City lawyers - chances of going back p/t? And can it work?

[MogTheForgetfulCat]

Hello, I'm a lawyer (2.5yrs PQE) at MC firm, in EPB (employment/pensions/benefits) dept. Just wondered if there are any of you out there who have managed to persuade similar employers to take you back p/t (3 days) after mat leave? I am due to have a meeting with the managing partner of my dept next week and am feeling v anxious about it.

I don't kid myself that I am in any way indispensable - I announced my first pg days after accepting an NQ position (oops) and left to go on mat leave with DS2 10 months after coming back from full 1 year's mat leave with DS1. My department has a couple of part-timers,but they are both seniors who had earned it more than me, plus they both do pensions, and the position in pensions is so desperate that they were pretty much able to dictate terms. Whereas I do employment, so plenty of people around wanting to do that. Although am prepared to branch out into pensions or (preferably) benefits if that would make them go for it...

Also a bit worried about how it will pan out if they do accept me back part-time. I'm more on the advisory than the transactional side, but clients are still pretty demanding, often wanting things turned around super-fast last minute etc. Also there are occasional emergencies, eg the odd injunction. Anyone done it and found it viable?

Apologies if this has been done before, am new and only just discovered this section!

I was at an MC firm doing EPB and there was always at least 1 associate working part time (doing employment). I have also worked flexibly from time to time, although am more senior which makes it easier to negotiate.

It's a pretty good idea to ask for a three month trial to see how it goes. It is harder for employers to turn down a trial without being unreasonable. You also need to give thought to how it could be implemented without making life harder for your colleagues, e.g. would working particular days be better than others for the department? The partners will appreciate it if you consider these things IMO.

You should be prepared for the fact that you might find yourself being given more boring matters, but then that is often the trade off for going part time.

Thanks for the reply. Hadn't thought of the trial, it's a great idea so will go for that if they are reluctant. Have been giving some thought to which days, and can be flexible on that.

Don't mind doing more boring stuff - seems like an OK pay-off to me.

Thanks again!

Have you thought about being a PSL? I did this after 4 years off (!!)and did 3 days a week - I have posted about this elsewhere - it didn't work out for me but it might suit you. What childcare have you got - I found it quite difficult to get a 3 day a week Nanny (obviously they want to do a 5 day week), but if you go for a Nursery there will be less flexibility if you do need to stay late on occaision. It's not easy and I have now decided to be a SAHM. Part time law just doesn't work in my view (cue loads of Mumsnet part time lawyers to prove me wrong!!)

I went back p/t, though I ended up putting DD1 in nursery from 5 months and with no immune system in place she got constantly ill, so both myself and DH had to take time off.

I ended up taking time off to look after her (for dependants) which is lawful and I was then dismissed 6 months after starting my new position from maternity leave.

I thought the legal profession would know how to treat employees, but I was wrong. Just be cautious that you may have to take extra time off int he first year, especially if your child is attending nursery, childminder etc.

I have just taken my firm to employment tribunal an won.

I think within our profession you can do p/t, I took work home and worked through lunch breaks, also coming in early and staying late where possible.

mog, I was turned down by my mc firm for flex working in the context of fee-earning. Not EPB though, and transactional work.

You need to be honest with yourself. If you don't think it can work for your current role (the client demands, fast turnaround, needing to be contactable), then you will in all probability find juggling a flex fee-earning role and managing a home stressful.

Always beware of doing a fulltime job in parttime hours (and pay).

Do you want to make partner?

I also did not mind doing boring stuff, and put that in my business case for a flex role. But the firm was not willing to hand boring stuff to me (even with a supervisory role) because that was for trainees and junior staff to cut their teeth on.

The demand for associates might be in pensions. So you might very well get a flex role there. But are the client and time pressures still the same?

I was thinking a bit more about this last night! Agree with Blueshoes - if you are ambitious to make partner then forget about part time work. You will lag behind your comtemporaries, and then when (if) you decide to go back full time you will have to show your commitment for a few more years before you will be considered. Also I think the days where you could be a senior assistance for years without being made up are gone - firms get rid of "dead wood" as they see it as senior assistants are expensive drains on the finances without being able to drum up new work.

Have you considered taking your employment skills out of the City and to a smaller provincial firm? If this means less commuting it will help with childcare issues and may be less full on (although the big provincial firms do market themselves as offering the same service as their City rivals so may not mean fewer hours)but with lower pay.

Are there in-house opportunities for you? This sort of job would almost definitely be more predictable in terms of your hours, and less pressure than a "eat what you kill" environment in a City firm.

Also consider the College of Law or other teaching possibilities which might be better when your children reach school age, and may offer maximum flexibility.

I guess what I am saying is you need to decide if you want your career to progress in the City - in which case part time is maybe not the best path to take, and you beed to be realistic about the commitment required - or do you want to take a sideways or backward step in which case explore the possibilities elsewhere.

Good Luck - I don''t envy you!!

Thank you so much for these messages - much food for thought!

Childcare we used when I returned after DS1 was a fab nanny - would ideally use a combination of p/t nanny (same one - she has another 3-day job and would then do 2 days for us) and nursery. But this would mean I have not much flexibility on days, if they need to be changed at short notice - although the nursery can be flexible up to a point.

But I have been discussing with a colleague (also on mat leave, who recognised me from my post - ) and have started to think that maybe the whole part-time thing is a bit of a red herring... I am worried it may be the worst of all worlds, with the children not knowing if they are coming or going and me feeling like I am not ever doing my job properly or being a good mum, especially if work leaks into the days off, which it would. PSL may be the answer in due course, as I have a background in teaching and research, but not sure it's viable at this stage - think I need a couple more years' PQE?

I don't have any ambitions to be partner, especially at the firm I am at now - I'd quite like to spend weekends with my family, not taking clients sailing or to the O2 . But would still like to have a viable career - it is becoming increasingly clear that the City is not the place for this to happen. Thanks again for all your input! I think I am going into my meeting tomorrow with a bit of a clearer head...

Probably repeating the stuff of a million previous threads, but in-house can be more flexible and less stressful IME, having worked for an MC firm (competition law) for 7 years before children, then 13 years in house (the last 4 with children). Certainly fewer trips to the O2 (well it was the Royal Opera House in those far off days), which is a blessing...
You still have plenty of days when you feel you aren't doing job or mothering properly though - not sure you can escape that entirely. Good luck with your meeting.

Hi Mog, I would try to explore the PSL thing with your city firm, in the context of a flex application. A big advantage with a city firm is the high associate salaries. So whilst you will take a discount for a non-fee-earning role, your high salary will still make it very much worth your while.

I don't think your pqe precludes you from being considered.

I also work in an mc firm, and many PSLs work a 3-4 day week, some even term time. I think it is compatible with the sort of family life you aspire to.

Also, if you are in an mc firm, you have lots of other roles you can move into that will lap up your lawyer skills eg within management, marketing and business development (big trend for lawyers to move into this area), HR, IT (business analysis, eBusiness). Check out the vacancies within the support departments.

If you want a pt role, the best way is to get your current firm to give it to you but in the context of a non-fee-earning role which gives you control over your time.

The difficulty with leaving your mc firm and finding pt work is that jobs that are advertised as pt pay peanuts (as if they were doing you a favour to hire you) and the jobs that can be done pt and pay well are usually offered to current ft employees who ask for flex working.

My personal experience is that once I told recruitment agencies that I wanted pt work, they were polite but rarely came back, whereas previously they were beating down my door.

2.5 PQE no bar to being a PSL - I was only 3 yrs PQE plus 4 years off when I got my PSL position!