When I think of this model of law practice, my thoughts go immediately to the pressures facing women lawyers with young children. That can be a very demanding combination in a traditional law firm with the constraints of high billable hours and face time.

So when I saw a Reuters article from 2021 about the virtual firm Scale LLP, it got my attention. That firm is not exclusively for women lawyers, but the endorsements from the women there are impressive. Although I had highlighted virtual law practice as an option for women lawyers in my 2012 book “The New Balance for Today’s Woman Lawyer, my interest also may have been spiked by my younger self saying, “Why wasn’t that around for me so many years ago?” But that is old news.

Speaking of old news, I think that we all can agree that the benefits of maternity leave — and most recently parental leave — and positive reentry policies at traditional law firms can also be considered old news today as the result of the enactment of federal legislation and market place competition among firms for the best talent.

The real problem that I see today for lawyer/mothers of young children is that very talented women lawyers, who meet that description, find themselves “parked” in of counsel and salary partnership positions that benefit the law firm economically but do not provide much expectation for upward mobility. Ask yourself what lawyer/mother of young children has much time for client development, and I think you will get the picture.

As stated in the Reuters article, “It’s hardly news that Big Law tends to be all-consuming. But is it possible to have a sophisticated, high-end private practice — and a life outside of work? It’s practically the holy grail of the legal profession.” Evidence of that is the the large number of virtual law firms today.

My personal experience with virtual firms, is limited to Potomac Law Group, founded by a DC lawyer, who I spoke with years ago, shortly after he formed the firm and at a time when I was developing my Best Friends at the Bar project, which was devoted solely to women lawyers in those days. I was very impressed with what I heard from him about the benefits of virtual practice for lawyer moms, and the success of his venture speaks for itself. Years later, when my husband left BigLaw and formed his own firm, referrals from a virtual firm also proved very beneficial and yielded interesting work for a seasoned litigator.

For a definition of how typical virtual firms operate, see a discussion of those details in the Reuters article. One woman lawyer describes the benefits as the “flexibility of a small firm or solo shop, but with a network of experienced and accomplished attorneys for back-up as needed.” And the Scale LLP website includes the description “A National Law Firm For Experienced Women Lawyers” and endorsements by women lawyers there like “Bet on yourself: You will be surprised at how happy you are when you do” and “Independence plus a national team.”

If you are looking for an alternative to traditional law firm practice, you may want to check this out. A virtual law firm may be for you.

Non-equity partnership has been trending for quite some time now. Most of the reasons behind adoption of this new class of partners result from evolving needs of law firms and individual lawyers alike.

For example, if the services that a junior lawyer provides to firm clients are viewed as very important, it makes sense for that lawyer to receive additional recognition and status even though he or she may not be viewed as ready to share in profits. It is good for retention, and it also benefits the firm to be able to call non-equity lawyers “partners” because it justifies billing those lawyers out at higher rates and it benefits the individual lawyer to be called “partner” when building a book of business. What would not benefit the firm or the junior lawyer is advancing high performing junior lawyers directly to equity partnership without any training on how to promote work and be solely responsible for that work.

The designation of non-equity partner also works for lawyers who enjoy the practice of law BUT have no desire to rise to equity positions due to lack of interest in business generation and the pressure that accompanies it or because their life styles are incompatible with full partnership responsibilities at a given time. It also works for lawyers who come into a firm laterally. Lateral entries get the title of partner while the firm gets the period of time it needs to decide whether those hires are worth the money and appropriate for equity positions.

Of course, like most things, whether non-equity partnership works depends on how well it is both conceived and executed. The status and expectations must be clearly communicated to each non-equity partner, and it is important that non-equity partners know how they are perceived. Most of them want to be on track for equity partnership, and they do not want to be strung along indefinitely for reasons that benefit the firm alone.

It also is critically important that non-equity partners continue to be mentored to build the skills necessary to prepare them for equity positions. Indeed, a spokesperson for Arnold & Porter has highlighted plans for enhanced training and professional development for its new class of partners.

What is most clear is that non-equity partnership is here to stay. Even many of the firms that resisted for so long have come over to recognizing the benefits as different in a changing profession.

And who can argue with that?

And now there is a new twist — at least new to me. The litigation firm MoloLamken hosts an Advocacy Academy each year in its NYC office. The one-week courtroom training program for a dozen rising third-year law students is scheduled for a week each August, presumably to avoid interference with summer associate gigs and internships.

The program consists of experience with witness examination, making trial and appellate arguments, and receiving feedback from law firm partners, including the named partners Molo and Lamken. And like a cherry on the top, each participant receives a $4500 cash award, with participants coming from outside NYC also receiving free travel and lodging. Yes, you read that right. Scholars are paid to participate.

I cannot endorse this program because I have no experience with it. I am just the opportunity spotter, and the work is up to you to dig deep into the details and decide whether the opportunity is sound and worthy of your attention or the attention of someone you know. A good place to start is the several articles about the program on Above The Law over the last few years. The feedback received from scholars for those articles is described as very positive, the environment is described as low-pressure and encouraging of risk-taking, and the feedback from partners/mentors is described as honest. You will find the most recent of those articles at https://abovethe law.com/2026/02, and you also will find details about the program on the Mololamken website, including a link to the application.

I am familiar with other training programs for young lawyers which do not pay one thin dime, so this one stands out for the payment aspect alone. Even an excellent year-long fellowship program for aspiring prosecutors at the Department of Justice does not pay. One of my children went through that program, living in a studio apartment and eating beans and rice. But the program definitely was worth it and led to future opportunities within DOJ.

So what motivates a law firm to offer a program like this? With such a small class of scholars, it is certain to include very high performing participants — just the kind of young lawyers, I imagine, that a litigation boutique like MoloLamken would like to appeal to early in the recruiting process.

Although the application deadline for 2026 has passed, check out the program for next year. This kind of experience while still in law school is hard to come by.

This should concern all of us, and it also is very personal to me. I am acquainted with Diversity Lab and its founder Caren Ulrich Stacey through my work and admire her extensive and successful efforts to advance young lawyers, especially young women lawyers, and help them reenter the profession after hiatus periods.

I was introduced to Caren Stacey shortly after she founded OnRamp Fellowship, and I served as an advisor to that project in the early years. When she described me as having a “tireless pursuit and desire to create … the advancement of women in the law” in the front pages of one of my books, she might also have been describing herself. Her vision was extraordinary, and the role she and her project filled helped so many young lawyers, who had left practice for a few years, get back on their feet and continue to do remarkable legal work.

Hundreds of young lawyers have been matched with scores of prestigious legal organizations over the life of the project. After early success with the OnRamp Fellowship, Caren Stacey wrapped that project into Diversity Lab, which sought out law firms and legal departments willing to ensure that all talent has fair and equal opportunities to advance into leadership. What became known as “Mansfield Certification” for achieving diversity and equity goals seems to be at the crux of the objection by the Trump Administration.

This comes as no surprise. The letters that FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent to 42 major U.S. law firms on January 30th cautioned that participation in Diversity Lab’s Mansfield Certification program may expose those firms to liability under both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.

We have seen this before. Some of these same law firms were targeted last year by Trump Executive Orders threatening their businesses, citing in part their allegedly discriminatory hiring practices. A handful of law firms, following the example of Paul Weiss, reached deals with the White House to void or sidestep such orders, and other firms, led by Perkins Cole, fought the Executive Orders and filed successful lawsuits challenging the president’s actions as unconstitutional.

So, which kind of response will law firms choose this time around? Cooperation/capitulation or push back?

We will wait and see. In the meantime, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s famous line in Henry VI. “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers” if we are going to accomplish our goal of lawlessness.

It is time to lawyer up!

Recently, it seems that BigLaw is sending memos out, without abandon, mandating that the lawyers at those firms return to the office. And while that may seem ominous to some recipients, the proof is in the pudding — or, in this case, whether they want to eat their pudding at a remote location or whether they are are willing to eat it in the office.

There should be no question about something as axiomatic as “what the powers that be at BigLaw want, the powers that be at BigLaw get”? However it does not appear to be that simple, and the disconnect between words and actions is at the heart of the confusion. In short, the messages in the memos are clear, but the mandates are not being enforced. So why is that?

The easy answer seems to be that many partners at BigLaw don’t want to trek to the office five days a week — or even three or four days a week. As a result, many of those firms are interpreting back to the office to apply only to managers and associates, presumably because the business needs to continue to run smoothly and the associates need to continue to learn. Such an approach may get the partners off the hook but also begs the question of who will be present in the office to mentor the associates.

Or, consider this. The mandates, which turn out to be no mandates at all, may not even apply to associates based on concerns about retention of talent, which is always on the minds of law firm partners and managers. When associates are hit with the high cost of commuting five days a week and related costs, including early morning and late afternoon childcare in some cases, very talented associates may start looking for greener remote work pastures. Faced with that possibility, managers might overlook enforcing the back to office mandates for associates as well.

So, it makes me wonder what the reason is for sending the memos at all if the only thing to be accomplished is confusion. And hypocrisy, for that matter. It is well known that remote work during the pandemic led to record high profits for BigLaw. So is it the BigLaw version of keeping up with the Joneses? If one firm does it, they all have to do it — whether it makes sense or not.

Whatever the reason, the logical conclusion is that the current state of play for back to the office is a mess.

However, the results of a recent survey of 2800 legal professionals, which includes questions about remote work, sheds some light on actual practices. According to responses addressing remote work, fewer than one-third of respondents said that their offices are fully staffed five days a week. Attorneys still are on record “quibbling” about 3 or 4 day schedules, and hybrid schedules were the most popular at large firms (51 plus lawyers). For those firms balking at even hybrid schedules, the reasons include security and privacy concerns, which makes little sense. How could issues of security and privacy have been handled adequately for the years of remote work during COVID and now be a problem?

More reason for confusion!

For all of the survey results, search Affinipay’s 2025 Legal Industry Report.