As an owner of the firm, law firm partner on maternity leave doesn't get disability benefits!

I went on maternity leave as an associate at a large firm. I had my own book of business, and my boss cut me off of my clients completely while I was on leave, although I insisted that I remain cc'd on all communication. 2 weeks after I returned, the firm laid me off suddenly without prior notice and I lost some key clients as a result. The law firm's response was... these were the firm's clients and since I was on leave and was not supposed to work, the firm did the right thing by not copying me on emails.

The lesson learned is that for the 2nd time around, I'm going to take as little time off as possible and then take the rest of the maternity leave on an on-going basis. I'm pregnant with my 2nd child, and I plan to take 6 weeks and then go back to work 3 days a week for the next 2 months and then 4 days a week until the remainder of my maternity leave.

Many of the comments assume that a law firm partner does not have the protections of the FMLA and other federal and state EEO laws. That may not necessarily be the case. The EEOC has litigated this issue with Sidley and Austin and other firms on age discrimination issues. I would encourage you to look at those discussions, whether on the EEOC website, the cases, or via a Google search.

Many law firms are professional corporations. In that case, the shareholders are employees. The courts have dealt with this issue. The SCT had a case on shareholders-owners of a medical group. It is instructive in this regard.

Fyi, I have been both an equity partner and a equity shareholder in law firms and practice employment law.

Findlaw also has an article on this issue for legal professionals.

I would just say why not save for the possible rainy day? If you are a partner at a big law firm, even if you're not an equity partner, I'm sure you are in the 1% of incomes in the nation so even if you are the primary breadwinner in your family, I would think you will not hurt too much if you did not get your full compensation for this year. If the question is FMLA, meaning job protection, I think you are ok there as no law firm partners in their right mind would terminate a pregnant person! Lastly, unfortunately, as a partner in big law, it seems the cord to work is never cut, I suspect that after the acute recovery period you will be working a lot from home or even come in a bit to work on your cases.

I did not read the crap. Law firm partner here. First child born 16 months after I made draw partner at my prior firm. There was a formal policy for all lawyers that I fell under. 3 months paid/option for 3 months unpaid. That firm's policy has since been reducted to 12wks/12wks.

Now a contract partner at my new firm. Baby #2 born 11 months after I joined new firm. (can you say "surprise"?) The firm owed me nothing because I had not been here for a year. They graciously gave me 12wks paid. If they had not gone first to offer that, I would have tried to negotiate something. I was prepared to take time off without pay, but they weren't even obligated to allow me to do that.

If the firm has no policy in place, then ask if you all under the firm's short term disability insurance. My old firm self insured for short term disability, so any short term disability was discretionary. I.e., you can negotiate. Of course, if you don't fall under short term disability, you can still negotiate. I'd start with a friendly person in management or HR.

As for what if you have clients asked by the associate several pages back, I worked while on maternity leave. Be sure to check your firm's policy if you can bill while on maternity leave. Some have their insurance set up such that you cannot work while on leave (go figure). I brought clients with me from my old firm. I did not hide the fact I was expecting and I assured them that they would not experience any reduced service. I set up a home office and rocked the baby in the bouncer under the desk if I had to work. My mistake was not having help in place during my maternity leave. I ended up having a client sign the week before the baby came and I billed instead of slept for a few weeks. If you firm has back up daycare like bright horizons, sign up for it as soon as the baby comes. I used it twice while on maternity leave - once to come in for a client meeting and once to head for the library to get some quiet to write a brief. Bright Horizons will take let you bring someone into your home even for a newborn (as long as you are comfortable with that).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SHAME ON YOU INTOLERANT NAME CALLERS! It is emphatically NOT OP's fault for investigating maternity leave before accepting partnership--not one bit of this is fault oriented. It is not her fault for being one of the first women to succeed in her industry and have a family, if the facts are as she says. This can't be how you talk to your friends, children or strangers, could it? If so, you're disgusting.

I don't get this post at all...wouldn't it have made more sense for OP to have understood the policies in place at her job before deciding to get pregnant and then freaking out that she might not get paid? Or is it better for women to remain purposfully ignorant until they find themselves between a rock and a hard place and then deal with it by lashing out at strangers on the Internet?

Well said. I love you!

There was no policy in place at her job re: maternity leave for partners ... that's exactly what she is saying, and why she is asking for feedback from other female partners who have faced this issue (me being one of them, I am one of the PPs who has been in the same circumstance). She didn't "freak out", she asked the following:

"Could you tell me if you've taken a maternity leave while a law firm partner? Now that I'm no longer an employee, I'm told I'm not eligible for FMLA or other benefits, and that the firm could decide to cut my draw (pay). What was your experience? Any guidance on how to raise this with the firm?"

I hardly call that a freak out. Sure, she indicates she is the primary breadwinner and thus trying to suss this out best she can, but that doesn't mean she/they can't cope w/ a period of unpaid leave if it comes to that. When one is offered partnership, you don't have the opportunity to renegotiate the firm's partnership agreement, conveniently drafting in a new provision regarding maternity leave benefits for partners -- and if you tried, you can bet you will be starting off on the wrong foot with many in the male dominated partnership. That's just NOT how it works in real (law firm) life. Perhaps it does in other corporate environments, but frankly, I doubt it. Can she work to implement a policy that is more favorable to women, and the inclusion of an express policy, to start, now that she is in a greater position of power? Absolutely. By gathering examples of how other firms (and female partners who've BTDT) address this issue, and planning to use that in her conversations/negotiations with HR and the partners, she is doing just that. She was seeking feedback/experience from others in like circumstances, and working within the constraints of the field in which she functions.

