Up to PAR

Diversity and Flexibility Connection Conference: 10/29

2009-10-01T10:38:00.003-04:00

Now is the time to sign up for PAR's Diversity and Flexibility Conference on October 29, 2009 in Washington, D.C. Only 26 seats remain. Registration information is available on PAR's website.

An all-star line up of general counsel and law firm chairs will discuss the results of their two days of meetings. In addition, PAR will present its Connection best practices report, and its Flex Success Award to a successful part-time partner at a PAR member firm.

More information, from the invitation:

Meet the leaders -- the key general counsel and law firm chairs who are participating in PAR’s Diversity & Flexibility Connection -- at a special one-day conference. Hear their perspectives on how diversity and flexibility impact client relationships, legal budgets and business development. Network and share your firm’s experiences.

The Connection brought together twelve general counsel and twelve law firm chairs for two meetings where they had frank discussions on the connection between work/life strategies and diversity objectives. This conference will present the best practices and action steps for law departments and law firms that were generated at these meetings.

For PAR members only: Included in the price of your conference ticket will be an invitation to a reception the night before the conference hosted by Dickstein Shapiro LLP exclusively for PAR members who are attending the conference, general counsel and law firm chairs who are participating in the Connection and speakers.

Speakers:

Michele Coleman Mayes, VP and General Counsel, Allstate Insurance
James Potter, SVP, General Counsel and Secretary, Del Monte Foods Company
Thomas Sager, SVP and General Counsel, DuPont Company
Douglas G. Scrivner, General Counsel & Compliance Officer, Accenture
Jeffrey Gearhart, EVP and General Counsel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Catherine A. Lamboley, SVP, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary (ret.), Shell Oil
Teri Plummer McClure, SVP of Legal, Compliance and Public Affairs, General Counsel and Secretary, United Parcel Service
Thomas Milch, Chair, Arnold & Porter LLP
Gordon Davidson, Chair, Fenwick & West LLP
Michael Nannes, Chair/Firmwide Managing Partner, Dickstein Shapiro LLP
Robert Riley, Chair, Schiff Hardin LLP
Steven Lowenthal, Chair, Farella Braun + Martel LLP
Thomas Cole, Chair, Executive Committee, Sidley Austin LLP
Elliott Portnoy, Chair, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
Keith C. Wetmore, Chair, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Steven B. Pfeiffer, Chair, Executive Committee, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP

Thoughts on being a "Legal Rebel"

2009-09-29T18:10:00.002-04:00

Many thanks to the ABA Journal for naming me a "Legal Rebel." I admit it is a little embarrassing (am I really a rebel? And surely the video did not have to freeze on that awful picture, and now everyone knows how messy my office gets when I'm writing!), but also a little pleasing (after ten years of working on the advancement of women lawyers and work/life issues, it is nice to know someone is listening).

Before my Rebel interview, I planned all sorts of things I wanted to say about PAR. Unfortunately, the interview lasted about five minutes and focused on just a couple of issues and not on the organization itself. So, here are three things I wish I could have said in my interview:

1. PAR has changed considerably from its early days. Initially, PAR was just Joan Williams and me in the District of Columbia, with a little money from the Sloan Foundation and a desire to finally solve the issue of why women weren't advancing more rapidly in law firms. Today, there are six of us with the addition of Manar Morales, Natalie Hiott-Levine, Linda Marks, and Linda Chanow -- all fabulously talented and treasured colleagues. We now have a full national reach and a budget that is about ten times bigger than our first. Our research has answered the question why women lawyers are not advancing as rapidly as they should, and we have developed and continue to develop practical solutions for women lawyers, law firms, and corporate law departments to use to help women lawyers achieve parity.

2. One thing about PAR that hasn't changed: Joan Williams remains one of the most fascinating people I've ever met. She is brilliant, and she has single-handedly moved mountains to improve the workplace for women. She changes lives -- just listen to her talk or read something she has written and see for yourself. Sharing the Director position with her at PAR has been amazing.

3. PAR has had considerable success helping lawyers and legal employers to get ahead through nonstigmatized reduced hours work and action steps to develop and promote women lawyers. We are often described as "nationally recognized experts" and a "leading voice," and I sometimes reflect on why we have been so influential. I have decided it comes down to three things: 1) our work is based on research, both our own and others'; 2) we work with all stakeholders -- lawyers, law firms/legal departments, and clients; and 3) we create practical, workable, business-based solutions. I don't think we can overlook good communication skills and a lot of long hours, but the content has to be there first.

Of course, there is a lot more I wish I could have said -- things about some of PAR's projects, the law firms and law departments that have joined PAR, and where I think PAR is headed in the future. Those may appear in future editions of this blog. In the meantime, I'm going to go be a little rebellious.

--Cynthia

Part-Time Partners, Full Success: PAR Releases New Study

2009-09-24T08:45:00.002-04:00

PAR has released its part-time partner report, "Reduced Hours, Full Success: Part-Time Partners in U.S. Law Firms. Here is the press release:

Part-Time Law Partners Succeed for Clients, Firms
New Study Shows Reduced Schedules No Bar to Financial Success

Throw away those preconceived ideas about part-time partners in law firms. The Project for Attorney Retention (PAR), a leading voice on work-life balance and women’s advancement in the law, releases a ground-breaking study showing that part-time partners are remarkably successful: they are highly responsive to their clients, generate significant revenue, and are active leaders and role models within their firms. “A decade ago, firms typically took part-time lawyers off partnership track,” said PAR Co-Director Joan C. Williams. “Now, thanks to the efforts PAR and others to create non-stigmatized part-time programs, these lawyers became partners and this study shows the results: a win-win scenario for partners and their firms.”

“The conventional wisdom is that attorneys who cut back their hours cut back their careers.” said Cynthia Calvert, PAR’s co-director and one of the study’s authors. “We talked with many successful part-time partners for whom that wasn’t true.” The key findings challenge conventional wisdom about part-time lawyers:

•           Many respondents had significant books of business, and the majority reported spending as much or more time on business development as full-time partners;

•           Most respondents generate significant revenue, billing between 1200 and 1600 hours annually and pushing additional work down to associates;

•           Many hold leadership positions in their firms, including managing partner, executive committee member, practice group head, and members of high level committees; and

•           Client service is foremost, with the vast majority of respondents stating that they do whatever is necessary to be responsive and meet deadlines.

Clients of part-time partners are generally supportive, the study finds. “Wal-Mart has worked with part-time partners, and we support their flexible work arrangements,” said Jeff Gearhart, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. “We understand how important flexibility is to retention, and stable relationships with our outside counsel are good for our business. I hope that everyone reads this report – it will open their eyes.”

More than a hundred lawyers were interviewed in depth for the groundbreaking study. Study participants – who included 53 equity partners who work reduced hours – were asked about career history, firms, schedules, practices, clients, compensation, business development, colleagues, satisfaction, and personal lives. PAR also interviewed more than 30 women partners of color, working both full-time and part-time, as well as managing partners.

The study’s interviews with partners of color also yielded unexpected results: 26% of the partners of color were working part-time. Said study co-author Linda Bray Chanow, “The data demonstrates that partners of color experience significant work-life conflict. Unfortunately, we spoke with partners of color who felt that reducing their hours would negatively impact their careers at their firms. These women said that when part-time was stigmatized, participating was not a risk that they were willing to take, given the challenges they felt they already faced as partners of color.”

The report concludes with best practices for structuring part-time partnership, and guidance for part-time partners.

PAR, a nonprofit organization that studies the advancement of women lawyers and work/life issues for all lawyers, is headquartered at UC Hastings College of the Law. Its co-directors are Joan C. Williams, distinguished professor of law at Hastings, and Cynthia Thomas Calvert, a former law firm litigation partner. For more information or to obtain a copy of the report, visit PAR’s website at www.pardc.org.

Survey of Women Law Firm Partners

2009-07-17T15:23:00.002-04:00

To All Women Law Firm Partners:

The three undersigned organizations are working together to examine the experiences of women law firm partners regarding business development, related compensation and partner evaluation practices with the goal of developing recommendations and best practices.

If you are a woman who is a partner in a law firm, please contact PAR for a link to the survey and ask all the women law firm partners in your network and to do the same. Your individual responses will remain confidential and anonymous and will be reported only in the aggregate.

We need to have your input and to hear about your views and experiences. So please help us out – it should take you only about 20-30 minutes to answer the questions.

Thank you,

Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA)
Project for Attorney Retention (PAR)
ABA Commission on Women in the Profession

Women Managing Partners

2009-07-10T13:49:00.002-04:00

As is being widely reported, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP has named Vicki Frieman its second woman managing partner. This is remarkable, all the more so because Ms. Frieman was apparently groomed for the position by the firm's first female managing partner, Angela Bradstreet. Succession planning of this sort -- a clear best practice -- has been a topic at PAR's annual conference and at presentations by PAR about retaining and advancing women lawyers.

So that got us to thinking: are there other firms out there that have had two female managing partners? We searched our hard drives and collective memories (and the Internet) and came up with the following examples:

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell (Jerry Clements and Harriet Miers)
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (Rochelle Korman and Antonia Grumbach)
Munger Tolles & Olson (Sandra Seville-Jones, current co-managing partner, is the second of two)
(Disclosure: Munger Tolles is a sustaining member of PAR)

Expanding our inquiry beyond firm-wide managing partner positions, we found the following examples of firms that have had more than one female managing partner of an office (current and former):

Eight
Reed Smith (Judy Harris, DC; Janet Kwuon, Los Angeles; Bette Epstein and Sonja Weissman, Oakland; Claudia Springer, Philadelphia; Carolyn Duronio, Pittsburgh; Nanette Mantell, Princeton; Karen Fegelson, Virginia)

Seven
Littler Mendelson (Linda Headley, Houston; Jennifer Walt, San Francisco; Erin Webber, Denver; Katherine Flanagan, Houston; Sue Marie Douglas, Cleveland; Lori A. Brown, Miami; Wendy Krincek, Las Vegas/Reno)

Three
Foley & Lardner (Nancy Geenen in San Francisco, Nicole Lamb-Hale in Detroit, and Nancy Sennett in Milwaukee)
Pillsbury Winthrop ( Sue Hodges, San Diego offices; Maureen Dwyer, DC; Meg Utterback, Shanghai) -- Pillsbury also had a female chair, Mary Cranston, and a female firm-wide managing partner, Marina Park, until 2007.

Two
Hogan & Hartson (Ann Morgan Vickery in D.C. and Emily Yinger in Northern Virginia)
Ballard Spahr (Lynn Axelroth and Lynn Rzonca, both in the Philadelphia office)
Epstein Becker & Green (Maxine Hicks in the Atlanta office and Susan Pravda in the Boston office)
Seyfarth Shaw (Lisa Damon in Boston and Loria Almon, co-managing partner, in New York)

Honorable mention:
Stoel Rives has had one firm-wide female managing partner (Beth Ugoretz, 2005 - 2008) and one female office managing partner (Virginia Pedreira, Seattle).

(Disclosure: Foley & Lardner and Hogan & Hartson are PAR members)

It is a good start.

Highlights from the Report on NJ Women Lawyers

2009-05-15T11:55:00.002-04:00

Joan and Cynthia of PAR co-authored Legal Talent at the Crossroads: Why New Jersey Women Lawyers Leave the Law Firms and Why They Choose to Stay. The report is noteworthy for a number of reasons. Here are a few:

While other studies have documented that women leave firms that don't have good flexible work programs, this study goes a step further and documents that flexible work programs are a key factor in their search for their next position -- and that many find what they are looking for with their new employer. The take-away for law firms is that effective, non-stigmatized flexible work programs are not "perks" but rather are recruiting and retention tools that will increase their ranks of women lawyers.

This study also documents the advantage many male attorneys have: someone else who takes care of their family-related obligations, which allows them to focus more and for longer hours on their careers. (As Deborah Rhode says, "If women aren't running the world, it is probably because men aren't running the vacuum cleaners.") The women lawyers who participated in the study frequently noted that this imbalance gave their male counterparts a leg up in the race to partnership, and contributed to a lack of understanding on the part of older male partners of the women lawyers' work/life balance struggles.

Another interesting feature of the study was its focus, through interviews, on the factors that helped some senior women partners stay and succeed in their law firms. Most of the women noted that hard work alone is not enough because of the obstacles women lawyers face in their careers. Some of the factors that helped them to succeed were role models and mentors, supportive partners or spouses at home who did a significant amount of family-related work, and law firms that supported work/life balance without stigma. Of particular use to younger women lawyers, the report contains a lengthy section of advice from the successful senior women.

The report concludes with detailed best practices for law firms that want to retain and advance their women lawyers. In addition to specific steps for implementing a non-stigmatized flexible work program, the best practices include reviewing assignment and evaluation systems to eliminate hidden gender bias, making promotion criteria transparent, ensuring that women are not socially isolated within their firms, creating business development opportunities for women, and reducing gender bias throughout the law firm.

This is an important report, one that is worth reading and passing along to your colleagues. As always, PAR is interested in hearing your reactions.

Economic Analysis of Balanced Hours vs. Layoffs

2009-03-19T14:10:00.002-04:00

Our economic analysis of balanced hours vs. layoffs is now posted on our website.

In our research, we learned an interesting bit of information from Jim Sandman, former managing partner of Arnold & Porter, about the realities of layoffs: not all billable hours get shifted from departing lawyers to remaining lawyers. He said:

The theory of layoffs is that you align capacity with available work by transferring the billable hours of those lawyers laid off to those who remain, filling up the available time of the survivors. But not everyone has the same skill set, and a material portion of the billable hours of those laid off never transfers. So of the 1500 billable hours a laid-off associate might have had, only 1200 might be retained and assumed by others. That’s a loss of 20 percent of the revenue that was generated by the laid-off associate.

His point makes PAR's economic analysis more compelling. PAR's analysis gives an example of a small practice group that would save $240,000 with reduced hours but only $211,000 with a layoff, but that example assumes that all of the hours the laid off attorney would have billed will be billed by the others in the department. If the practice group loses 300 of those hours, at a rate of $350 per hour, the practice group would net just $106,000 from the layoff. The practice group would still save the entire $240,000 if instead the non-partners in the group reduced their hours and compensation by 20% because the skill sets and client relationships needed to bill those 300 hours would still be retained by the firm.

On our website, we list some companies that are reducing employees' hours in lieu of layoffs. If you know of others, please contact us.

2009 New Partner Classes Stagnant for Women Lawyers

2009-02-24T09:27:00.002-05:00

Women make up 40% or more of the new partner classes at 23 major law firms,
but 14 firms fail to make any female partners

San Francisco (February 23, 2009) –Law firms’ 2009 new partner classes show little progress for women lawyers. The good news is that at 23 of the 100 firms surveyed by the Project for Attorney Retention, the new partner classes were at least 40% female. The bad news is that the gain is offset by the failure of 14 firms to make any female partners.

The best: Cravath (67%), Dickstein Shapiro (67%), Wiley Rein (60%), Andrews Kurth (57%), Bryan Cave (56%), Arent Fox (50%), Baker & Daniels (50%), Hogan & Hartson (50%), Holland and Hart (50%), King and Spalding (50%), Luce Forward (50%), Simpson Thacher (50%), and Sullivan & Cromwell (50%). A special mention goes to Farella Braun, whose only new partner is female (100%).

Honorable mentions: Dorsey & Whitney (47%), Kilpatrick Stockton (44%), Seyfarth Shaw (44%), Crowell & Moring (43%), Jackson Lewis (43%), Cooley Godward (43%), Perkins Coie (42%), Arnold & Porter (40%), and WilmerHale (40%). Notable achievement: the following firms have promoted new partner classes that were 40% or more female for the past three years: Arnold & Porter, Crowell & Moring, Perkins Coie, and Sullivan and Cromwell.

The worst: None of the following firms made a female partner this year: Cadwalader, Cleary Gottlieb, Dechert, Foley Hoag, Kaye Scholer, Lowenstein Sandler, Milbank, Schulte Roth, Steptoe, Strook, Venable, Wachtell, White & Case, and Wilkie Farr.

Not much better: Pillsbury Winthrop (9%), Latham & Watkins (10%), O’Melveny (11%), Howrey (13%), Finnegan Henderson (13%), Morrison & Foerster (13%), Winston & Strawn (13%), Locke Lord (14%), Nixon Peabody (14%), DLA Piper (15%), Ropes (17%) and Akin Gump (17%).

The complete chart can be found here.

“This year’s new partner classes are a mixed bag for women lawyers,” said Cynthia Calvert, Co-Director of the Project for Attorney Retention. “Many firms are promoting a significant number of women, which shows that firms can be successful in retaining and advancing their women lawyers. We are disheartened, though, by the large number of firms that did not make any women partners.”

Joan Williams, Co-Director of the Project for Attorney Retention, believes the firms that didn’t make female partners this year need to determine why they are not grooming female associates in equal number with male associates. “These numbers show which firms need to work harder at promoting women lawyers,” she said. “They provide valuable information for women law students who are choosing their future employers and for clients who are interested in retaining law firms where women lawyers can succeed.”

Firms were chosen for this survey based on inclusion in prior years’ surveys, firm size, reputation and availability of information. Twenty-three new firms were added to those surveyed last year. The chart reflects information for past years for 100 firms, but 15 of those have not yet reported their 2009 partner classes. As in prior years, information is included only for the firms’ U.S. offices. Many of the firms that are noted as the best or as honorable mentions are members of the Project for Attorney Retention (Dickstein, Hogan, Andrews Kurth, Bryan Cave, Luce Forward, Farella Braun, Crowell & Moring, Jackson Lewis, Arnold & Porter, Arent Fox and WilmerHale); this reflects those firms’ commitment to advancing women lawyers rather than favoritism on our part.

A few observations: for most of the firms with the highest percentage of new female partners, this year is not an aberration but part of a pattern of promoting a significant proportion of women, as shown in the chart. The converse is not necessarily true. For many of the firms labeled “the worst,” this year does appear to be an aberration. Cadwalader, Cleary Gottlieb, Kaye Scholer, Lowenstein and Steptoe have been notably more successful in the past.

The Project for Attorney Retention, a nonprofit organization that studies the advancement of women lawyers and work/life issues for all lawyers, is headquartered at UC Hastings College of the Law. Its co-directors are Joan C. Williams, distinguished professor of law at Hastings, and Cynthia Thomas Calvert, a former law firm litigation partner. This research was spearheaded by Calvert and Linda Bray Chanow, PAR’s director of research. PAR is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and other grantors, and by its law department and law firm members. For more information, visit PAR’s website.

PAR Conference: Advancing Women Lawyers in Turbulent Times

2009-01-30T13:07:00.004-05:00

Registration is now open for PAR's second annual conference: Strategies for Advancing Women Lawyers in Turbulent Times on March 5, 2009 on the campus of George Washington University in Washington, D.C. As you can see from the agenda, it is going to be fabulous. Outstanding speakers, cutting-edge issues, and armloads of practical information will be featured. Here's the agenda:

8:30 Registration

9:00 Keynote: Does it Pay to Advance Women Lawyers during Turbulent Times?

Joan C. Williams, PAR

9:30 Reduced Hours, Full Success? Interim Report on PAR's Part-Time Partner Study

Linda Chanow and Linda Marks, PAR

10:00 Strategies for Facilitating WorkLife Balance in a Faltering Economy

Leslie Turner, Coca Cola
María Meléndez, Sidley & Austin
Emily Finn, Latham & Watkins
Moderator - Carter DeLorme, Jones Day

11:15 Break

11:30 This is How We Do It - Roundtable discussions on Facilitating WorkLife Balance

Table heads: Karen Lockwood, Howrey; Linda Oliver, Hogan & Hartson; Mara Senn, Arnold & Porter; Monica Parham, Crowell Moring; Ellen Ostrow , Lawyers Life Coach; Ida Abbott, Ida Abbott Consulting; MJ Tocci, Fulcrum Advisors; Natalie Hiott-Levine, PAR.

12:30 Lunch, sponsored by Major, Lindsey & Africa

1:30 Eliminating Hidden Gender Bias in the Legal Workplace

Cynthia Thomas Calvert, PAR
Consuela Pinto, PAR
Moderator: Kate Fritz, Fenwick & West

2:45 Diversity & Flexibility Connection: The Law Department Experience

Teri McClure, UPS
James Potter, Del Monte
Laura Stein, Clorox
Moderator: Manar Morales, PAR

3:45 Break

4:00 How Law Firms Compensate Women Lawyers

Lisa Horowitz, National Association of Women Lawyers
Christine A. Edwards, Winston & Strawn
Cynthia Thomas Calvert, PAR

4:50 Closing Remarks

Joan C. Williams, PAR

The cost is only $199 for the full-day conference, lunch, and materials. Seating is limited (last year's conference filled quickly). PAR members, who get two free admissions to the event, will have priority and then admission will be first-come, first-served based on registration date. If you agree that this is a can't-miss event, register asap here.

Article about part-time v. layoffs now available online

2009-01-10T12:40:00.002-05:00

If you want to read the NLJ article that started this topic, it is now available online without a subscription: Layoff Alternative: Reducing Associate Hours.

Valid objection to the reduced hours in lieu of layoffs proposal?

2009-01-08T22:05:00.002-05:00

We said we would discuss a possibly valid objection to PAR's suggestion that law firms consider reducing associates' hours in lieu of layoffs, so in the interest of robust debate, here goes.

The slowed economy is giving law firms a reason to make cuts in the associate ranks that they should have already made, regardless of their financial position. For whatever reason -- the need for warm bodies to do work or aversion to terminations -- firms have continued the employment of associates whom they knew did not have a future with the them. To the extent cuts should have happened anyway, we agree that reducing hours is not a good alternative to layoffs.

Now that we've looked at the pros and cons, we'd like to hear back from you. Is your firm using reduced hours as an alternative to layoffs? If you're in law firm management, is it something you're considering? If you're an associate, would you be willing to reduce your hours and compensation in exchange for continued employment? You can comment here on the blog, or comment privately through our website.

Looking more closely at the reduced hours v. layoffs proposal

2009-01-07T23:12:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, we acknowledged that PAR's suggestion that law firms reduce the hours of their associates in lieu of lay offs has its imperfections. We're going to disclose those, but first we would like to look at the objections raised by others thus far.

First, in the article in the National Law Journal about PAR's proposal (Cost-saving option for firms: reduced hours, by Karen Sloan, Jan. 05, 2009; subscription required), the chair of Dickstein Shapiro, Mike Nannes, was reported to have said that having associates work fewer hours doesn't provide the same level of savings as layoffs. The example given in the article is that it costs a firm less to have three associates billing 2000 hours each than to have four associates billing 1500 hours each because the firm must pay for office space and benefits for the additional reduced hours associate.

While we don't want to disagree with Mike, we want to take a minute to look behind the example. The rent cost doesn't strike us as being a compelling argument because the law firm is likely going to have to continue to pay for that office under its lease whether the office is occupied or not, at least in the near term. The benefits issue is harder to argue with; while some firms pro-rate benefits or have part-time lawyers pay a portion of their benefits, the trend at large law firms is to pay full benefits to part-time lawyers. But the fact that the firm would have to pay for the benefits package of the fourth retained associate is not the end of the matter; we need to take the next step and compare the cost of that benefits package and the costs associate with laying off the associate and later hiring and training a replacement when the economy improves. Given that it costs firms $200,000 - $500,000 to replace a mid-level associate, the firm is likely better off just paying the fourth associate's benefits.

The second objection was also raised in the article. Douglas Richardson, a consultant with Altman Weil, posits that clients may feel they are wasting their money if a large number of part-time associates rotate in and out of their matters. The clients would be concerned, he said, about whether they were paying to bring more associates up to speed because of the reduced hours structure.

This objection also has an answer. Many clients limit the number of lawyers they let bill on their matters, so having a large number of associates working on one matter is an unlikely staffing scenario. More to the point, layoffs are more likely to increase the number of lawyers working on matter -- if the associate who is working on a matter is laid off, he or she will have to be replaced. And if there is another round of layoffs... One of the reasons PAR has proposed reduced hours in lieu of layoffs is to maintain stability in client service by retaining the associates who are performing the work.

Richardson's second objection is dead on. He says that it would be hard to convince associates to reduce their hours because of the perception that part-time schedules are career killers. PAR has spent years researching the stigma associated with part-time schedules and its solutions. It is an uphill battle, and while we see progress, stigma is still a very real issue at most firms. Stigma can be reduced by the way the firm implements the reduced hours program, and by implementation of the best practices PAR has detailed in its reports and its book Solving the Part-Time Puzzle (NALP 2004). We will outline some of these steps in a later post as a handy reference for firms that are considering adopting PAR's proposal.

There is another objection that has not yet been raised that we think has some validity. We'll discuss that tomorrow.

More on reduced hours as an alternative to layoffs

2009-01-06T21:28:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, we summarized an article in the National Law Journal that examined PAR's recommendation that law firms consider having associates work part-time as an alternative to laying them off. (Cost-saving option for firms: reduced hours, by Karen Sloan, Jan. 05, 2009; subscription required.)

Essentially, PAR's idea is this: if a law firm or practice group is experiencing a shortage of billable work, it can project the number of attorney hours it expects to need and encourage associates to reduce their hours, with a commensurate reduction in compensation, to a level that matches the projected need. For example, a practice group may decide that for the next six months, it expects to have about 4300 billable hours of work. If the practice group has six associates, it may conclude that it needs to lay off two associates and keep four associates who will bill about 45 hours per week. The alternative would be for all six associates to remain with the firm and bill 30 hours per week and receive two-thirds of their salaries.

Why is the reduced hours alternative any better than layoffs? First, it allows the firm to keep associates it has worked to hire and train, and when the economy improves (we're optimists), these associates can ramp up their hours quickly and handle the additional work. If the firm lays off associates, the firm will have a lag time before it can handle a significant amount of work as it hires new associates and gets them up to speed. The firm will also have to bear the costs associated with the layoffs and the costs associated with hiring new associates and training them.

Second, keeping as many associates as possible will maintain good client service. Clients tell PAR that they don't like having the associates on their cases repeatedly replaced; clients not only pay to get the new associates up to speed, but they invest time and effort in developing personal relationships with them and gain efficiencies as the associates become familiar with their business. Keeping the associates who have relationships with clients is a big plus for all involved.

Finally, keeping the associates improves intangibles such as productivity and reputation. The retained associates feel more secure in their jobs, feel more loyalty toward their firm, and can focus on being productive rather than worrying about when the ax will fall. The firm gains a reputation for being humane and creative, which helps in future recruiting.

Is the reduced hours alternative a perfect solution? Of course not. Tomorrow, we will look at some of the common objections and assess their validity.

PAR Announces the Diversity and Flexibility Connection

2009-01-06T13:19:00.002-05:00

We've launched a new initiative here at PAR: the Diversity and Flexibility Connection. The Connection will bring together the best research of the diversity and flexibility fields, with the aim of creating real progress on both fronts.

One of the most significant aspects of the Connection is that it will also bring together prominent general counsels and managing partners for frank and in depth face-to-face discussions about how law firms and law departments can work together to support each other to make the legal profession more inclusive for women and minority lawyers.

Here's our press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

General Counsels and Managing Partners to Meet
for Diversity and Flexibility Initiative

SAN FRANCISCO, January 6, 2009: Today, the Project for Attorney Retention (PAR) launched the Diversity and Flexibility Connection with key general counsels and law firm managing partners. "There is a fundamental connection that has not been made at our nation's law firms that PAR is now in a strategic position to explore, and that is the connection between work/life strategies and diversity objectives," said Joan Williams, co-director of PAR. "We are very excited and greatly appreciative to have twelve distinguished general counsels participating in the Connection. Their involvement is a testament to the benefits both law firms and clients can gain from this broadened approach."

Although research shows that diversity programs need to include a work/life component in order to be successful, until now, diversity and work/life programs have largely been treated separately. "PAR is connecting carefully selected law firm managing partners and general counsels who are in positions to create real change," noted Williams. "This high level group will have frank, moderated discussions about how in-house and outside counsel can work together in an approach that incorporates the most effective tactics from both diversity and flexibility efforts."

PAR has selected, based on their leadership and commitment to diversity, the following general counsels to participate in the Connection:

Dennis J. Broderick, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Macy's Inc.

Catherine A. Lamboley, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary (retired), Shell Oil Company

Thomas A. Mars, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Michele Coleman Mayes, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Allstate Insurance Company

Teri Plummer McClure, Senior Vice President of Legal Compliance and Public Affairs, General Counsel & Secretary, United Parcel Service

Roderick A. Palmore, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, General Mills Inc.

James Potter, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Del Monte Foods Company

Thomas L. Sager, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, DuPont Company

Douglas G. Scrivner, General Counsel, Secretary & Compliance Officer, Accenture

Laura Stein, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, The Clorox Company

Leslie M. Turner, General Counsel CCNA, The Coca-Cola Company

Danette Wineberg, Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, The Timberland Company

The general counsels will invite twelve managing partners from firms that have a demonstrated commitment to diversity and work/life issues to participate in meetings. Topics to be discussed at the meetings include shared objectives for diversity, the role work/life issues play in diversity, major issues that affect women's advancement, and how corporate counsel and law firms can best work together to achieve inclusion through flexible scheduling. After initial discussions, the Connection will produce best practices and action steps for law departments and law firms. PAR will also assist with the establishment of metrics to measure the progress that results from the initiative.

PAR's Connection will complement the work of other influential groups and initiatives that are working to increase diversity and flexibility in law firms and to strengthen law firm/client relationships, such as A Call to Action, the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession, the Association of Corporate Counsel's Value Challenge, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and the National Association of Women Lawyers. In consultation with these groups and building on their work, the Connection will bring together diversity and flexibility research and best practices that until now have been viewed as distinct. In keeping with PAR's hallmark, the Connection also will develop practical action steps and solutions for law firms and their clients that will achieve inclusion for all lawyers. PAR will release a report of the Connection's work and recommendations in the fall of 2009.

PAR, a nonprofit organization that studies the advancement of women lawyers and work/life issues for all lawyers, is headquartered at UC Hastings College of the Law. Its co-directors are Joan C. Williams, distinguished professor of law at Hastings, and Cynthia Thomas Calvert, a former law firm litigation partner. PAR is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and other grantors, and by its law department and law firm members. For more information, visit PAR's website at www.pardc.org.

# # #

Watch PAR's website for updates.

Reduced Hours as an alternative to Layoffs?

2009-01-05T17:18:00.002-05:00

In today's National Law Journal, Karen Sloan explores an idea advanced by PAR: law firms should consider offering nonstigmatized reduced hours schedules to associates as an alternative to layoffs. (Cost-saving option for firms: reduced hours, by Karen Sloan, Jan. 05, 2009; subscription required.) Here's a brief summary for those of you who don't subscribe:

PAR and several law firm consultants are recommending that law firms look seriously at implementing reduced hours programs to manage their workforce and protect their reputations during the down economy. Many firms have laid off attorneys in recent months due to a lack of work. Linda Bray Chanow, PAR's Director of Research, said that associates would work fewer hours and receive proportionally reduced compensation, which would allow firms to lower their costs without losing their associates. The proposal is a business initiative, according to PAR Co-Director Cynthia Thomas Calvert. (Okay, the article really said that Calvert was the assistant director at PAR. But we're taking the liberty here of setting the record straight while we're summarizing.)

The article quotes Linda Headley, shareholder at Littler Mendelson, as saying that although her firm has not had to consider layoffs, if it were facing the issue, it would look at all of its options to preserve its talent. She noted that it is hard to get talented lawyers, and worth working to keep them. Michael Nannes, chairman of Dickstein Shapiro, is reported to have said that although firms use flex-time programs to accommodate changes in lawyers' lives, he doesn't think many firms will reduce hours to cut costs because reduced hours do not result in the same savings as layoffs. An example given is the a firm has to continue to provide office space to attorneys working reduced hours. Nannes also noted, however, that clients want continuity in their outside lawyers, and the reduced hours alternative would maintain client relationships.

Chanow, the article continues, notes that the reduced hours alternative gives firms the ability to handle increases in workloads by recalling some associates to full-time. She also notes that the alternative will maintain diversity among firms' associates, because the young associates who are most likely to be laid off are also most likely to be the firms' most diverse lawyers. Charles Santangelo of Hildebrandt International adds that firms that use reduced hours in lieu of layoffs will earn their associate's loyalty and make future recruiting easier. Douglas Richardson of Altman Weil questions whether clients may feel they are not getting value if a number of associates work on their matters.

Two final issues are raised in the article. The first is stigma. Calvert notes that the perception that reduced hours schedules are career-enders needs to be addressed by firms in order for the layoff alternative to be successful. The second is whether the reduced scheduling should be voluntary or mandatory. While PAR recommends voluntary programs, Richardson recommends that the programs be mandatory to avoid the reluctance of associates to reduce their hours. He suggests that firms spell out the terms under which reduced hours schedules could return to full-time in the future.

Sloan has done a nice job of laying out both sides of the issue, and we hope that frank conversations will result in law firms that are facing the need to cut costs due to declining workloads. Tomorrow, we will explore the topic a bit more in this space. In the meantime, if your firm is considering reduced hours in lieu of layoffs, please drop us a line and let us know.

Number of Men Working Part-Time Is Rising

2008-09-30T08:02:00.003-04:00

Denise Howell writes today for the American Lawyer that lawyer dads who work part-time are rare. (Part-Time Lawyer Dads Are Still a Rare Bird) She notes that men want work/life balance, but that men are not willing to sacrifice advancement for that balance. And she calls out -- very appropriately -- several firms that clearly make part-time a women-only option by structuring part-time programs as retention tools for women.

But the news may not be quite so bleak for men. PAR has been tallying the number of men working part-time at law firms for the past seven years, and there has been a definite increase. PAR's website feature, The Scoop, shows a number of firms that have part-time men. At some firms, nearly half of the part-timers are male -- perhaps not all are dads, and perhaps some are working part-time as they near retirement, but their numbers both show and contribute to a change in law firm culture. Here are some firms that are doing well in terms of the number of part-time males: Alston Bird, Arent Fox, Baker and Daniels, Beveridge & Diamond, Bingham, Crowell, DLA Piper, Farella, Fenwick, Finnegan, Fulbright, Haynes and Boone, Holland and Knight, Kilpatrick Stockton, Morrison and Foerster, Pillsbury Winthrop, Quinn Emanuel, Schiff Hardin, Sonnenschein, Squire Sanders, Wiley Rein, and Womble.

Further evidence: When PAR did its first study of part-time lawyers in 2000, we had a hard time finding men to interview. Now we are in the midst of a study of part-time partners, and the part-time dad partners are lining up to be interviewed.

Why the big emphasis on the number of male part-time lawyers? Two reasons: first, PAR has identified the number of males working part-time as a key indicator of the health of a firm's part-time program. If males at your firm are afraid to reduce their hours, then your firm's part-time program is too stigmatized to be an effective recruiting and retention tool for any lawyers. Second, it is very important for males to be able to have work/life balance, as PAR has been advising for years through its principle of "universal application" for part-time programs. It is important for their mental health, for their families' lives, and for eventual gender equality.

PAR Begins Part-Time Partner Study

2008-09-02T18:00:00.003-04:00

In response to many inquiries from part-time partners and from law firms about the best way to structure part-time partnerships in law firms, the Project for Attorney Retention is embarking on a new study designed to identify best practices that law firms can use to develop effective policies and practices for part-time partners. We are collecting information on all aspects of part-time partners' experiences, as well as compensation, business generation expectations, and firm services expectations. In addition to interviewing part-time partners, we will be interviewing managing partners and working with law firm consultants. Our study will result in a report that will not only provide an overview of the current state of part-time partnerships, but will also provide best practices for law firms.

The study will include a special focus on part-time partners in Denver, thanks to the participation and support of the Colorado Women's Bar Association Foundation.

If you are a part-time partner in a law firm and would like to participate in the study, please send an email to LindaChanow at pardc dot org.

We anticipate providing preliminary results to PAR's sustaining members in early spring 2009, and releasing a full report to the public at PAR's second annual conference in May 2009.

Law Students are Thinking About Work/Life Balance

2008-08-22T11:02:00.002-04:00

I had the honor of attending the first year orientation at my former law school this week. The students of the Class of 2011 are an extremely bright, energetic, and enthusiastic group. They were eager to talk with the alumni about our law school experiences and the practice of law. This was not a shy group and I very much enjoyed the time that I spent with them. In fact, I left the orientation reinvigorated about my own career in the law.

I was surprised by very few of the questions that I was asked. But, I was taken aback by one question that was asked by some of the female first years. Can a lawyer be successful and still have a family? My answer was absolutely! It takes flexibility and open communication on the part of the attorney and the employer. I also mentioned the work that PAR has and continues to do with law firms around the issue of reduced hours. They were encouraged to hear that law firms have come a long way since I graduated from law school thirteen years ago. Lawyers who want to be involved parents while continuing to practice law at its highest level and requests for reduced hours schedules are no longer met with surprise by firm management.

I was also a bit surprised that none of the male first years asked me about work/life balance, given the spate of research showing that young men want to be more involved with their family lives than their fathers were. To all of the young men who didn’t ask but wanted to: “Yes, you can have lives outside the office, too, and PAR strongly supports your efforts to do so.”

Fair Evaluations as a Business Strategy

2008-08-13T13:02:00.003-04:00

We're all familiar with the lawyer performance evaluation process -- that nerve-wracking annual rite that partners don't have time to do and that can make or break an associate's career.

What we may not be familiar with is how performance evaluations -- which could be a strategic tool to improve the performance and profitability of lawyers and law firms -- often are based on hidden biases that disadvantage women and minority lawyers. A book released last week not only explains how bias is manifested in annual reviews, but gives step-by-step instructions for eliminating bias and turning a law firm's evaluation process into a mechanism for developing excellence.

Fair Measure: Toward Effective Attorney Evaluations, Second Edition (ABA Commission on Women in the Profession, August 2008), written by PAR's Joan Williams and Consuela Pinto, begins with a discussion of how providing bias-free evaluations fits within a law firm's business strategy. Among other things, the authors note that such evaluations improve firmwide performance and client satisfaction, while also making sure the firm is focused on keeping its "keepers."

Joan and Consuela then provide a thought-provoking discussion of ways in which bias shows up in evaluations. One common pattern involves attributing men's mistakes to external factors and women's mistakes to internal characteristics, with the result that men's mistakes tend not to be counted against them in decisions about retention and/or promotion. For example, if Paul and Paula have a secretary who made an error that resulted in a missed deadline, Paul's evaluation might read, "Paul had some difficulty this year with a missed deadline. It was ultimately found to be his secretary's fault, and it is unlikely it will happen again." Paula's evaluation, on the other hand, might go like this: "Paula missed an important deadline in one of our cases this year. I have some concerns about her organizational abilities and her ability to supervise her secretary. I'm not sure she is a good fit with our department."

Another common pattern involves promoting men based on their potential, and women based on their accomplishments. If Paul and Paula are up for partner and neither has developed much business, it would not be unusual for the partnership committee to go along with a partnership recommendation for Paul if he shows promise as a rainmaker but deny partnership to Paula because she did not yet have a book of business.

Following PAR's practice of not discussing problems unless solutions are also provided, Joan and Consuela spend the remainder of the manual describing how firms can create evaluation systems that correct for bias and providing practical tips for writing effective performance evaluations. They also include materials for law firms to use to educate their partners about how to conduct bias-free evaluations, including a CD of forms.

To help firms put the wisdom of Fair Measure into practice, PAR has developed a presentation that firms can use to brief their attorneys on effective, strategic, and bias-free evaluations. The presentation is customizable, and can be given either by PAR or by firms' professional development staff. Additionally, PAR has consultants who can help law firms implement improved evaluation procedures. To learn more about PAR's resources for law firms, please visit PAR's website, send us an email at info at pardc.org, or call us at 415-565-4640.

And be sure to get your copy of Fair Measure today!

PAR Conference in DC on May 15th

2008-04-21T10:14:00.002-04:00

The Project for Attorney Retention will host a conference next month designed to help law firms attract, retain, and advance women lawyers:

Positioning Law Firms for Long-Term Success:
New Strategies for Advancing Women Lawyers

May 15, 2008
Marvin Center, Third Floor Ballroom
George Washington University
800 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

Despite best intentions and a variety of women’s initiatives, legal employers are still having a difficult time retaining and promoting women lawyers. This conference will provide legal employers with innovative, proven strategies for advancing women lawyers and, ultimately, strengthening their organizations for the future.

Agenda:

9:00 Registration and coffee

9:30 Welcome

9:35 Keynote: Why Women’s Initiatives Fail and What To Do About It (Joan Williams)

10:00 Successful Women, Successful Firms: Eleven Practical Strategies for Recruiting, Retaining, and Advancing Women Lawyers (Cynthia Calvert, Linda Chanow, and Consuela Pinto)

11:00 Break

11:15 A View from the Road Ahead: Innovations from Accounting Firms for Law Firms to Adopt Now (Patti Yoder, Mid-Atlantic People Team Leader, Ernst & Young LLP; Lisa A. Madden, Partner, Corporate Group (former Managing Partner, Washington National Tax Office), KPMG)

12:15 Lunch: sandwich buffet

1:15 Building a Culture of Inclusiveness: A View from Inside a Firm (Ellen Ostrow, Founder and Principal, Lawyers Life Coach LLC; Karen Hansen, Esq., Chair, Diversity Committee, Beveridge and Diamond, P.C.)

1:45 Measuring for a Purpose: What Law Firms Can't Afford to Ignore (M.J. Tocci, President, Fulcrum Advisors)

2:15 Leaders for Today and Tomorrow: Advancing Women through Succession Planning (Ida Abbott, President, Ida Abbott Consulting LLC)

2:45 Break

3:00: Refining Law Firm Culture to Support Flexibility (Jeannine Rupp, Principal, Armonia LLC)

3:30 The Client’s Perspective on Women Lawyers in Law Firms (Hinton J. Lucas, Jr., Associate General Counsel and Chief Administrative Counsel, Dupont; Miguel R. Rivera, Sr., Associate General Counsel, Wal-Mart)

4:15 This is How We Do It: Law firm representatives discuss their successful strategies (Roundtable discussions)

4:50 Closing Remarks (Joan Williams)

Reception 5:00 – 6:00

Fee: $149

Online registration available on the PAR website.

Questions? Contact us at conference at pardc dot org.

PAR and Ms. JD Announce Essay Contest Winners

2008-04-01T12:22:00.002-04:00

PAR and Ms. JD held an essay contest, asking entrants to provide a response to lawyers who may view young lawyers today who want some time outside the office as lacking in ambition.

The winning essays can be read on Ms. JD's website.

Here's an excerpt from the press release about the winners:

New York, NY – Fifty-four passionate and well-written entries were received by work/life balance advocates Ms. JD and the Project for Attorney Retention (PAR) in the first-ever essay contest co-sponsored by the two groups. The assigned topic was one that has received much press as of late: bridging the seemingly expansive divide between Baby Boomer partners and Gen-Y/Millennial young lawyers. It asked entrants essentially to explain why Millennials, who place a premium on work/life balance are not merely slackers. In short, it asked Gen-Y to explain persuasively their rationale for work/life balance—a balance that may very well have been sacrificed by their senior colleagues.

PAR’s team of work-life balance experts judged the entries based on their creativity, originality, and viability, and Co-Directors Cynthia Thomas Calvert and Joan C. Williams selected and ranked the top three. First prize was awarded to Lori Johnson, who attends University of Mississippi. Ms. JD awarded her $1,000.

Regarding Ms. Johnson’s essay, Williams said, "We were impressed at the high level of interest among Millennials in reaching out to Baby Boomers to seek common ground in serving clients – and lawyers – better. The winning essay brings concrete life experience in the accounting profession to bear in offering some concrete solutions to the legal profession, based on the experience in another personal service profession."

The second place essay was written jointly by Davida Brook and Andrew Bruck of Stanford Law School. Third place was awarded to Sabrina Ursaner of New York University School of Law. Jodi Rosenberg, who is a mother of three and of counsel at Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP in New Jersey, earned an Honorable Mention. The winning essays are posted on the Ms. JD website.

Natalie Hiott-Levine, Assistant Director of PAR, said the two organizations hope to make the essay contest an annual event. "Today’s young lawyers are thinking about and experiencing work/life issues differently than the last generation. Essay contests such as this one give these experiences a voice and afford us meaningful insight into the evolution of the profession and its professionals,” she said.

Law Firms' New Partners Are Mostly Male

2008-03-14T11:58:00.004-04:00

PAR is issuing today its new report on the number of women in various law firms' new partner classes. For the first time, PAR has compiled statistics for the prior three years to provide a more complete picture of the progress -- or lack thereof -- of women lawyers in law firms. The bottom line? More women are being made partner, but many firms are still lagging way behind in the count. Here's an excerpt from the report. The full report and chart are available on PAR's website.

For some time now, we have known that the lack of women in leadership positions at law firms is not a pipeline issue. Women have been graduating from law schools at a rate of 40% or higher since 1985 and entering private practice at the same rate as their male counterparts – 70% – during that time. Over the past two years, we have seen an increasing number of firms looking for ways to retain their talented women lawyers and to advance them into leadership positions. In light of this increased focus, we set out to review this year’s partnership classes with a renewed optimism that firms might be walking the talk. We collected promotion statistics for a total of 77 law firms representing a variety of sizes and locations. We chose these firms based on inclusion in prior years’ surveys, firm size, reputation and availability of information. We also combined the new information with the data that we had collected in previous years so that, for the first time, we could see whether a particular firm has made strides or slipped over the past four years.

We found good news. At a dozen firms, 50% or more of the new partners were women: Dorsey & Whitney (10 of 14 new partners are female, for 71%), Ropes & Gray (7 of 10 new partners are female, for 70%), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (4 of 6 new partners are female, for 67%), Blackwell Sanders (8 of 12 new partners are female, for 67%), Cravath, Swaine & Moore (2 of 3 new partners are female, for 67%), Crowell & Moring (4 of 7 new partners are female, for 57%), DLA Piper (15 of 28 new partners are female, for 54%), Reed Smith (14 of 26 new partners are female, for 54%), Arnold & Porter (2 of 4 new partners are female, for 50%), Cadwalader (1 of 2 new partners is female, for 50%), Shearman & Sterling (3 of 6 new partners are female, for 50%), and Womble Carlyle (4 of 8 new partners are female, for 50%).

At many firms, between a third and a half of the partners promoted this year were women. Some notable firms: Baker Hostetler (8 of 17 new partners are female, for 47%), Bryan Cave (6 of 13 new partners are female, for 46%), Patton Boggs (4 of 9 new partners are female, for 44%), Venable (4 of 9 new partners are female, for 44%), Dewey & LeBoeuf (4 of 10 new partners are female, for 40%), McDermott Will & Emory (14 of 35 new partners are female, for 40%), Hogan & Hartson (7 of 18 new partners are female, for 39%), Kirkland & Ellis (21 of 56 new partners are female, for 38%), Cleary Gottlieb (3 of 8 new partners are female, for 36%), Morrison & Foerster (7 of 20 new partners are female, for 35%), Arent Fox (1 of 3 new partners is female, for 33%), Holland and Hart (2 of 6 new partners are female, for 33%), Holland & Knight (6 of 18 new partners are female, for 33%), Stroock & Stroock & Lavan (2 of 6 new partners are female, for 33%), and Thelen, Reid (5 of 15 new partners are female, for 33%).

However, other firms are seriously lagging behind. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein did not make a single female partner (0 of 8 new partners were female). For others, only one or two women lawyers were awarded the brass ring: Orrick (1 of 13 new partners is female, for 8%), Proskauer Rose (1 of 11 new partners is female, for 9%), Nixon Peabody (1 of 11 new partners is female, for 9%), Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (1 of 11 new partners is female, for 9%), Baker & Daniels (1 of 9 new partners is female, for 11%), Vinson & Elkins (1 of 9 new partners is female, for 11%), Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge (1 of 9 new partners is female), Akin Gump (2 of 15 new partners are female, for 13%), Milbank (1 of 8 new partners is female, for 13%), White & Case (1 of 7 new partners is female, for 14%), and Gibson Dunn (2 of 13 new partners are female, for 15%).

Some of the most interesting information can be found by examining the trends for individual law firms. For instance, in all but one of the past four partnership classes at Crowell & Moring women have been 50% or more of the firm’s new partners. Likewise, women have been 40% or more of the new partners in the past three partnership classes at Cadwalader. DLA Piper has had three years of steady but moderate progress followed this year by a substantial increase to 54%. In two of the three previous partnership classes at Ropes & Gray, women have been more than a third of the new partners and the firm this year was one of the path-breakers with 70% of its new partners being women. In contrast, at Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, the percentage of women promoted to partner has steadily decreased in each of the last three years (30% in 2006, 20% in 2007, and 11% in 2008). And at some firms such as Akin Gump, Dechert, Milbank, Pillsbury, Strook & Strook, Vinson & Elkins and White & Case, women have been largely absent from most of the past four partnership classes.

Click here for the full report.

Up Next: PAR's almost annual round up of new partners

2008-01-24T11:12:00.000-05:00

We're working away on our annual look at the new partners at large law firms: how many are women? how many worked a reduced hours schedule?

We were unable to publish our round up last year, so we're including last year's numbers as well, where we have them.

If you would like to make our job easier and send us the statistics for your firm, that would be great. We need to know the total number of partners made in the U.S. offices, the total number who were women, and the total number who worked reduced schedules prior to being made partner.

Usage of Part-Time Programs Growing -- Slowly

2007-12-11T22:51:00.000-05:00

NALP has released its 2007 part-time usage statistics. In a 12/5/07 press release, NALP reports that 5.4% of attorneys at its member firms work part-time. While this percentage remains low relative to other professional occupations (the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that for the same time period, 14% of professionals worked part-time), it has steadily climbed in recent years. In 1999, NALP reported that only 2.9% of attorneys worked part-time, and by 2003, the figure was 4.1%.

Encouragingly, the percentage of part-time partners is also growing, from 1.6% in 1999 to 3% in 2007. NALP found that the largest concentration of part-time attorneys can be found among the of counsel and staff attorney ranks, where 19% of attorneys work part-time.

Women, of course, continue to work part-time more frequently than men (75% of part-time attorneys are women, according to NALP).

Law Firm Rankings Released Today

2007-10-10T22:13:00.000-04:00

Want to know which law firms have the highest percentage of women partners, the most pro bono participation, or the highest number of Hispanic attorneys? A new report issued today will tell you all that and more.

Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession, a group of law students from across the country "dedicated to helping law firms and lawyers recommit to a legal profession devoted to effective and efficient client service, to lawyers as people, and to the roots of our profession in service," tabulated information from NALP about the largest law firms in six markets. They ranked and graded the law firms in various individual categories (percentage of partners and associates who are women, black, Hispanic, Asian, openly LGBT, amount of pro bono participation) and also prepared an overall report card. The end result is a very useful tool that should help law students and laterals find law firms that fit their needs.

Cynthia Calvert of PAR spoke at the group's press conference today. She emphasized that the rankings will also benefit law firms by highlighting the importance of diversity, allowing the firms to see how they are doing vis a vis other firms, and providing an incentive to improve diversity by affecting the supply of applicants.

The report follows on the heels of the Yale Law Women's top ten list of family-friendly firms. The list, beginning with no. 1 is: Quarles & Brady; Proskauer Rose; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer; Jenner & Block; Mayer Brown; Covington & Burling; Arnold & Porter; DLA Piper; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC; and Faegre & Benson. The list was created using responses to NALP's Workplace Questionnaire, and considered such factors as maternity leave, availability of child care, and percentage of attorneys working part-time.

Law students and laterals seeking employment in law firms should also check out The Scoop, PAR's online information about what it is really like to work part-time at various law firms, and PAR's law student resource page.