The Effect of Reduced-Hours Arrangements on the Retention, Recruitment, and Success of Women Attorneys in Law Firms

The impetus for this study came from a group of senior women attorneys of the Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts (“WBA”) who expressed the belief that a greater understanding of law firms’ part-time policies and practices could provide important insight into the question of why the increase in women entering into the legal profession over the past twenty-five years has not brought about corresponding increases in women at the partnership level. These senior women were concerned about the number of senior women associates and partners who leave law firms because they cannot balance their family responsibilities with the billing requirements of law firms and do not see current part-time work options at their firm as a viable alternative. They noted that many of those considering other employment options were economically productive and committed to practicing law and among the “best and brightest” attorneys in their firm.

As the WBA’s Employment Issues Committee began this study, we realized that the impact of a firm’s policies and attitudes on part-time work extends far beyond those who have a reduced-hours arrangement at any given time. For example, a recent study of two Fortune 100 companies, a leading law firm, and a major consulting firm found that while only 11% of the women who participated in the study were working part-time at the time that the survey was conducted, 40% of those women were working, had worked part-time, or believed it was likely they would work part-time for at least some portion of their career. Similarly, many women attorneys are affected by or anticipate being affected by their firm’s part-time policies and practices.

We also realized that the existence of reduced-hours arrangements challenge deep-seated attitudes about work and family, success and identity, gender roles, and firms’ roles in influencing or supporting career and life choices. Inevitably, discussions of reduced-hours arrangements and diverse career paths raise issues of fairness regarding those who consistently structure their life so that work is their principal priority and those who have multiple priorities.

Neither firms nor individuals can avoid these issues. Part-time policies and, more importantly, the implementation of those policies play a critical role in the future of women in law firms. Part-time policies and practices also play an increasingly important role the ability of each firm to compete for talent in a tightening labor market that will shortly be more than half women. We hope that this report contributes to firms’ efforts to improve their part-time policies and practices, as well as help part-time attorneys to fashion a more satisfying work arrangement.

The WBA Employment Issues Committee appreciates all those who, directly and indirectly, have made this study possible and extends its heartfelt thanks to the hundreds of individual attorneys and forty-five firms who participated in this study; to Diane Kellogg, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Management at Bentley College, who evaluated the original draft survey instruments and provided many suggestions for improvement; to Deborah S. Myers of Goodwin, Procter & Hoar LLP, who assisted in setting up the program and database used in analyzing the quantitative data; to Lois Frankel of the Office of the Chief Justice for Administration and Management, Massachusetts Administrative Office of the Trial Court; to Barbara Bayles-Roberts of Goodwin, Procter & Hoar LLP, Camilla Morrill of Bingham Dana LLP, and all the other secretaries and support staff at Committee members’ firms who worked on survey distribution and countless iterations of analyses and this report; to Donna Evans, Esq., and Christy Agor of Mintz, Levin, Cohen, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.; and to Meaghan Barrett, Esq., of Butters, Small & Brazilian, Jennifer D. Miller, Esq., of Goodwin, Procter & Hoar LLP, Tanya Gurevich, Esq., and Amy Oalican, Esq., for their assistance at various stages of the project. Last, but certainly not least, the WBA acknowledges and appreciates the generosity of The National Law Journal – Massachusetts Edition in publishing this report and making possible its wide distribution.

Nancer H. Ballard Pamela E. Berman

Beth I.Z. Boland Ellen C. Kearns

Andrea C. Kramer S. Elaine McChesney

Diane M. Saunders Barbara Freedman Wand

INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1970’s, when women began graduating from law schools in significant numbers, there has been a large influx of women into the legal profession. Mid-sized and large firms have been hiring women in large numbers for over a decade. Yet, women are not reaching the senior ranks in large numbers – because attrition rates for women are consistently higher than those for men. Organizational systems designed for people who have stay-at-home spouses and can consistently devote to work whatever time and energy the workplace demands do not mesh well with most women’s lives.[1]

The recent dramatic increases in salaries at large firms may only escalate this trend because the increases have led to even greater demands on lawyers at those firms to increase the number of hours devoted to their job each year. Today, nearly all attorneys who work in firms, including part-time attorneys, work far in excess of what was considered a reasonable full-time commitment not so long ago. In comparison to today’s billing requirements, The Lawyer’s Handbook, published by the American Bar Association in 1962, explained:

