Lawyer passed over for promotion because of flexible working

[RosieIrene]

I have been at my law firm for almost 9 years during which time i had two dd and took a total of 15 months off. When returned from having dd2 was granted request to work one day a week at home. Had a stellar review 4 weeks ago but was told because of political situation in the firm, there were limited advancement opportunities. Decided, after working 5 days a week since dd born 4 years ago that I might as well finally put in application to work 4 days a week. I just now found out that male associate with less experience than me has just been offered the position I was told 4 weeks ago is not available because of "politics". Grapevine suggests firm thinks I lack commitment because I have kids. Any suggestions about how to approach this?

Xenia, just to clarify, I wasn't saying that most women lawyer are discriminated against, my comment was limited to the situations I know: mine, that of my friends and of course the particular law firms I/they have been working for. Perhaps other law firms are different.

In the firm I mentioned before, there were only two female partners with children. One of which was on her way to be sidelined/pushed out. The other one was bringing much more business, but still people were questioning her "abilities". I have never heard any such comments made in respect of any male partners. But as I said, it was probably the firm.

Kissing arse is so so important for career advancement in law. There comes a stage when we are all good lawyers and can deal with pretty much any situation. The lawyers who will make partner are those (men and women) who can network effectively , get on with everyone (arse kissing I guess) and have the most credible business plans. They also need to be available 24/7.

My dh made partner in my old (huge) firm at 30. He is a fabulous lawyer but also a brilliant networker, businessman and extremely good at kissing the arses of those truly awful American clients who frequently drove me to distraction. I no longer work there because I didn't like being known only as Mr Lock's wife rather than the excellent senior associate I was. He thrives there and loves the whole partner in big city firm thing.

It's not just about being a good lawyer - it's about the whole package and arse kissing is part of that. IMHO.

You call it arse-kissing

I call it engaging constructively with the political process

For the record, I have never seen any case of discrimination. This does not mean that they do not exist for exist they must, but just that they are rare. It would be uncommercial to discriminate frankly, so few people actually do it.

I have reached the conclusion that you either have the Y factor (X is so unfashionable don't you think) or you haven't, wrt making partner.

If you've got it, then within reason, no amount of career breaks, flexible working etc will hamper your success in the longer term. It may though, take longer to make it through, as one might expect.

If only it were simple to define what the Y factor is

i think the issue that aspiring partners often have, is that they really can't see any difference between their skills and the skills of the partner group and can't see why they aren't being made up too. However, when you are a partner looking out, it is often quite obvious who will make it and who won't.

Often there are no differences in skills as such, but there is certainly a different demeanor between those that have the Y factor and those that don't. If I had to try and articulate it, it feels like something around self-belief, a kind of assuredness but never arrogance. I want a fellow partner to be a safe pair of hands but at the same time be prepared to take a bit of a risk, push the creative thinking out a bit more, but to know exactly where the line is, to know what is risking the success of the partnership. I want them to have personality and to pass Xenia's airport lounge test, but not be overbearing or buffoons

I honestly think though, that if the partnership are not falling over you to keep you at least near the track, if not on it, then it will likely not happen for you at your current firm.

It's clearly not going to happen though is it?

It might be an elusive Xfactor, or Yfactor. I think it is a capability for strategic thinking. Also self-awareness and acknowledgement of development needs

A lot of this is a journey towards self-realisation

Truly working in the same firm as your OH is a mistake, I think

Glad that other irons are in the fire

No I didn't think it was a partner promotion. In fact I was sure it wasn't. But I was trying to put it all into a wider perspective

Ah, maybe not partner then, although it was this post that made me think it might be:

By RosieIrene on Tue 19-Feb-08 23:26:39
Quattro - limited advancement opportunities were said to apply to everyone on basis of budget restrictions. Big firm. Mentor partner leaving. No replacement (I had expected to step into her shoes in some capacity).

SB, that was one of the reasons I thought it wasn't - the caveat "in some capacity" ...

I too have found this thread thought provoking. Mrs Wobble's points on micromanaging were very astute - the extent to which that is necessary depends upon the age and seniority of your team, I think

But the best points were about children - whether having children makes you a better partner.

I think it does - because it helps you to help your team develop more self-reliance

Twice I have turned down a place on a law degree course.

Once, at the University of Texas, Austin, when I was young for my age and very foolish.

The second, at Strathclyde. That time I regretted. Even nearly four years later.

Now, reading this thread, I am not so sure that regret is misplaced. Although, I must write, at such point in my life, factors such as maternity leave and taking time off to marry would not come into play in my professional life.

But my age would.

People would view my age, by the time I finished, here in the UK at least, as a negative.

So I see, sometimes, too bad. Maybe you should stick it at Strathclyde for 4 years and do your year conversion and sit your bar there, expat. You'd only be 44. You have at least 25 years of full working life, expat, and older kids.

You'd get snapped up, people don't want to worry about you not coming back after mat leave or asking for flexible work hours or sueing them.

The UK has a long way to go in the age discrimination thing, IMO.

Appenticeships, they have such a low age-limit.

But there, no one thinks anything of a person in their 30s or 40s getting a medical or law degree.

Why not?

If you want people to work till they're 68 or 70, you have to set it up for them to do so.

People will need to work longer here. Live longer = work longer.

This society has to get past its ageism for that to be possible.

They have to see the value of the over 40, the over 50, the over 60.

The over 50 or 60 needs to see his/her own value, not just throw up his/her hands and say it's done for.

expat, if you're good the age doesn't matter and if it doesn't work work for yourself and garner business that way. There are lots of ways to skin a cat. And we all know older women who have managed it although it is definitely harder. Also I'm not sure people would necessarily have to know your age these days. There are very interesting age issues though - to what extent do people lose their abilities as they age - my father who worked full time to 77 or 78 was going to work until he died but got dementia. I do know a lot of people in their 50s and 60s (mostly men) and some are as mentally alert as anyone 10 years younger but some are not. So in a sense an employer takes a bit of a risk if someone will get to their peak capacity in terms of experience when they hit their 60s and beyond. And then let's factor in menopause ....ugh and its effect on some but not all women - it can make them less amenable and therefore in some sense better and perhaps more able to work longer hours and harder (I just read the Female Brain book which is very good on that topic and I'm 46 so presumably at some stage menopause will hit.... will I be better or will I be worse at work.. you're free of children and if you love the work not to constrained but if you can't think straight..... I don't know we'll have to see and I've got off the point.

The thread is very good - good advice from other people above.

The only really relevant point is her husband is a partner at the firm so anyone with any sense would leave wanting advancement (and I've seen it the other way round too - more junior men leaving when their wife was a partner). Of course if you want 4 children and want to get the babies done whilst having job stability then I suppose staying put might be sensible until the last baby arrives.

Expat - It's never too late and fwiw I did the law degree part-time over 5 years at Napier and I loved it. There were many older women on that course (well, older than me. I am 32) and a few are now doing the Diploma.

My DP has taken on trainees who have been in their forties as he thinks that life experience and maturity are positives. He also believes that what you learn on your degree is only a tenth of what you need to succeed as a good lawyer. Excellent people skills go a long way.

If it is something that you would like to do, dont let age put you off!! I did my degree in the knowledge that my children will one day be old enough to forge their own careers, leave home etc....this is now my time to build a career for myself. I am only starting out but am so looking forward to it and imo I think you would make an excellent lawyer.

MrsWobble, marvellous "essay"! (I did in fact - as I was asking, and claiming to be putting an idle question - think to myself: "[Parent/Partner ...]. Discuss.")

So it was thoroughly gratifying, as well as obviously enlightening, to get such a response.

I have another side of perspective on this, as my dh (whose work is, broadly, in professional services strategy - especially yer human capital) has done some projects on partnership promotion criteria, especially in enormous places where personal familiarity can't apply. He has decided views, which boil down to "being holistic". Which is I think much what everyone else is saying. (He also agreed with the parent-partner analysis, although as he became lyrical about efficient delegation and teamwork I felt a mite thortful, as Molesworth's mater would say.)

(I have told him he has to read this thread, and that he is allowed to post if he wants. But he may not, as he finds my decision not to aim for partnership hugely frustrating.)

Ok this is a thread hijack, but a very relevant one. I have set up a thread here about the research I am doing on flexible working at senior levels, and people's experience and/or perceptions about flexible working, and whether people believe you can be a flexi worker AND a partner or director (we will of course gloss over all those part time chairmen in the FTSE 100...). Loads of you here have made really valuable comments on exactly the area I am researching and it would by blurdy marvellous if some of you could spare me a bit of time in exploring this a bit more....

Ahem, as you were...

I honestly think that working at the firm where your dh is a partner is not a good idea. I didn't know dh when he was made up 15 years ago and only met him when he had been a partner for a while and I was a good, highly respected but relatively junior assisitant. Once we married I could feel a change in attitude towards me - it was alomst as though the other partners looked on me more benignly in a sort of patting me on the had kind of way (iyswim).

And arse kissing is arse kissing whatever you call it. It's not a bad thing. On the contrary, people who are good at it are generally better lawyers, better with their clients and can handle people well.

I got my DH to read this thread last night. He is a managing associate in litigation at a magic circle firm. He read this while saying 'oh for goodness sake' a lot, and made a couple of points.

Flexible working isn't the issue.
Your DH is definitely the issue, seems absolutely obvious, that's the politics being mentioned, and it isn't going to go away.
This isn't a partner promotion we're talking about is it? You've been there 9 years, joined with your DH, both been there the same length of time, he's a partner, you're looking for a senior associate promotion? The message has already been sent to you in my DH's opinion, just not received.
DH thinks you are in danger of becoming too self-absorbed and sound naive. Time to take positive action and explore other options rather than staying in this situation which isn't going to improve.

Bink - I very much agree with the "holistic" point that your DH is making. It ties in with what I was saying about partnership not being a reward for hard work - that is such a difficult concept to deliver properly, especially to people who have been working very hard. Improperly delivered, it smacks of changing the goalposts or the whole process being entirely subjective (which is far from the case: the whole process is hugely more transparent these days than when I was made a partner 10 years ago).

I spend a lot of time encouraging women assistant's to stick it out and go for seniority/partnership. The more senior you become, the easier it is.

I definitey agree about the age thing - we have a number of trainees in their thirties and forties. I know people love to say that you won't get a job at a major law firm unless you have been to X school and/or Y university but it really isn't the case.