As a BigLaw partner who has taken 2 maternity leaves, I think it's entirely unethical for OP to accept another job while continuing to be paid for the duration of her maternity leave. I have no problem with you quitting and think it's highly unlikely your firm would try to recoup any of your prior paid leave if you are up front about it, but keeping the new job secret from your current employer while continuing to collect maternity pay is completely wrong and I think the firm would have a basis to go after you if you intentionally conceal it from them.

It's incredible to me that there are so many people out there, including OP, who even have to debate this question. As others have said, it's people like you that make the rest of us look bad. You should come clean, OP.

This. Exactly.

Give them 2 weeks notice. Explain that you decided you need more time at home and a less demanding job. The firm should have had you file for family leave to satisfy FMLA that states a start and stop date and your benefits. For the firm, backtracking on that invites trouble. So they don't have much reason to be spiteful. If they are, the worst case scenario is not getting paid for 2 weeks.

Unless they had their heart set on you becoming partner, most firms are pretty happy to have a 5th year associate go. They've already figured out how to get their clients serviced while you were out on leave. So you won't be leaving a partner in the lurch with deadlines or work due. Your decision not to go back saves them from carrying someone without a book of business. If you do have a book of business, you should probably think about the potential value of that before going in-house.

I'm the male poster above who is in house. I regularly get calls asking for business from the "partners" I previously worked with who are all happy to express my virtues in writing. This bears repeating "BigLaw tends to view most lawyers as fungible commodities." Don't drink the kool aid.

Anonymous wrote:PP, exactly. I find it nuts considering I know plenty of people who are RIF'ed after maternity leave. (Putting aside people who are just sacked as a matter of course).

I find the whole question of ethics to be a side show. You are at-will. And you are not working for anyone else. If I had publicly announced my federal clerkship back in 09, you better believe I would have spent ten months unemployed. Watch out for yourself, give notice and move on. Your supporters will be supportive because you are a potential lead at the very least.

The whole tell them now stuff is nonsense.

Agreed. The whole notion that she has a duty of loyalty to disclose her plans immediately to Big Law is naive and quaint. Just the way Big Law would be unwaivering in its loyalty to her. Someone has definitely been drinking too much Kool-Aid. It seems that the OP has done everything that bar ethics require. She ensured that her client matters are fully taken care of during her absence.

She shouldn't worry too much about burning bridges. BigLaw tends to view most lawyers as fungible commodities. If she leaves a few bruised feelings in her wake, that probably won't last long. In all likelihood, her most obnoxious boss or colleague at BigLaw will start calling her up obsequiously seeking business once she is in house.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a difference between what the OP is doing in getting a new job at the end of her maternity leave, and a mother who decides mid-maternity leave to be a SAHM (a job in and of itself)? I've heard of so many moms that quit to be a SAHM after the maternity leave is done - and they didn't officially choose to do so until they couldn't bear leaving the kid to go to work. Different "job" - similar circumstance? I think so.

No, I don't think the circumstances are the same. Quitting mid-mat leave doesn't involve a change in employer, there is no possible conflict or loyalty issues. I think it's quite different.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a difference between what the OP is doing in getting a new job at the end of her maternity leave, and a mother who decides mid-maternity leave to be a SAHM (a job in and of itself)? I've heard of so many moms that quit to be a SAHM after the maternity leave is done - and they didn't officially choose to do so until they couldn't bear leaving the kid to go to work. Different "job" - similar circumstance? I think so.

No I don't think it is, OP has made a firm commitment to another employer with more than a month remaining in her leave (and we don't actually know how long ago she accepted), a little different than SAH, mostly because most moms consider it at some point during leave but ultimately return to work. Also, law firm maternity leave is unusually generous-- usually three full months paid.

Is there a difference between what the OP is doing in getting a new job at the end of her maternity leave, and a mother who decides mid-maternity leave to be a SAHM (a job in and of itself)? I've heard of so many moms that quit to be a SAHM after the maternity leave is done - and they didn't officially choose to do so until they couldn't bear leaving the kid to go to work. Different "job" - similar circumstance? I think so.