|
I am being recruited to join a small litigation firm. They are open to less than a full load, but how would this actually work in pracrice? Since this is litigation, I know there is no way to have a predictable 9-5, but I don't want to work more than 40 hrs/week on average.
My idea is to propose 3/4 time. I get 3/4 of the normal workload with regular hours of 10-5 (35 hrs), but up to a total of 40 hrs takking into account a late night or weekend work every week. Anything over 40 would be compensated with time off. Alternatively I guess I could set a billing target, but what happens when that (inevitably) gets exceeded? And what should the billing target be if I want to work 40 hrs average per week? |
| I'm not a lawyer, so take with a grain of salt, but when I worked PT (7 hr day, 4 days week) I had to build in an unpaid lunch break per the law, so I had to add an extra half hour, even though I never took it. So your 10-5 schedule would only get you 6.5 hrs/day. I don't know about the rest, but it sounds like what you are proposing would be complicated to implement. Could you work 4 days, add a 5th when things are crazy, and just figure that's the price of "pt" litigation? |
|
I think you should take on a reduced caseload and a lower billable target, with the possibility of getting paid for FT work if you exceed the target.
You should be flexible on the hours you work each week if you want to be successful. I would try to avoid cases with tons of discovery. Maybe you could be the one drafting the motions to dismiss. |
| Idk, I know an attorney who's at 50 percent and he still works a ton of hours. Litigation is unpredictable. I would definitely set some type of cap on weekly hours worked and make sure they're really okay with that. |
This coupled with what the pp said. Have a lower hours requirement with big bonuses for going over your requirement (akin to a full time salary.) The few people I know who are part-time litigators are really not part-time. |