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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP checking back in after catching up, wowza. I do not want a lacrosse game or vacations-only dad as coparent, no offense to the PP with biglaw dad. Now there are smartphones so that whole scene is different. DH doesn't like the hours he works; he is not trying to avoid us. But he's scared to be jobless. He has tried to move to government in the past and been dinged repeatedly. Maybe he can move inhouse, but that isn't as common in his litigation niche. I have a JD/MBA and work in a nonlegal, but senior role, at a nonprofit. The work culture is very different. There are only so many hours in the day and his job takes up too many of them. He doesn't disagree, and I don't necessarily disagree that he shouldn't be ordering stuff on amazon if it means he get home even later. It's not a case of golden handcuffs. We don't need that partner salary. I appreciate the many informed and thoughtful responses on this thread.

Its not that simple to find an 'easy" govt job. Hard as it is, look before you leap.

[Anonymous]

Amazon

How long could it possibly take to pick and order a train?

[Anonymous]

OP, I haven't read every page, but just wanted to say that I sympathize and it seems like you are being reasonable and realistic. I also spent 10 years at a biglaw firm doing litigation, and then moved to something else after our first was born. It was not an easy transition, and I sympathize with your husband's predicament.

For what it's worth: I ended up at a trade association making about half of what I used to make. I am home by 5:30 every day and work from home on Fridays. When I interviewed, I was very up front about the schedule I wanted, and definitely had to pass on a couple of positions (at law firms) when it seemed like things wouldn't be a good fit. I kind of had to move into a position where I'm not actually litigating a big load of cases on a day to day basis (sorry I can't really be more specific). But I do miss working on bigger, more high profile, stimulating things. It's a tradeoff. Agree wiht a PP, though- the worst case scenario is moving somewhere where he works substantially the same hours for less money. I know quite a few people who moved from biglaw to govt or a smaller firm and ended up in that situation.

Also, when I worked in biglaw, a few male partners with young kids would try to structure their work so they left at 6:00 or so 3-4 days a week, and then stayed til 1-2 in the morning the remaining 1-2 days. It's not ideal, but maybe if your DH could try something like that it would provide a bit of short term relief?

Good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a nanny. Both of my employers are lawyers ( Dad a partner, MB about to make partner). Her schedule is a little more flexible but I work 50-60/hr weeks. Most days I put the baby to bed. I love my job and my employers are involved when they can be but I've learned never to marry a lawyer who plans on being a partner. They make a great loving but the dad works up to 90 hours weeks sometimes. I think both parents should do as much as they can but the mom does tend to do whatever I don't.

That would break my heart. No amount of money in the world is worth being away from your child 50-60 hours a week. Even worse if both parents are doing it. You are their mother at this point. Why do people like that even have kids? And to clarify, I am not anti WOHM. I work. My DH has a very demanding job, but doesn't (and wouldn't) work a 60 hour work week. That's just not fair to the children.

I feel like a significant number of working parents in the dc area need 50 hours a week of child care, between work and commuting...

Of course they do. Its the norm, so your post is wildly unhelpful and condescending, PP. How much child care do you need if you work? I am part time and need 40 hours (I have to get ready and commute, so four days, at ten hours a day.). If I was full time I would need 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a nanny. Both of my employers are lawyers ( Dad a partner, MB about to make partner). Her schedule is a little more flexible but I work 50-60/hr weeks. Most days I put the baby to bed. I love my job and my employers are involved when they can be but I've learned never to marry a lawyer who plans on being a partner. They make a great loving but the dad works up to 90 hours weeks sometimes. I think both parents should do as much as they can but the mom does tend to do whatever I don't.

That would break my heart. No amount of money in the world is worth being away from your child 50-60 hours a week. Even worse if both parents are doing it. You are their mother at this point. Why do people like that even have kids? And to clarify, I am not anti WOHM. I work. My DH has a very demanding job, but doesn't (and wouldn't) work a 60 hour work week. That's just not fair to the children.

I feel like a significant number of working parents in the dc area need 50 hours a week of child care, between work and commuting...

Of course they do. Its the norm, so your post is wildly unhelpful and condescending, PP. How much child care do you need if you work? I am part time and need 40 hours (I have to get ready and commute, so four days, at ten hours a day.). If I was full time I would need 50.

And this is so, so obnoxious. Many parents that work have great, adjusted, happy, wonderful children. Many don't. Many SAH parents have great children who turn out wonderfully. Many don't. It does not dictate the outcome nor is it a prerequisite for having children. I work in part because I have a daughter and I hate the idea of sending her the message that after you have kids the only fair option is for mommy to dial way back or quit (because that is really what we are talking about here, right? I see little mention of dad's dialing it back.),

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I haven't read every page, but just wanted to say that I sympathize and it seems like you are being reasonable and realistic. I also spent 10 years at a biglaw firm doing litigation, and then moved to something else after our first was born. It was not an easy transition, and I sympathize with your husband's predicament.

For what it's worth: I ended up at a trade association making about half of what I used to make. I am home by 5:30 every day and work from home on Fridays. When I interviewed, I was very up front about the schedule I wanted, and definitely had to pass on a couple of positions (at law firms) when it seemed like things wouldn't be a good fit. I kind of had to move into a position where I'm not actually litigating a big load of cases on a day to day basis (sorry I can't really be more specific). But I do miss working on bigger, more high profile, stimulating things. It's a tradeoff. Agree wiht a PP, though- the worst case scenario is moving somewhere where he works substantially the same hours for less money. I know quite a few people who moved from biglaw to govt or a smaller firm and ended up in that situation.
Also, when I worked in biglaw, a few male partners with young kids would try to structure their work so they left at 6:00 or so 3-4 days a week, and then stayed til 1-2 in the morning the remaining 1-2 days. It's not ideal, but maybe if your DH could try something like that it would provide a bit of short term relief?

Good luck to you.

+1 You may have to move out of this area to get a good work/life balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a nanny. Both of my employers are lawyers ( Dad a partner, MB about to make partner). Her schedule is a little more flexible but I work 50-60/hr weeks. Most days I put the baby to bed. I love my job and my employers are involved when they can be but I've learned never to marry a lawyer who plans on being a partner. They make a great loving but the dad works up to 90 hours weeks sometimes. I think both parents should do as much as they can but the mom does tend to do whatever I don't.

That would break my heart. No amount of money in the world is worth being away from your child 50-60 hours a week. Even worse if both parents are doing it. You are their mother at this point. Why do people like that even have kids? And to clarify, I am not anti WOHM. I work. My DH has a very demanding job, but doesn't (and wouldn't) work a 60 hour work week. That's just not fair to the children.

I feel like a significant number of working parents in the dc area need 50 hours a week of child care, between work and commuting...

Of course they do. Its the norm, so your post is wildly unhelpful and condescending, PP. How much child care do you need if you work? I am part time and need 40 hours (I have to get ready and commute, so four days, at ten hours a day.). If I was full time I would need 50.

And this is so, so obnoxious. Many parents that work have great, adjusted, happy, wonderful children. Many don't. Many SAH parents have great children who turn out wonderfully. Many don't. It does not dictate the outcome nor is it a prerequisite for having children. I work in part because I have a daughter and I hate the idea of sending her the message that after you have kids the only fair option is for mommy to dial way back or quit (because that is really what we are talking about here, right? I see little mention of dad's dialing it back.),

I'm a WOHM and I agree PP's phrasing was totally obnoxious and meant to get a rise out of people. But I also think it can't be healthy for a family to have both parents working such inflexible, intensive jobs that they rarely see their kids. It would bum me out, and DH, and the kids to have them in childcare 60 hours a week. We have staggered our schedules (one of us is out of the house 7-5, the other 10-8) and, yes, I insisted on a day working from home so that that wouldn't happen. I would be so miserable if I only saw the kids on weekends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, unless you want your child to be brought up by a nanny. If that is the case, get a good one. And a great preschool also.

This is exactly right. As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations.

So there are two solutions for his problem of child care for his child.

1. He can compromise.
2. He can tell OP that she has to compromise.

There are a lot of unexamined assumptions here.

The thing is, he can't compromise. The compromise is to get a nanny. The law firm partner (assuming a top tier firm) is never going to be able to cancel a meeting to take a sick kid to the doctor or commit to show up at a play or sports game. Once in a while it will work out, and the partner can come to a sports event or chaperone a field trip, but the other spouse or nanny has got to be there as a back-up if the partner suddenly has a big meeting come up. Just the way it is.

This just isn't true. My dad is a (litigation) partner at one of the top firms in DC, and when my brothers were in high school, came to every single Langley lacrosse game for four years running -- and he wasn't the only similarly situated team dad who did. I work in biglaw now and I see it all the time -- there are people who want to make it work with family, and those who don't. It's not always perfect, but nearly all the time, it's a personality and priorities question, not a job issue.