There are only approximately 1,300 fee-earning hours per year unless the lawyer works overtime. Many of the eight hours per day available for office work are consumed in personal, civic, bar, religious and political activities, general office administration and other nonremunerative matters. Either five or six remunerative hours per day would be realistic, depending upon the habits of the individual or the practices of the particular office.[2]

Current increases in billable hours have made part-time or “reduced-hours” arrangements[3] even more critical to retaining talented women and men attorneys with parenting or other family responsibilities.[4]

This report provides statistical data and narrative survey information on part-time policies and practices in large, mid-sized, and small law firms throughout Massachusetts. The WBA’s Employment Issues Committee used three survey instruments to gather quantitative and qualitative data from firms, attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement, and attorneys who left their firm because of the firm’s part-time policies and practices. The first survey, directed to the 100 largest law firms in Massachusetts (which includes firms ranging in size from more than 300 attorneys to firms with fewer than 20 attorneys) sought information about those firms’ part-time policies and statistical data on attrition and the utilization of those policies. The second survey, directed to attorneys who have or have had a reduced-hours arrangement at these firms, sought information on the types and duration of their arrangement and on various aspects of their experience with the reduced-hours arrangement. The third survey, directed to all women (those who worked either full-time or part-time) who left these firms during the three years prior to distribution of the survey, sought information about their reasons for leaving their firm, the role (if any) that their firm’s part-time policies and practices played in their decision to leave, and where they went after leaving their firm.

Over 92% of law firms nationally and 90% of the law firms that participated in this study reported that they offered or would consider offering a reduced-hours arrangement to their attorneys. This study demonstrates in many ways, though, that simply offering the option is not enough. The message from the attorneys who participated in this study is clear: what you say is not as important as what you do – and how you do it.

In this report, the Employment Issues Committee has included a variety of recommendations to help firms improve their part-time policies and, most significantly, the implementation of those policies. Many of the recommendations would cost a firm little or nothing to implement, but require on-going conscious commitment to a workplace designed for attorneys with multiple life commitments. The WBA hopes that this study will stimulate discussion and action by both firms and individuals on issues raised by the many attorneys who participated in this study.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This year roughly six out of ten people receiving college degrees are women, and more than half of incoming law students are women. By virtue of their sheer numbers, women will play an increasingly important role in firms’ ability to recruit and retain a talented labor pool. Yet, women in most law firms confront a system and environment designed in large part for full-time attorneys who, if they have children, have spouses who stay at home. The result is that while overall attrition is at an all-time high, attrition among women attorneys is particularly high in firms where women feel there are not sufficient structural means to enable them to balance work and family. Effective part-time policies and practices can go a long way toward mediating this experience.

In the past decade, law firms, like other employers, have responded to changing demographics in the labor force by adopting policies that offer some opportunities for reduced-hours arrangements. Virtually all of the law firms that responded to the WBA survey reported that they offer part-time arrangements or would consider offering them if requested. While properly formulated policies are necessary, they are not sufficient. Written part-time policies do not by themselves create a work environment that supports and fosters loyalty and growth in attorneys seeking meaningful careers while raising children.[5] Implementation efforts and changes in attitude and firm culture are at least as important as the policies. Firms that respond to the needs of the ever-increasing number of women in the work force will be better able to compete for critical talent than those that remain inflexible either in their policies or through their practices or corporate cultures.

Findings

(1) Opportunities for reduced-hours arrangements are necessary to attract and retain a talented labor pool.

· Ninety percent of Respondent Firms have some type of policy for reduced-hours arrangements.

· All but one Respondent Firm with more than 150 lawyers had a written part-time policy. Seventy-one percent of firms with 100 to 150 attorneys have written policies, and 50% of firms with twenty-five to ninety-nine attorneys have written policies. Fifteen percent of all Respondent Firms with fewer than twenty-five attorneys have written policies.

· The number of attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement continues to rise. In particular, there has been a notable increase in the number of part-time partners since 1996.

· Ninety percent of Respondents with a reduced-hours arrangement reported that their firm’s willingness to provide the opportunity to work a reduced-hours schedule has affected their decision to stay at the firm.

(2) The existence of a policy is an important step, but is not by itself sufficient to create attorney satisfaction or to stem attrition.

· Women constitute approximately 28% of all attorneys at Respondent Firms. They constitute approximately 40% of all attorneys leaving the firms.

· Almost forty percent of all full-time and part-time attorney Respondents who left their firm between 1996 and 1998 reported that their firm’s policies or approach toward reduced-hours arrangements affected their decision to leave. Thirty percent of these Respondents had never worked part-time.

· Most women who work part-time and leave their firm do not leave the profession. They leave to work in smaller firms, in-house positions, or for the government.

· Over one-third of Respondents reported that they believed that, as a result of law firm cultural factors, reduced-hours schedules are detrimental to one’s career.[6]

· Many of the Respondents felt that their firm’s attitudes and behavior towards attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement was indicative of how the firm felt towards women generally.

(3) Major sources of dissatisfaction expressed by attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement include (1) lack of institutional support from law firms for reduced-hours arrangements, (2) deterioration of professional relationships within the firm, and (3) adverse career consequences.

· Sixty-one percent of all Respondents who worked part-time reported that no one at their firm had worked with them to develop their part-time work arrangement.

· Almost 80% of lawyers with a reduced-hours arrangement reported that no one at their firm met with them on a regular basis to discuss how their reduced-hours arrangement are working for them or the firm.

· Thirty to forty percent of attorneys at every level of seniority reported that their relationships with partners and associates deteriorated after they adopted a reduced-hours schedule.

· The most commonly identified adverse impact was partners’ apparent skepticism regarding the professional commitment of attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement, regardless of the attorney’s level of seniority.

· More than 25% of Respondents felt that their skills or they as professionals were devalued after they began a reduced-hours schedule.

· Forty-three percent of Respondents reported that their substantive work assignments had been affected as a result of their reduced-hours arrangement.

· Those in the most specialized practices suffered the least adverse impact on their work assignments. Litigation attorneys reported the greatest incidence of involuntary adverse changes in their practice after adopting a reduced-hours arrangement.

(4) Well-integrated part-time policies and practices can reduce attrition and increase loyalty among the firm’s attorneys.

· There are a significant number of attorneys who have remained at their firm with a reduced-hours arrangement for a long period of time. Many senior associate Respondents and virtually all of the partner Respondents with a reduced-hours arrangement had been at their firm longer than the average full-time associate usually is.

· Twenty-eight percent of all part-time attorneys in Respondent Firms are partners. The average period of time that partner Respondents with reduced-hours arrangement have had such an arrangement is seven years.

· The vast majority of women who work part-time and leave their firm because of the firm’s part-time policy stay in the profession but go to work for legal employers whom they perceive to be more family friendly.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Part-Time Policies

· Formalized policies regarding reduced-hours arrangements should explicitly reflect the firm’s actual practices, but should permit reduced-hours arrangements to be as individualized as possible within the policy parameters.

· Attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement should not automatically be disqualified for partnership track, formally or informally.

· Wherever possible, firms should avoid setting limitations on the duration of reduced-hours arrangements.

· Firms should not require that attorneys work full-time for a specified period of time before being eligible for a reduced-hours arrangement.

· Part-time attorneys who exceed the agreed-upon schedule should be compensated accordingly. If bonuses are based on the number of hours in excess of the target, the bonus should not be prorated.

Recommendations for Implementation and Practices

· In practice, schedules should be as flexible as the workflow permits.

· Do not assume that multiple commitments mean less commitment. Just as full-time attorneys can be committed to multiple cases or deals, part-time attorneys can be committed to their work and clients while also being committed to their family and home.

· Reinforce that all attorneys – partners and associates alike – must be respectful of part-time attorneys’ schedules.

· Ensure that attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement receive adequate mentoring by attorneys who are respected, in a position to be helpful to the part-time attorney’s career, and supportive of reduced-hours work arrangements.

· Do not assume that an attorney with a reduced-hours arrangement is not interested in firm administration or in any particular type of work or assignment.

· Do not assign attorneys with a reduced-hours arrangement small units of projects while giving their colleagues greater responsibility.

· Do not encourage, condone, or ignore disparaging remarks or jokes regarding reduced-hours arrangements or attorneys with such an arrangement.

· Provide a forum for regular feedback concerning the firm’s part-time policies and practices.

