a contractual arrangement. Non-equity or income partners do not make capital contributions or profit share, but they do typically have some limited voting rights. Are partner at a firm with a two-tiered partnership? If not, what is your basis for your statements? Non-equity partners are extremely common and your dislike of the term does not change that. Or perhaps you are right and the majority of AmLaw 100 firms are wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my wife's firm she made partner with two kids under 4 years old. I work full time also 40+ hours a week, but I travel rarely and my schedule is more regular so I do daycare pickup and drop off every day.

In her practice group there are 3 other partners that I can think of in similar situations, that made partner with small children and have husbands that work full time as well, but mostly in more regular tech/government/consulting type jobs.

Most of the senior female associates and counsel have children as well. The typical pattern that I see is:

1) Graduate law school
2) work at a firm for a few years, and get married
3) Have kids when you are a 5-7 year and established in your practice area.
4) Make counsel
5) A few years later make partner

Clearly you have a very unrepresentative view of biglaw or your wife is at a smaller or boutique firm. Women still make up a small fraction of equity partners.

During my time in biglaw, I saw the following types of women partners with kids.

1. Women who had kids before law school and kids were older by time they got to firm (usually law second career);
2. Women who had another family member stay home with kids, usually a dad or grandparent.
3. Women whose dh also worked, Jad full time help and were always trying to be a reduced hours partner, while never actually working reduced hours.
4. Women who made partner before having kids and then left for government or in house when they had kids.

most of the women I knew with kids left before being promoted, and about half of the women who were promoted to partner never had kids.

So now the goal posts have changed to equity partner? My wife is a partner at a top-40 firm.

That is what op is asking about. Much easier to make nonequity partner ( I did) and the demands are different.

DP: OP doesn't use the word equity anywhere.

New poster here.

Ultimately this confusion is the result of firms misusing terms and muddling things. But it bears noting that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "nonequity partner." "Partner" in the context of a "partnership" means one who shares in the profits and liabilities of a venture. That is, someone who has an equity stake in the partnership.

A "nonequity partner" is in fact an oxymoron. Someone who does not have equity -- ie, someone who does not share in the profits and liabilities of the partnership -- is by definition, not a partner. "Nonequity partner" is a made up term to elevate the status of employees who are not actually partners.

You can be a party to the partnership agreement without holding an equity stake. Non-equity partners do exist and are a sort of hybrid. They don't profit share but are often responsible for their own insurance costs, e.g.

Partnership is defined as co-ownership and sharing of profits and liabilities. Non-equity partners are not considered "partners" under either partnership law or employment law.

Partners are defined however the partnership agreement defines them. It is a contractual arrangement. Non-equity or income partners do not make capital contributions or profit share, but they do typically have some limited voting rights. Are partner at a firm with a two-tiered partnership? If not, what is your basis for your statements? Non-equity partners are extremely common and your dislike of the term does not change that. Or perhaps you are right and the majority of AmLaw 100 firms are wrong?

"Partner" is a legal term with a defined meaning. Look it up in Black's if you don't believe me. Firms can't just change the meaning of a defined term because it's convenient to elevate the status of some of its employees.

[Anonymous]

Which of these definitions does "non-equity partner" meet:

1. Someone who shares or takes part with another, esp. in a venture with shared benefits and shared risks; an associate or colleague <partners in crime>. 2. One of two or more persons who jointly own and carry on a business for profit <the firm and its partners were sued for malpractice>. See partnership. 3. One of two persons who are married or who live together; a spouse or companion <my partner in life>.


PARTNER, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the IRS, any firm has to file a K-1 form to report each shareholder's share of profits, deductions, etc.

Do "non-equity partners" do a K-1 form as the IRS requires? Employees who don't have a K-1 are not partners, they are employees.

Yes non-equity partners do get a K-1. So the IRS considers them partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I know one better than the other. The office is very flexible about teleworking. Her DH works parttime and they have a parttime nanny to help with school pickup and the like. But she drops the kids off everyday, has dinner and puts the kids to bed almost every night, and rarely misses key school events (although I'm pretty sure she has an umbilical cord to her phone). she also works most evenings from 8 to midnight or so, including weekends. I don't honestly know where she gets the stamina.

I wonder if one of my friends or co-workers is describing me? This is me, but DH works full time. Stamina? It may appear that way from the outside but inside I am falling apart and planning to leave soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering about Big Law partners who also happen to be moms of small children. In my experience (2 firms), there are zero. In my limited experience, female partners seem to fall into one or more of the following descriptions:
1. Single or divorced, no kids
2. Married, no kids
3. Married, with kids, and with a stay-home spouse (or spouse who has a very light professional schedule)
4. Women who have been partners for many, many years, and whose children are grown (but while they were young, she probably fit into one of the above categories)


I can't think of a single female partner who is happily married (or neutrally-married) to a spouse with a full time career with children under age 10. Or under age 15 for that matter. Looking for some anecdotes of other moms with young kids who have made this work.

- 6th year mom of 2 small kids, married to professional with 50 hour/week job, noticing all of the similarly-situated women around me exiting big law in droves

I am a Big Law partner with two kids under 4 -- made partner while on maternity leave with my second. Husband works, but less hours and job generally less demanding. Have amazing nanny and work from home most nights after kids are in bed -- same on weekends. It is totally doable, but you need a firm culture that allows working remotely, when possible.