Anyone making a part-time Big Law career work with family life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the practice and the people. I work in a group that is super flexible - zero face time required and pretty steady work. I'm full time technically but never make my hours - given the niche I practice, the firm seems to be okay with this though of course this may change at any time. I would definitely not agree to part time if I expect to be doing more than part time work.

OP here. How many years straight have you been below your hours? I always assumed if you consistently didn't make hours, you'd be fired. Do you still get a bonus if you're under your hours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the firm and whether you'd be coming in as counsel or an associate. Counsel, you could make it work. Associate, I think you may be billing way more than 1400 (a senior associate I know well is in a regulatory group and will hit 2800 this year but her 'target' is under 2000 - there is just SO much work and not enough people to do it). I'd think the firm is unbelievably slammed if they're willing to offer this to you, and may just be looking to get bodies in the door. I would very much doubt that you can consistently plan your schedule around 9-5 as an associate; this friend has a young child and is able to typically take half an hour between 6-7:30 to say goodnight to her kiddo but then works about 3-4 hours afterwards.

I'd also be sure to get WFH requirements in writing as part of your offer as I get the sense that firms are saying whatever it takes to get people to sign on.

Good luck though! I'm hoping I'm being overly cynical. Otherwise, maybe look at going in-house? I moved from biglaw to in-house and the flexibility is significantly better.

Biglaw partner here. I totally disagree with this. OP makes perfectly clear that she's not going back to Biglaw to get on the partnership track, but to make some money now and eventually move into the government. If that's truly the case, then she can afford to stick to her guns and put in the hours that she and the firm agreed to and that's that. It may cost her come bonus time, but that's it.

Will she be working 9 to 5 religiously? No. But a regulatory lawyer working 75 percent for $165k shouldn't be expected and shouldn't allow herself to be working more than an average of 8 hours a day.

PP here. I will say while that has never been my experience as a former associate who could not have cared less about making partner (that partners respected the word 'no' when they needed to staff things) it is refreshing to hear a partner suggest they'd honor that. $165K seems SUPER low though for 75% for anyone with experience, so that's where a lot of my cynicism comes from; is that salary really worth the potential of working random hours with biglaw folks? I make significantly more in-house and I'm not even manager-level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also have 3 kids. We have a house cleaner come every other week.
I do the laundry, my husband does the dishes
We take turns cooking
We have a lawn service
I do mornings alone here too.

Our house is cluttered as a general matter but it probably wouldn't unless I somehow was really able to change who I am as a person.
The housekeeper in addition to a house cleaner idea sounds cool but I probably couldn't make that work.

If you're willing to log on after the kids go to bed - I would think 10-6 should work. Some of my kids' activities start as early as 4:45 - I am not sure if that would be an issue for you or not.

Thank you! Our kids also have early activities, but DH usually can be home by 4:30. We occasionally could ask my parents to come into town for a week (like a few times a year) if DH is traveling and I am too busy to come home early for that week's activities. It will be an adjustment for sure. Our oldest will be 16 in three years though! (large age gap between kids as we have a preschooler too)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the firm and whether you'd be coming in as counsel or an associate. Counsel, you could make it work. Associate, I think you may be billing way more than 1400 (a senior associate I know well is in a regulatory group and will hit 2800 this year but her 'target' is under 2000 - there is just SO much work and not enough people to do it). I'd think the firm is unbelievably slammed if they're willing to offer this to you, and may just be looking to get bodies in the door. I would very much doubt that you can consistently plan your schedule around 9-5 as an associate; this friend has a young child and is able to typically take half an hour between 6-7:30 to say goodnight to her kiddo but then works about 3-4 hours afterwards.

I'd also be sure to get WFH requirements in writing as part of your offer as I get the sense that firms are saying whatever it takes to get people to sign on.

Good luck though! I'm hoping I'm being overly cynical. Otherwise, maybe look at going in-house? I moved from biglaw to in-house and the flexibility is significantly better.

Biglaw partner here. I totally disagree with this. OP makes perfectly clear that she's not going back to Biglaw to get on the partnership track, but to make some money now and eventually move into the government. If that's truly the case, then she can afford to stick to her guns and put in the hours that she and the firm agreed to and that's that. It may cost her come bonus time, but that's it.

Will she be working 9 to 5 religiously? No. But a regulatory lawyer working 75 percent for $165k shouldn't be expected and shouldn't allow herself to be working more than an average of 8 hours a day.

PP here. I will say while that has never been my experience as a former associate who could not have cared less about making partner (that partners respected the word 'no' when they needed to staff things) it is refreshing to hear a partner suggest they'd honor that. $165K seems SUPER low though for 75% for anyone with experience, so that's where a lot of my cynicism comes from; is that salary really worth the potential of working random hours with biglaw folks? I make significantly more in-house and I'm not even manager-level.

OP here. I have a large gap in my resume (8 years). I hope after the first year to negotiate pay closer to match my past experience (6th year associate).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the firm and whether you'd be coming in as counsel or an associate. Counsel, you could make it work. Associate, I think you may be billing way more than 1400 (a senior associate I know well is in a regulatory group and will hit 2800 this year but her 'target' is under 2000 - there is just SO much work and not enough people to do it). I'd think the firm is unbelievably slammed if they're willing to offer this to you, and may just be looking to get bodies in the door. I would very much doubt that you can consistently plan your schedule around 9-5 as an associate; this friend has a young child and is able to typically take half an hour between 6-7:30 to say goodnight to her kiddo but then works about 3-4 hours afterwards.

I'd also be sure to get WFH requirements in writing as part of your offer as I get the sense that firms are saying whatever it takes to get people to sign on.

Good luck though! I'm hoping I'm being overly cynical. Otherwise, maybe look at going in-house? I moved from biglaw to in-house and the flexibility is significantly better.

Biglaw partner here. I totally disagree with this. OP makes perfectly clear that she's not going back to Biglaw to get on the partnership track, but to make some money now and eventually move into the government. If that's truly the case, then she can afford to stick to her guns and put in the hours that she and the firm agreed to and that's that. It may cost her come bonus time, but that's it.

Will she be working 9 to 5 religiously? No. But a regulatory lawyer working 75 percent for $165k shouldn't be expected and shouldn't allow herself to be working more than an average of 8 hours a day.

PP here. I will say while that has never been my experience as a former associate who could not have cared less about making partner (that partners respected the word 'no' when they needed to staff things) it is refreshing to hear a partner suggest they'd honor that. $165K seems SUPER low though for 75% for anyone with experience, so that's where a lot of my cynicism comes from; is that salary really worth the potential of working random hours with biglaw folks? I make significantly more in-house and I'm not even manager-level.

OP here. I have a large gap in my resume (8 years). I hope after the first year to negotiate pay closer to match my past experience (6th year associate).

That's a good plan! Sorry if I'm coming across as a debbie downer; I just know that the market for fully-remote in-house jobs is HOT right now so wanted to let you know there are some pretty awesome gigs out there that aren't tied to billables if this doesn't work out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the practice and the people. I work in a group that is super flexible - zero face time required and pretty steady work. I'm full time technically but never make my hours - given the niche I practice, the firm seems to be okay with this though of course this may change at any time. I would definitely not agree to part time if I expect to be doing more than part time work.

OP here. How many years straight have you been below your hours? I always assumed if you consistently didn't make hours, you'd be fired. Do you still get a bonus if you're under your hours?

6 years and yes to bonus - this is something you have to negotiate. Again I think it depends on the firm/practice group and how valuable your expertise and experience is. If you have contacts at the firm, it may be worth asking around.

[Anonymous]

This honestly doesn't sound doable to me unless your husband is going to significant step up his household management/running kids around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the firm and whether you'd be coming in as counsel or an associate. Counsel, you could make it work. Associate, I think you may be billing way more than 1400 (a senior associate I know well is in a regulatory group and will hit 2800 this year but her 'target' is under 2000 - there is just SO much work and not enough people to do it). I'd think the firm is unbelievably slammed if they're willing to offer this to you, and may just be looking to get bodies in the door. I would very much doubt that you can consistently plan your schedule around 9-5 as an associate; this friend has a young child and is able to typically take half an hour between 6-7:30 to say goodnight to her kiddo but then works about 3-4 hours afterwards.

I'd also be sure to get WFH requirements in writing as part of your offer as I get the sense that firms are saying whatever it takes to get people to sign on.

Good luck though! I'm hoping I'm being overly cynical. Otherwise, maybe look at going in-house? I moved from biglaw to in-house and the flexibility is significantly better.

Biglaw partner here. I totally disagree with this. OP makes perfectly clear that she's not going back to Biglaw to get on the partnership track, but to make some money now and eventually move into the government. If that's truly the case, then she can afford to stick to her guns and put in the hours that she and the firm agreed to and that's that. It may cost her come bonus time, but that's it.

Will she be working 9 to 5 religiously? No. But a regulatory lawyer working 75 percent for $165k shouldn't be expected and shouldn't allow herself to be working more than an average of 8 hours a day.

PP here. I will say while that has never been my experience as a former associate who could not have cared less about making partner (that partners respected the word 'no' when they needed to staff things) it is refreshing to hear a partner suggest they'd honor that. $165K seems SUPER low though for 75% for anyone with experience, so that's where a lot of my cynicism comes from; is that salary really worth the potential of working random hours with biglaw folks? I make significantly more in-house and I'm not even manager-level.

OP here. I have a large gap in my resume (8 years). I hope after the first year to negotiate pay closer to match my past experience (6th year associate).

That's a good plan! Sorry if I'm coming across as a debbie downer; I just know that the market for fully-remote in-house jobs is HOT right now so wanted to let you know there are some pretty awesome gigs out there that aren't tied to billables if this doesn't work out.

That's great to know. Unfortunately I'm not sure the timing is right for me. I can't imagine being hired in-house having not worked for 8 years. There must be so many current associates and partners who are interested in those jobs.

[Anonymous]

If you're a reg lawyer I would go to a trade association or federal government (which can pay very well, to attract private-sector people). Much much much better hours than big law

[Anonymous]

it can be pretty tough to get hired as an attorney after years as a SAHM. that alone makes me think you should seriously consider seizing the opportunity and trying it out. you can always look for smaller firm or government options later on.

[Anonymous]

I think it's hard to know before you start - so much depends on the matters you get staffed on, partner expectations, etc. But honestly, you can always find something else if it's not working, and it will be easier to move to government, in-house or whatever from the firm position than from SAHM. So I think you should do it.

[Anonymous]

I do something similar, but I don't make a fixed salary. They pay me by the hour. 400k this year, but anywhere from 100-350k in prior years. It's also remote and I can accept or reject projects. I wouldn't do the fixed salary arrangement -- even at a fraction. Too much stress to try to hit hours. I'd rather make less in lean years and more in other years.

[Anonymous]

Agree practice area is key. I had success at 60 and 75% in the past, in an IP and marketing counseling type role. Wouldn’t have worked if I had been in M and A or solely litigation. Now I’ve ramped up again and left biglaw.

[Anonymous]

I couldn’t make this work, I was at 75% for biglaw (this was the lowest you could go without losing benefits such as health insurance) and I was working full time hours nonstop. With remote working log ins and iPhones, you’re available 24/7 and basically will feel pressured to respond ASAP to most, if not all, requests. And the firm is going to make the requests. The boundaries will be blurred. So what do you do?

I was working more than full time hours for part time pay. It just wasn’t working. At all. This was 10 years ago and technology is so much better now, I imagine the pressure is even higher to be available. I was in project finance.

I left to SAH and figure out my next moves. Well 10 years go by, which is a big gap on my resume. And in 2021 I have been offered 3 jobs without looking, from people in my network that have needs and thought I would be good fits. I ended up accepting an offer to do contract work in house with a large wealth management/hedge fund group. I am trying this out for a year to see if it works for my schedule and family and 2 months in so far so good. I have 25 hours a week maximum, I set my own hours, it’s 100% remote. I heavily negotiated my hourly rate (it’s the perfect market for this, don’t be underpaid). I did a tremendous amount of research on the company and it has excellent reviews as a top place to work and I have found it to be very true. I regret in the past not doing more outreach on firm culture before accepting offers. It makes a big difference what the work environment is.

1) don’t be afraid to negotiate a higher salary (IMO $160,000 part time is too low, you’re working full time hours), 2) can you honestly set real boundaries, and 3) what is the firm culture like there (do you know anyone who does work there now and even more important someone who used to work there)

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

On the hours front, 1400 sounds very doable. I regularly worked 2300 with two little kids and it was super hard. Even dropping to 1800 felt really reasonable as long as you don't plan long vacations. If I started to fall behind, I'd plan a marathon session in the office and work until midnight or later as it was easier to miss one bedtime and cram hours and get tons of work done then to miss a week of bedtimes for the equivalent hours while being stressed all week.

The big challenge will be sticking to 1400. If the group gets busy they are going to push for you to work more, as your plate won't look full. It feels fundamentally unfair to the group to push another colleague from 2300 equivalent to 2600 equivalent when you are at 1400, even if it's reflected in your pay.

I'd push for a deal where they top up your pay if you work extra hours. Most firms don't do this for reduced hours and it's a raw deal. If you end up working 90% instead of 75%, then they should pay you for 90%. I suspect you'll have more leverage to do this if you offer to use your husband's benefits so the firm doesn't have to worry about paying them if you drop below your hours.