· Do not forget the big picture. If an attorney provides responsive client service, “face time” may not be that important.

· Do not ignore the potential asset that senior attorneys who have or have had a reduced-hours arrangement represent.

· Capitalize on the benefits that part-time attorneys offer; do not apologize for speculative or imagined drawbacks. For example, many clients may prefer having their work done by a reduced-hours attorney who handles fewer cases or deals rather than by a full-time attorney who is juggling double that amount of cases or deals.

· Consider the needs of part-time attorneys in scheduling and formulating firm-wide or departmental social events.

I. EXISTING POLICIES ON REDUCED-HOURS ARRANGEMENTS

A. The Availability of Reduced-Hours Arrangements

1. The Availability of Reduced-Hours Arrangements at Law Firms Nationally

Since the entrance of large numbers of women in the legal professional in the early 1970’s, there has been increased pressure on law firms to offer alternatives to “full-time” schedules. By 1998, 92% of the law firms polled by the National Association for Law Placement (“NALP”) and included in the National Directory of Legal Employers (“NALP Directory”) offered part-time work arrangements.[7]

2. The Availability of Reduced-Hours Arrangements at Massachusetts Firms

Ninety percent of the firms that responded to the Part-Time Work – Law Firm Questionnaire distributed by the Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts (“Respondent Firms”) stated that they have some type of policy regarding reduced-hours arrangements.[8] Forty-two percent of these firms have a written policy, and 54% have an unwritten policy or offer reduced-hours arrangements on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, the larger the firm, the more likely it is to have a written policy. All but one Respondent Firm with more than 150 lawyers has a written policy. Seventy-seven percent of firms with 100 to 150 attorneys have written policies, and about one-half of firms with twenty-five to ninety-nine attorneys have written policies. Only fifteen percent of all Respondent Firms with fewer than twenty-five attorneys have written policies. See Appendix B, Chart 1.

Although nearly all firms allow some part-time work arrangements, a majority of Respondent Firms reported that reduced-hours arrangements are available only to attorneys who have practiced law for some requisite period of time, ranging from three months to three years. The most common prerequisite is one year of previous employment. This “qualifying period” requirement appears to be on the wane, however, at least in larger firms: slightly over half of the thirty-four Massachusetts law firms that provided data to NALP for 1999 stated that reduced-hours arrangements are available to new attorneys as well.

B. The Nature and Range of Reduced-Hours Arrangement Policies

1. Types of Reduced-Hours Arrangements

The majority of Respondent Firms have a minimum or “floor” amount of time that associates with a reduced-hours arrangement must work. The floor may be expressed as an annual number of billable or total hours, a number of days per week, or a relative percentage of a full-time schedule. The most commonly reported minimum is 60% of a full-time schedule. Only three firms have minimums in excess of 60%. The “floors” at these firms are 66%, 70%, and 80%, respectively. Some Respondent Firms that reported a minimum-hours requirement have relaxed or waived that threshold in certain circumstances. Several firms also have arrangements with counsel[9] or contract attorneys that are not based on hours quotas. Such arrangements are made with attorneys of all levels of experience, but tend to involve attorneys with at least four years of experience.

Although Respondents reported a wide variety of reduced-hours arrangements, the most common arrangement for both partner and associate Respondents is 80% of a full-time schedule. In general, associate Respondents reported a wider variety of reduced-hours arrangements than did partner Respondents. The incidence and variety of reduced-hours arrangements also varied from department to department. See Appendix B, Chart 2.

Although more litigation partner Respondents reported having a 60% schedule than partner Respondents in other departments, litigation partner Respondents with 60% schedules reported working more billable hours than partner Respondents from other departments who have 80% schedules. Litigation partner Respondents with 60% schedules are working an average of 1,422 actual billable hours per year. On a full-time-equivalent basis, these partners are billing 2,370 hours per year, more than any other group of reduced-hours attorneys and more than most of their full-time colleagues.

2. Durational Limits on Reduced-Hours Arrangements

Although most of the Respondent Firms do not have restrictions on the length of time that an attorney can continue in a reduced-hours arrangement, a few of the Respondent Firms do limit the period of time that an attorney can maintain a reduced-hours arrangement. Time limits range from one to three years. Several of the firms with restrictions state that in appropriate cases time limitations may be renegotiated upon expiration of the original term.