All that said, I agree that her post trying to keep the conversation on point came across poorly (and not in the spirit of how DCUM threads typically meander), and can understand how people took offense at that, but I don't think that doesn't mean she (and the valid questions and policy issues she raises) should be totally castigated or rejected and the baby thrown out with the bath water (probably a poor analogy for this conversation, but you get the drift). (Sorry OP, I feel you).

I am not the primary breadwinner in our family, but there is no way I would take a position, even if it was a promotion, without learning the facts. DH wouldn't, either.Every attorney knows there are different rules for partners than there are for associates when it comes to basics like pay, bonus, health care, etc. Hell, even non-attorneys know that. Before OP accepted that promotion to partner, she should have looked long and hard at what that meant. There's being book smart and there's being life smart. Clearly OP excels at the former if she's managed to make partner, but needs to learn common sense.

I can see how people would have been ruffled by the tone of that one post by OP, sure, but that aside, I don't agree that OP "should have investigated" how maternity leave would be handled before "accepting the partnership." Particularly in a male-dominated partnership. What was she supposed to say when she offered partnership after working, presumably, very, very hard to earn that offer? Hmm, let me think about it, and before I accept, what is your maternity leave policy for female partners? Come on, that would never happen in real life! If you get a promotion, you take it, assuming you want to stay on track in that field and place of business (and if you don't want to stay on track/there, you leave or reduce schedule or whatever, none of which OP did). Presumably the promotion came with greater remuneration, and as such she has more cushion to cover a potential 3 months of unpaid leave, if it were to come to that.

Yes, that is exactly what she should have done, especially if she is the sole breadwinner and planning on a family.

That is the first of OP's mistakes. The second is coming to an anonymous board, apparently seeking guidance and "kind words" from people about a very specific and unusual situation (no pregnant partners in her Big Law firm, ever?) and expecting that only her issue would be addressed in all responses. Her third is then trying to shame posters as being unsupportive women tearing each other down when she was the one who tried to limit discussion to her, specifically, to just her issue (because that is really a supportive attitude towards your fellow women).

OP, go see your HR department. I'm sure they will have an answer for you. If they don't, decide what you and your family need and ask for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason that OP keeps capitalizing biglaw??

I doubt her firm is really biglaw. If it is, it's doutlessly large enough to have had some pregnant partners recently--at least in other offices, other groups.

I was at a biglaw firm for 5 years (one of the biggest 10 by size, revenue and "rankings"). There were 39 partners in our office, 9 of whom were women. In those 5 years, only 1 had a kid and took maternity leave. And I was at one of the big firms that was considered one of the better firms (relative to more traditional white shoe NY firms) in terms of opportunities for women, minorities, etc. I imagine other offices had similar stats, though I don't know that for sure. I don't think OP's facts are so hard to believe. Many of the women who make partner at large firms either (i) already had a kid when they became partner (big name laterals from Fed, etc.), or (ii) chose not to have kids.

Anonymous wrote:She wasnt a bitch - she just asked that her thread stay on topic instead of being sidetracked by a poster who has already asked her own question in another thread. It would be good in general if dcum had a community norm that if you cant answer the question, dont post.

And I hate that concept. I like that topics frequently veer off on tangents and that more information seems to get disseminated this way. I frequently use the search feature and often the answer to my question happens to have been a tangent in another topic and it's likely that the poster would never have posted the information that I needed if topics only stayed on-topic.

It's the Internet and an anonymous forum. Discussion happens and that discussion can be both on-topic and off-topic. If you only care for on-topic answers, just skip the other ones. How hard is it to use the little scroll wheel on your mouse or wave your finger at your smart phone to scroll past a posting that talks about federal FMLA practices that you aren't interested in?

Anonymous wrote:She wasnt a bitch - she just asked that her thread stay on topic instead of being sidetracked by a poster who has already asked her own question in another thread. It would be good in general if dcum had a community norm that if you cant answer the question, dont post.

Have you never read DCUM? Every thread has people who offer up experiences, whether they be 100% relevant or not. That's the way it works. If you're not willing to entertain some posts that aren't completely in line with the question you asked (which didn't provide sufficient information to begin with, I'll add), then stay off an anonymous forum and take your questions where you should take them, namely the HR department.

Anonymous wrote:Well, 12:53, actually, what OP did was to ask for others' experiences as law firm partners, and then a bunch of randoms, who were not law firm partners, started to hijack. I think she asked politely for more experiences from law firm partners. Your example is totally off base, which shows you're definitely a lawyer (and if you are, not a very good one). In any event, why is it irrelevant to ask about other places of employment? You ask mothers of kids who are totally different than your own for advice about how to deal with your kid. What's the difference?

And I was responding to a specific question asked about whether we would talk to our friends that way. I said, yes, in fact I would under these exact circumstances. If someone asked me a question (OP's original question) and I responded in the only way I knew, which was my experience, even if not exactly the same (all the posts she complained about), and I was chastised for it, I would say something to effect of "screw you, I was just trying to answer your answer your question because I don't work for your firm and I'm not you, so any answer wouldn't be entirely applicable, now would it?" Add to that the fact that this is an open forum, or should I speak in OP's language OPEN FORUM, she had no basis to be a bitch. I wasn't commenting on whether she was correct or polite in her initial question. So to recap, I was commenting on the previous post. Stay with me. It's not that hard.