There is a HUGE gap between actually pulling your weight at home, and just making it to 2 hockey games a week and a doctor's appointment every now and then. As a matter of physics, it's just impossible to be as involved a parent/spouse if you work in biglaw, because biglaw requires so much of your time, all the time. There are a FEW niches with lower hourly requirements (like my friend who is a partner specializing in public housing finance at a big firm) but mostly you're going to be working 60+hrs/week unpredictably. Yes, if you are committed you can probably make it to some sports games and doctor's appointments ... once you make partner. But forget about it when you are an associate and do not control your schedule. And I can't even imagine how it works with younger kids who have a lot more needs, more sickness, more time intensive requirements. There's just no way a law partner or associate gunning for partner can be a hands-on parent and partner.

For the record, this is simply not true. Law firms are still far behind many other industries in allowing for a work/life balance, but it's incorrect to say that it's impossible to be an involved parent and a partner in biglaw. I should know because I am one and I'm also the default parent. DH has an equally busy and stressful job. He definitely pulls his weight, but I choose to be the deafult. It's obviously not easy, but there are ways to make it work if you want to. Those of you making assumptions otherwise either have spouses who aren't great at managing their time or have no personal experience to speak of.

[Anonymous]

Good luck with the inevitable divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, unless you want your child to be brought up by a nanny. If that is the case, get a good one. And a great preschool also.

This is exactly right. As a law firm partner, his clients come first so by definition he cannot commit to any family obligations.

So there are two solutions for his problem of child care for his child.

1. He can compromise.
2. He can tell OP that she has to compromise.

There are a lot of unexamined assumptions here.

The thing is, he can't compromise. The compromise is to get a nanny. The law firm partner (assuming a top tier firm) is never going to be able to cancel a meeting to take a sick kid to the doctor or commit to show up at a play or sports game. Once in a while it will work out, and the partner can come to a sports event or chaperone a field trip, but the other spouse or nanny has got to be there as a back-up if the partner suddenly has a big meeting come up. Just the way it is.

This just isn't true. My dad is a (litigation) partner at one of the top firms in DC, and when my brothers were in high school, came to every single Langley lacrosse game for four years running -- and he wasn't the only similarly situated team dad who did. I work in biglaw now and I see it all the time -- there are people who want to make it work with family, and those who don't. It's not always perfect, but nearly all the time, it's a personality and priorities question, not a job issue.

There is a HUGE gap between actually pulling your weight at home, and just making it to 2 hockey games a week and a doctor's appointment every now and then. As a matter of physics, it's just impossible to be as involved a parent/spouse if you work in biglaw, because biglaw requires so much of your time, all the time. There are a FEW niches with lower hourly requirements (like my friend who is a partner specializing in public housing finance at a big firm) but mostly you're going to be working 60+hrs/week unpredictably. Yes, if you are committed you can probably make it to some sports games and doctor's appointments ... once you make partner. But forget about it when you are an associate and do not control your schedule. And I can't even imagine how it works with younger kids who have a lot more needs, more sickness, more time intensive requirements. There's just no way a law partner or associate gunning for partner can be a hands-on parent and partner.

For the record, this is simply not true. Law firms are still far behind many other industries in allowing for a work/life balance, but it's incorrect to say that it's impossible to be an involved parent and a partner in biglaw. I should know because I am one and I'm also the default parent. DH has an equally busy and stressful job. He definitely pulls his weight, but I choose to be the deafult. It's obviously not easy, but there are ways to make it work if you want to. Those of you making assumptions otherwise either have spouses who aren't great at managing their time or have no personal experience to speak of.

No way you are a litigator.

[Anonymous]

If you don't personally know how toxic a biglaw environment is (and it really makes no sense to an outsider), you won't understand OP's and OP's husband's predicament.

[Anonymous]

To the op - yes you are the default. and unfortunately your dh might already be too senior to find something suitable. My dh applies for about 2-3 in house jobs per year - and does't even get interviewee. Meanwhile they love him at his firm and he keeps moving up. I've had to go to 50 percent and I In charge of everything house and kid related. It took me awhile but finally I realized that since dh couldn't get a job he wanted elsewhere, I needed to figure out how to make it work. I hired an au pair to essentially be another set of hands for the transition times (getting kids off to school, dinner, bedtime) and that had made a significant difference.

[Anonymous]

So at least 2 pps chimed in that they were biglaw partners and the default parent (and thus disagreeing with the other 99% of posters saying that it's not really possible) and both those pps were the DW. Of course.

[Anonymous]

You could always dtmf and remarry. Or hire a nanny.

Otherwise, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So at least 2 pps chimed in that they were biglaw partners and the default parent (and thus disagreeing with the other 99% of posters saying that it's not really possible) and both those pps were the DW. Of course.

Thus proving the point.