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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT