Reply to Big Law for moms: a survey

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Big Law for moms: a survey"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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

DP: OP doesn't use the word equity anywhere.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Wrong. I am a non equity partner. I get paid on a k-1. I am a partner regardless of what you believe. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics