Flex-time push

November 30, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Is being a part-time attorney a dirty little secret? Some large companies believe so, and are working to change this mindset.

According to an article in the National Law Journal, Del Monte Foods and several other companies are adding part-time and flexible schedules to the list of requirements for outside counsel. The goal is to increase the number of women and minorities working in top law firm positions.

Del Monte’s general counsel believes the reason there are so few women and minorities in partnership positions is because they traditionally are the ones who work part-time or need flexible scheduling.

The Project for Attorney Retention is heading up the initiative, Diversity and Flexibility Connection, and hopes firms can implement some of the recommendations from the meetings between top companies and law firms. One is for firms to foster alternative work arrangements, which would let clients know the firms support flexible work schedules and that an attorney who works part-time is just as good as one who is in the office all day.

Changing how law firms are structured is no small feat. Firms, especially the large ones, are usually structured in the same way and require similar output from their attorneys. In a world of billable hours, those who desire a part-time gig may be left out in the cold. The law firm may offer flexible scheduling, but some might not utilize it for fear they will be bumped off the partner track or viewed differently than their full-time co-workers.

Is it true that those who work part-time or have a flexible schedule are viewed differently by clients and other attorneys? Is a push from the outside going to be enough to get law firms to allow and promote more flexible schedules for attorneys who need them?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT