Career advice wanted from city lawyer mums

[Gangle]

Long story but I am a senior in-house (7 years PQE) lawyer with a large ish company in the city. I joined 2.5 years ago as a mid level lawyer to support the General Counsel but the GC then left so for the last 2 years I have been heading up the department - I got a big pay increase but my official title didn't change. Since being on maternity leave my boss has realised how much work there and has agreed that we can recruit an extra person. I then suggested someone who has been assisting with my maternity cover who is excellent but considerably more qualified than me (12 years PQE). At the time I thought it was quite a long shot but turns out that this person is looking to move from their current firm and we're not too far apart on money. However, he has made it clear that he doesn't want to report to me but would want an equivalent role and my boss is ok with this. Whilst I was ok (ish) about him being paid more because he is more experienced (although we would be doing the same job so not even sure that's fair!) I am not happy that he will have the same title as me as this is effectively a demotion. However, it's also not fair to expect him to report to me as I am junior to him. On the other hand, I have been worrying about how on earth I am going to combine a demanding job with looking after DS, 7 months (today is first day back from maternity leave) and it would be nice to have the support of someone really experienced. It might even allow me to reduce to 4 days which I was possibly thinking of doing. Really confused about what I should do. Can anyone help?

You seem to have issues with pay; job title; reporting structure; being back at work from maternity leave. I think there is a thread running through the first 3 on that list - the back-to-work thing is something else entirely!

Most large law firms are starting to move away from pay solely by reference to PQE - and as people get more senior it just stops as a determining factor. I wouldn't pay any more to an assistant 12 PQE than I would to someone 7PQE, unless their performance was better. If I were you, this is the one thing I would get upset about.

I know one senior in-houser who reports to a solicitor many years her junior. Here in private practice I've done performance reviews on a technically excellent lawyer who was in practice when I was in nappies. I've been promoted ahead of people senior to me - I sound like I'm boasting, but there is a point where Buggins' turn stops, and (I would say this wouldn't I?) people with the qualities needed for promotion get promoted.

I think you need to move away from foccussing so much on PQE, both in terms of pay and reporting structure. Equally these are pretty tough battles to fight and from your mail it seems as if the issues may have been decided already.

I'm not sure I follow you on job title - why is it a demotion if you have the same role and the same job title as you did before? From your post it seems that a two person legal team is now just that, a two person legal team.

And good luck with the back to work...

Thanks Fridayschild. That helps clarify the issues. The reason it feels like a demotion is that I have basically been acting as head of legal for the last two years although that isn't my title. If this person joins in an equivalent role then he would also be head of legal which can't really work! The team is five strong rather than two. I was ok with him being paid more providing I retained a senior role but, on reflection and taking into account what you say, it hardly seems fair for him to be paid more when we are doing the same job, regardless of PQE. However, I worry I am doing myself out of a role as head of a department, especially as I suggested this person - we were really looking for someone 5/6 year PQE who would report to me. Or, as I said, maybe it's time to sit back a bit and focus on being a mum. Sorry, all a bit scattered and rambling - just feel really uncomfortable about it and trying to pinpoint why.

you can also point out that paying a woman less than a man for equal roles is prima facie sex discrimination.

doesn't matter if he has higher PQE if you have the same status and are doing the same job. You could drop that into conversation to get yourself a pay rise

thanks Princess - that did occur to me and as the company's legal advisor, surely I should point that out to them!! Just not sure how to handle it - I don't want to be difficult but also don't want to throw away a position for which I've worked really hard.

I think you go in and say - "OK, I accept that we will have an equal role, with equal status and the same job description. I'm sure you appreciate that we must be paid equal amounts for equal work - you don't want me to sue you for sex discrimination and that would be a jolly easy one to win ha ha ha - so you will either have to negotiate him down to my salary, or if you don't manage to do that, then I guess its my lucky day and you'll have to pay me what you probably should have been paying me for years."

That's how I would do it, anyway. Make it clear that there is no other option but equal pay, and how they manage to get there is up to them.

Don't know if this is workable, but could each have different areas of responsibility, so that (for example) you become head of corporate, and he is head of tax advice or employment law? That way no-one is reporting to anyone, you have your own areas so no possibility of him usurping your role.

