In a surprising new report from the American Surveyors of Big Law (ASBL), experimental alternate track policies do not seem to work as well as “just being lazy” for many associates. “Alternate Track”—also referred to as “Mommy Track” or a “Dead End” or sometimes just, “Not Fully Committed to the Practice of Law,” have been on the rise in law firms hoping to increase their profile in “work/life balance” surveys in magazines like Fortune and American Lawyer.
The way these policies usually work is an associate gets knocked up, has a baby, and her hours dramatically drop. The firm then appeals to her fear of losing her job by telling her that she needs to pick up the pace. When she breaks down in tears and confesses to using cocktails of No-Doz and diet pills just to make it through the day after yet another sleepless night tending to the needs of her tiny offspring, she is gently sent back to her office with a copy of the alternate track policy. It is verboten to outright suggest that the associate take a haircut on her salary, but threatening to fire her if she can’t bill 200 hours in a month is generally all it takes to nudge the associate into surrendering 30 percent or more of her salary in exchange for allowing her to cut her hours by 10 or 15 percent.
More and more firms are viewing these policies as being mandatory in order to appear “family friendly” to people who are foolish enough to believe that such values can be held by places as cutthroat as law firms.
“Doing well in these rankings is important in our campaign to trick young associates into believing that working for our firm would be substantially different from working for any other big law firm,” a recruiter at a large law firm explained to us.
Great, we said, but has it really worked?
“So far it has proven to be a fairly effective marketing tool for attracting female associates,” the recruiter offered. “But in the end, these women just go off, get pregnant, cost the firm a lot of money in paid maternity leave, and then quit. So I don’t really see the point.”
And, apparently, neither do the associates. As Amy Kimberly, a mom of three who billed no more than 1700 hours per year before making partner at High & Gungous puts it, “Slacking off works just as well, and you don’t have to take the disproportionate salary reduction. My peers that asked for alternate track billed 1700 and got paid a third less than I did.”
Indeed, ASBL reported that 88% of junior and mid-level associates who bill 10% or more below their firm’s target billable hours saw no reason to ask for alternate track since the firm gave them full pay anyway and a slap on the wrist at review time. As one anonymous associate bluntly put it, “The firm views alternate track as being for weaklings. You go on it, they won’t make you partner. Great. I don’t want to be partner. I already know I’ll be leaving around my fifth or sixth year. So why take the pay cut?”
But, as we reported yesterday, law firms are wising up and bearing down on slacker associates–even the pregnant ones. Kimberly may have been one of the lucky ones, because now firms are determined to show pregnant associates the true meaning of the term “equal pay for equal work.”
“Show me the hours,” as Davis Diggity, a senior partner at H&G put it, which in law firm speak means show me the money. “These girls want to be treated equal? Fine. Bill 60 hours a week like I did, and add another 20 in nonbillable crap like schmoozing. My wife and I had three kids before I made partner. Do you think I’d ever qualify for alternate track?”
Diggity has a point. Alternate track does seem to be tailor-made for women only. If everyone preferred to earn $100,000 for fifty hours a week rather than $150,000 for sixty or seventy hours, the entire law firm structure would cave in.
So what’s the answer?
“Women need to just get a clue: big law isn’t for mommies. No one is ever gonna admit it, though,” says Diggity.
What about mommies who don’t care if their children grow up neglected and mildly abused by daycare workers and nannies? Is big law for those women?
“Well, yeah. Of course. But where can we find that kind of talent, and how can we attract them to our firm?”
Diggity admits that the ideal employee is one who doesn’t have to unexpectedly race home at 2:00 in the afternoon if the daycare calls to say that her child is vomiting Chef Boyardee out his nose.
“It’s not that we aren’t a woman-friendly, or even a family-friendly firm,” Diggity explains. “We just don’t want people’s personal lives interfering with client services. We are trying to run a business here.”
And that’s what it boils down to, ladies. Nothing against your ambition or you personally, but warm, loving, thoughtful, attentive parents who want to be present in the lives of their children just don’t make very good lawyers.
07/31/2008 at 1:57 am Permalink
“…daycare calls to say that her child is vomiting Chef Boyardee out his nose. ”
Glad I wasn’t eating Chef Boyardee when I was reading this!!