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?

flowerybb, i entirely agree with your dhs comments - its nice to know that we litigators think alike even though the closest i have ever come to working at a magic circle firm are a series of horrendous training contract interviews many moons ago...

ime (of working in small city firms historically, and having friends who did and still do) little good can ever come of working in the same law firm as your dp/dh, particularly if he gets made a partner, and once you start having children. You tend to get seen as a bit 'fluffy' and uncommitted, especially if you are working flexibly. I'm not saying its right but thats how it is.

if it was me i would look to move to another firm asap to get away from that situation - the alternative is to stick where you are, but i think then you would be accepting that you are unlikely to a significant promotion any time in the foreseeable future.

But don't move if you want to have a few more babies before then - get them all done at the same place.

Best piece of advice is from Xenia

Thanks. If you want babies 3 and 4 or even 5 then staying put is wise and they aren't likely to sack a partner's wife for taking 5 lots of maternity leave but a new employer might do so however unlawful that would be.