Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP. They can talk all they want, honestly. And to be utterly honest, as someone who is tasked with hiring and managing outside counsel, I can pretty much tell who was full of crap and isn't worth continuing a professional relationship with.

I think younger attorneys don't realize this, but honestly, for the bulk, biglaw doesn't care about "reputation" or whatever. And those people complaining? In a few years, they will scatter from firm to firm lateraling for a bit more based on their speculative book of business.

So, yes. They can talk away. But no one is listening.

Keep telling yourself that. I've seen a lot of people burn bridges in the way they left their law firm (and government jobs) and it always comes back to bite-- the legal community is just too small. But I agree -- you clearly don't care about your reputation.

I'm the PP. They can talk all they want, honestly. And to be utterly honest, as someone who is tasked with hiring and managing outside counsel, I can pretty much tell who was full of crap and isn't worth continuing a professional relationship with.

I think younger attorneys don't realize this, but honestly, for the bulk, biglaw doesn't care about "reputation" or whatever. And those people complaining? In a few years, they will scatter from firm to firm lateraling for a bit more based on their speculative book of business.

So, yes. They can talk away. But no one is listening.

Anonymous wrote:Do not give notice now. They will terminate you. Use the time off, use the sham two weeks, give the two weeks and just take the time off.

By the by, I did this as a man. Took paternity leave and went in house, but not before two weeks of sitting around before giving two weeks notice. No one said a thing, but I am sure they would have sent me packing if I had. Take the money and run.

Trust me, they said plenty. Just not to your face.

Do not give notice now. They will terminate you. Use the time off, use the sham two weeks, give the two weeks and just take the time off.

By the by, I did this as a man. Took paternity leave and went in house, but not before two weeks of sitting around before giving two weeks notice. No one said a thing, but I am sure they would have sent me packing if I had. Take the money and run.

Oh honey. This was me. I took the 16 weeks happily and am working in house now. They were perfectly nice to me, but I honestly hated, hated, hated the people I worked with and was looking to leave ASAP.

Like the others said, there is absolutely no loyalty in the system. People will be nice because you are a potential client or lead. So, enjoy that sweet baby, enjoy your time off, and congrats!

OP, I think you know in your heart that the right thing to do is to give notice now, or you would not have bothered to post the question. If they want to take the maternity leave back, they will do so regardless of when you give notice, and keeping the fact that you've already accepted another job secret for another month will come out, and will make you look bad. If your firm is angry, it is also possible they say something to your new employer. I am sure you realize that going back for a day or two weeks is utterly useless to your firm as you will do nothing productive for them in that short period of time. Just do the right thing and tell them now. That is the path that will benefit you most in the long run.

OP, ignore all these people talking about contract or not. You need to be professional and ethical and also do what's best for you. If I were in your firm's position, I would not want you back for a random week or two, just so that you could give notice and attempt to make your maternity leave seem legit. They're going to see right through that.

Call them, be up front - tell them you applied for the job a wile ago and got an offer on leave and you are going to take it. Be prepared for them to be pissed and/or come after you for the maternity leave. I doubt they will try to get you to repay the maternity leave but they might. But you're going to look much better and more professional in the long run if you're candid about it and tell them sooner rather than later.

As a matter of professionalism, do not go give them some sham 2 weeks and then give 2 weeks notice. That makes you look way worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what is the contract here? You would think the answer to OP's question would be obvious to her if there was a contract.

First PP who said there is a contract. As I said before, contracts don't always spell out everything. Maybe her contract doesn't cover this issue. Maybe it does. If it does, it is likely to be spelled out in her benefits package. But, even if the contract is silent on this issue, it doesn't mean there isn't a contract. It just means the contract does not specify the rights of the parties as it pertains to this issue.

Companies/firms can unilaterally change their policies (at least in my state). That isn't how a contract works.

They cannot do it retroactively. In other words, if you have accrued a benefit based on your performance of an agreed upon service, that benefit cannot be taken away retroactively. It can be withdrawn going forward and then you have the right to either agree or quit your job. If you agree and continue to work at your job, you have a new contract.

Again this is not true. If you take a benefit under false pretenses the company can look for reimbursement -- not easy, not usually worth their time, but it is possible. Bonuses get clawed back all the time.

In OP's case, the problem is that she has accepted another job, knows she will not return and intends to continue to accept the 5 weeks of paid leave. It is the accepting the other job that puts her at some risk. If a woman just decided not to return to work at the end of maternity leave, it is unlikely that her employer could prove that she made that decision weeks before the leave ended and was, therefore, unjustly enriched. When you engage in employment negotiations, however, there is a clear trail.

I don't think OP's employer will go after her for the money. It is just not worth the time or effort. Most employers I worked with had insurance that covered a woman's salary when she is out on maternity leave, so they may not be out any money.

The issue I see is one of professionalism. You need to provide some notice that you are leaving the firm. It sounds like she has timed things so that the only way she can do that is to provide notice while she is still on leave.

Anonymous wrote:Is your in house position with a client or a potential client? If yes, maybe they won't take as hard of a line as if you were going to a competitor?

This is a very important factor. If you're going to a client, they will bend over backwards to keep you happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what is the contract here? You would think the answer to OP's question would be obvious to her if there was a contract.

First PP who said there is a contract. As I said before, contracts don't always spell out everything. Maybe her contract doesn't cover this issue. Maybe it does. If it does, it is likely to be spelled out in her benefits package. But, even if the contract is silent on this issue, it doesn't mean there isn't a contract. It just means the contract does not specify the rights of the parties as it pertains to this issue.

Companies/firms can unilaterally change their policies (at least in my state). That isn't how a contract works.

They cannot do it retroactively. In other words, if you have accrued a benefit based on your performance of an agreed upon service, that benefit cannot be taken away retroactively. It can be withdrawn going forward and then you have the right to either agree or quit your job. If you agree and continue to work at your job, you have a new contract.

Again, how does this apply to OP? She says the handbook is silent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what is the contract here? You would think the answer to OP's question would be obvious to her if there was a contract.

First PP who said there is a contract. As I said before, contracts don't always spell out everything. Maybe her contract doesn't cover this issue. Maybe it does. If it does, it is likely to be spelled out in her benefits package. But, even if the contract is silent on this issue, it doesn't mean there isn't a contract. It just means the contract does not specify the rights of the parties as it pertains to this issue.

Companies/firms can unilaterally change their policies (at least in my state). That isn't how a contract works.

They cannot do it retroactively. In other words, if you have accrued a benefit based on your performance of an agreed upon service, that benefit cannot be taken away retroactively. It can be withdrawn going forward and then you have the right to either agree or quit your job. If you agree and continue to work at your job, you have a new contract.

Anonymous wrote:

So what is the contract here? You would think the answer to OP's question would be obvious to her if there was a contract.

First PP who said there is a contract. As I said before, contracts don't always spell out everything. Maybe her contract doesn't cover this issue. Maybe it does. If it does, it is likely to be spelled out in her benefits package. But, even if the contract is silent on this issue, it doesn't mean there isn't a contract. It just means the contract does not specify the rights of the parties as it pertains to this issue.

I don't understand the point. You are saying everyone has a contract and that is what should control. Yet admit that the contract might not cover this point. So there is no contract for purposes of mat leave. So what is your point? How is this helpful to OP's question?

Anonymous wrote:

So what is the contract here? You would think the answer to OP's question would be obvious to her if there was a contract.

First PP who said there is a contract. As I said before, contracts don't always spell out everything. Maybe her contract doesn't cover this issue. Maybe it does. If it does, it is likely to be spelled out in her benefits package. But, even if the contract is silent on this issue, it doesn't mean there isn't a contract. It just means the contract does not specify the rights of the parties as it pertains to this issue.

Companies/firms can unilaterally change their policies (at least in my state). That isn't how a contract works.

Anonymous wrote:

So what is the contract here? You would think the answer to OP's question would be obvious to her if there was a contract.

First PP who said there is a contract. As I said before, contracts don't always spell out everything. Maybe her contract doesn't cover this issue. Maybe it does. If it does, it is likely to be spelled out in her benefits package. But, even if the contract is silent on this issue, it doesn't mean there isn't a contract. It just means the contract does not specify the rights of the parties as it pertains to this issue.

You are aware that employee handbooks don't create contractual rights in almost every case, right?

So what is the contract here? You would think the answer to OP's question would be obvious to her if there was a contract.

First PP who said there is a contract. As I said before, contracts don't always spell out everything. Maybe her contract doesn't cover this issue. Maybe it does. If it does, it is likely to be spelled out in her benefits package. But, even if the contract is silent on this issue, it doesn't mean there isn't a contract. It just means the contract does not specify the rights of the parties as it pertains to this issue.