Agree with others about the pay - should be about skills not length of pqe.

OK, on the plus side of all of this...

You will formally be titled Joint Head of Legal I presume? That is great. That is a title that cannot be taken away from yoiu once you get it and is a stepping stone on your CV. Being an 'Acting Head' for 16(?) months prior to maternity leave doesn't - I think - entitle you to the role permanently (we need flowery to rule on this one as I think that doing it for less than 2 years prior to OML wouldn't be enough for you to claim it as 'yours'). It would have been so much worse for you to have been acting head and then not been offered the head role (either single or joint).

Being joint head of legal means that stresses are shared and responsibility is shared and the door is wide open to request flexi working. There are huge plusses. The negative is that I think more than anything you have slightly had your nose put out of joint and there is a risk that this person will fly above you and take the glory that you might otherwise have claimed. Now that must really really hurt, especially as you will be a bit out of sorts anyway, trying to re-establish relationships, worrying about DS, etc. And to make it worse, your new colleague is a 'he' and therefore might be able to wow all your superiors with his commitment and drive and elan, whilst you shuffle in all dowdy after a night without sleep, and shuffle out the door at 5.30 to pick DS up form childcare. I've been there, got the T-shirt.

Logically, you need to be able to simply accept that this is the way it works, it gives you lots of upsides, and fewer downsides. And they had you running the dept because they valued you, and they will still value you once you get back into the swing of it.

You are on a sticky wicket in terms of doing enything other than accepting with a smile and having a sniff in the loos now and then if you need to. The thing is it isn't 'him' that's the problem - what is (I think) causing the problem is the realisation that you are no longer the same career/sacrificing person you were before DS, and you will be seen by your bosses as being different because now you have loads of other commitments. That's what really stings, and I think this chap is just the physical embodiment of the fears you have regarding the career (which pre-DS meant the world to you I guess).

The thing where you do have grounds to be miffed is with regards to salary differential, but you need to look at it from the company point of view - the world would go crazy if every time they hired someone with a higher salary they then adjusted everybody else's salary. But they will need to harmonise it in future and I am sure they are well aware of it and it will smooth out over a year or two. Now is definately not the time to play the discrim card - it will only upset the company, and they don't seem to have done anything that illogical or unreasonable, yet. If they don't bring the salaries in line in the next year or two then you have much much clearer evidence of something being afoot than you do now.

You might want to speak to other wrinkly old city mums about the whole dealing with career post kids as it is sooooo difficult to reconcile the whole big career/perfect mum thing. There are lots of us on here and we slurp back a glass or two of vino quite often, so yell if you want to meet up and chat.

you see I completely disagree squiffy. by accepting the smaller salary she would essentially be putting him in the senior position over her (otherwise it is discrimination.... round and round we go). I think it is a very important flag in the ground to mark that you are in EQUAL roles, to ensure that you have equal salaries. I think acceptance that he has a higher salary is (a) diminishing your role and (b) what women do ALL THE TIME and it drives me nuts. No bloke would accept it on the grounds that "they don't want to rock the boat". Gah!

I haven't had time to read all of this, but can I make a suggestion as a lawyer who knows and works with lawyers?

Whatever you decide to do, I would agree with Squiffy and suggest that your first approach is NOT to talk about this as sex discrimination. Saying something is sex discrimination is a red flag and, rightly or wrongly, a lot of employers' first instinct is to manage that person out with a package. That is not what you want.

Focus on the skills of the role and the fact that you will be doing the same job. Go in and talk about the fact that they were initially looking for someone more junior and, whilst you are ok about someone at the same level, you are not ok about that person being paid more than you. That's all business related. You would feel EXACTLY the same about this if they had hired a 12 year PQE woman in the role and wanted to pay her more. It's not really about gender, so I would suggest not making it about gender (of course, if you needed to claim that would be a different matter and I'm not saying you couldn't use it then).

I agree with Princess about not accepting something just because you don't want to rock the boat, but when it comes to the Joint Head of Legal point, I think the issue is: does the flexibility of having someone else to take some of the strain outweigh the detriment of not being the head. Either it does or it doesn't.

I am a head of legal and tbh, I echo another thread here and wouldn't get too hung up on job title - the two in a box can work ok if you have the right person (with lack of ego) and you work well together. You will have to learn to feel secure with it and should make sure roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated - if your boss rates you should be able to leverage it to be able to get a promotion or pay rise or some other advantage. (If he wants to keep you he may feel concerned about retention). I would try to be seen as being co-operative and objective rather than insecure - if I were your boss I would also be thinking about the good of the department/company not just your feelings - it might be good to have a more senior person there given the chellenges of the work load and your part time wishes.

On the positive, you may also benefit from some mentoring - it could be positive in many ways (ease your burden- not have to micro manage or review his work) and not necessarily threatening.

If I were a 12 yr pqe and worth my salt I would also have an issue reporting to a more junior lawyer unless my experience was really not spot on. It may be different if his experience is somehow less valuable than yours eg he may be 12 pqe, but never had a very senior lawyer role; or had many jobs.

In fact I am surprised he is willing to take an equivalent role- (that shows he may be sensitive to existing structure or his experience is somehow less solid than yours)

One thing you should consider is is this more senior lawyer going to cherry pick, will they be willing to do the grunt work (unless you have somone else there to do that) or is that more likely to be flowed down to you.

I honestly don't think it matters on gender - you could have a woman and have similar issues. It really depends on what "attitude" he brings with him and whether you will work well together. You may need to have a real converstaion about that to your boss and to the candidate.

I hardly think paying more to a more experienced candidate is sex discrimination - you have to look at what he is on now and what market is - rather than focus on what he gets paid vs you.

just to clarify - when I say below - don't get too hung up on title - I don't mean don't aim to have the same seniority in title as the new guy -so he and the rest of the company don't see you as reporting to him - you should - but it can be "joint something" though it might sound a bit goofy to both be called Joint Head of legal in a small department - perhaps you can carve it up somehow or call yourselves both Legal Director or something similar?

Thanks all. Just to clarify, I have never had the title of head of legal or anything similar, just a title that designates that I am more senior than anyone else in the team! However, despite the lack of title, I have been treated as the head and get my own office, do the budget, instruct external counsel etc. The new hire would probably get the same title. My boss has said that we could carve out a different role for him so he would be most senior in that area(s) and me in the other areas so that could work providing I don't get all the boring grunt work! Starting to feel a bit better about it all - has just come as a super sensitive time when it feels like everything is changing. It could a good thing in that there will be someone else there to help and take the pressure off, especially seeing as I can't be in the office til 11pm every night like I used to. Plus, this person is a safe pair of hands and a good guy - could end up with someone a lot worse! Maybe this is good in that it give me some space to take it down a notch or two as I just cannot be as involved as I was before I had DS. Still not sure what to do re pay but knowing me I'll leave it. I am already extremely well paid for my PQE so can't really ask for a raise, can I??

Squiffy, would be GREAT to meet up for a chat at some point. Really struggling to reconcile two completely different parts of my life

Gangle, watch out for 'city' or 'wharf' meet ups on the meet-up threads and you will find a host of lawyers/accountants/bankers there. Or CAT me and I will let you know when we have the next one.

Squiffy, would be great if you could let me know. When are the meet ups? Lunch or evening? Wondering if I perhaps know you in RL. Scary how small the world turns out to be sometimes.

My boss is the same PQE as me (10 years) and she's just recruited someone to join our team on the same salary as me who's about 6 years PQE. I can understand your concerns but I suspect that swallowing a bit of pride may be better for your family life and allow you to of your 4 days. I didn't like it either, but actually the other two members of our team are a lot more senior than either of us!

I remember someone saying to me years ago that PQE can be irrelevant - he was a bit of a jerk but I don't think he was wrong on this one - eg if you work in a department where you go home at 5pm each day you'll be doing less than someone who works in banking or corporate and does 12 hours days, so someone who's qualified in corporate and is 6 years PQE may well be more senior than someone in employment with 10 years PQE, assuming they haven't just been doing proof-reading!