Do law firms really want women to come back after maternity leave?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Priorities change after you have a baby. My perception is that most partners are not interested in accomodating new mothers and their changing priorities. Sure, they want the moms back who return at 110% as if they never had a baby, but really, how many women is this? Don't most of us cut back somewhat after having a baby? During a recent conversation with a friend who is currently on leave at her firm she mentioned that she had been told that partners hate when people quit within a few months of returning from leave. This surprised me. I assumed they would prefer that most women find another job after returning because it saves the firm the hassle of pushing out the women whose priorities have changed and who can no longer give the 110% to the firm. It also saves them the hassle of dealing with part-time associates. Any thoughts on this? |
Anonymous
| They really want what makes them the most money. They probably hate losing all those years of training and experience and clients defecting to other firms. |
Anonymous
|
Yes. The firm seems to be telegraphing that she should just quit if she's thinking about returning and then quitting. Though I'm not sure how that would impact paid maternity leave.
No one covers for male partners who have heart attacks or other health issues! |
Anonymous
|
Completely depends how valuable you are. I know several women at my firm (300+ lawyers, but also not the tippy top of Vault) who have been eagerly welcomed back after maternity leave (including 2nd and some 3rd babies). Some came back 100%, some part-time. If you have a valuable skill set and others at your firm enjoy working with you, of course they don't want to lose you and have to retrain someone else.
And of course partners hate it when women quit right after maternity leave. The point of generous maternity leave benefits is retention, not to give you a giant bonus on your way out the door. |
Anonymous
| What they hate is the associate taking maternity leave paid and then leaving. If you leave at the end of pregnancy that's fine. |
Anonymous
Huh? My firm pays 100% salary if you're disabled, which presumably someone would be for a month or more after a heart attack. I don't understand your point. |
Anonymous
|
Right, pregnancy and motherhood are not at all like a heart attack or a health issue.
It's a lifestyle change. A choice. |
Anonymous
| OP - are you an attorney who is dealing with this personally? I have have had two babies while in big law (took approx 4 1/2 paid months off both times) and have been welcomed back and treated fabulously both times. I work full time but would not consider myself 110%. I am usually at the office from 9:30am - 6pm (Mon - Fri), but the partners with whom I work understand my situation and therefore I frequently work from home (gotta love VPN) in order to accommodate doctors appointments, etc. Their flexibility with my schedule comes from their comfort level in working with me for so many years - they know my work product and know I will get the job done. Granted, I am in a niche practice area, but I think they would much rather have me continue than try to find someone else. |
Anonymous
Just want to throw out there that many health issues are caused by lifestyle and choices. Partners who work through lunch then eat unhealthy snacks and who never exercise are choosing their health outcomes as much as women choose to have babies. |
Anonymous
In the long run, sure, but in the meantime they are getting tons of work done. Which is really all the firm cares about. |
Anonymous
WTH? I know partners who've had heart attacks and you can bet your ass they come back choosing to make lifestyle changes. People generally don't want to die, and a death scare can be as life changing as a baby, believe it or not. Even more, because some of those people had kids before the heart attack. |
Anonymous
|
Depends on how valuable an atty you are. If you produce reliably good work (especially in a niche area), communicate well, are likeable, and have long-term potential, smart partners understand that it's very much worth it to retain women after maternity leave. Given that most partners retire in their early 70s, that means that several months of maternity leave and a few years of reduced work load are a very good economic deal in the long run. It's just not worth it, if a firm is looking at the long-term, to lose good people.
Unfortunately, it seems that law firms, like so many businesses these days, are so caught up in short-term financial gain (looking 1-5 years out, rather than 20-25) that they end up imploding. |
Anonymous
|
Big Law partner here: I agree with the posters who say it depends. It is very, very hard to find really good lawyers, and for women who fall into this category, firms are desperate to have them back. For people who are just kind of ok, firms don't really care if they come back or not, and for people who are mediocre, sometimes firms are rooting for them not to come back, as it does save the trouble of having to fire someone.
It is annoying when someone treats their maternity leave as a (substantial) departure bonus, but that is just a cost of doing business these days, and you are probably better off rid of people who are that mercenary anyway. |
Anonymous
no one covers for women who have heart attacks or other health issues. |
Anonymous
|
At a law firm, someone covers for anyone who is out of the office for a meaningful period of time, regardless of issue. Otherwise, you lose clients. And a law firm without clients is not a law firm for long. This is a dumb thing to say.
|