Calling lawyers: what is there between City and no job?

[AmIKiddingMyself]

Evening all,

I'm using an alter ego as have boss-might-read-mumsnet paranoia . Could really do with some advice from the lawyers out there.

So, I'm at a large City firm (non transactional dept). We are planning DCs soon (am 31). My hours vary from reasonable to very long. DH does even longer hours. Post-DC, I'd ideally carry on litigating, but in a job that lets me leave early every night. Or at least nearly every night. Happy to accept huge pay cut and much less "prestige" (whatever that is).

Does this exist? Or do smaller/cheaper firms demand the same amount of flesh, just for less pay?

I would love to hear your experiences and insights. If anyone can point me in the direction of this Nirvana I would be most grateful.

In house suits me, and while the pay is ok, it is not mega bucks, and probably considerably less than you are on.

Why not ask a recruitment consultant what you could expect?

Am I kidding -He rarely gets to the office before 9 unless he has a meeting etc and usually leaves 6ish. (He will probably be working until 11 tonight having said that).
But I suspect he doesn't work as hard as some and he is in an area where (usually) the work is more manageable without ridiculous deadlines.
He did work for a magic Circle Firm (altho he wasn't a partner) and it is MUCH better now although I think part of that is an attitude change from him about wanting to see his children who are only 1 and 2.

But, it's OK for him as I don't work at the moment so he doesn't have to worry about getting home on time. Unless you have a nanny who can stay on it must be very hard as sometimes you won't be able to get to the nurseries on time even if you usually do work 9-5.

It's a tough one- his friend works in house for a council in Scotland and is on less than £45k, 20 plus years after qualifying. He likes the quality of life though.

pollyanna thanks so much, that's really helpful! You make in house sound perfect I must say. Are you a litigator?

DH earns well so very luckily my earnings are not so much of an issue. Though it does have to be enough to make me feel it is "worth" working (which I guess means cover the childcare plus a bit). But really the working would be for my own sanity not the money.

I am assuming by the way that it is better to stay in current role until after we've had the DCs (certainly that is better financially) and move afterwards. Does anyone think that is wrong?

I moved to GLS from the bar. Pay is of course rubbish compared to previous employment but for the hours I worked (I say "worked" as I am currently on a career break) and flexibility it is ok ish.

Since having DD1 I went back 3 days then 4 days then 5 days then after 6 mths was back on maternity leave for a year. On return I did 3 days. Pay was about £38k pro rata. Obviously pension good and full maternity pay.

Hour were always flexible (but basically 9-5 or 8-4) and lots of working from home. I am now in year 3 of my career break and plan to extend for another 2 years (5 years is the max they allow).

Spent early part of my career as a corporate lawyer in the City but quickly realised it was totally incompatible with having a life generally and particularly with having kids.

I now work as a professional support lawyer for a "national" top 50 firm (which has been in the Times 100 best firms to work for for the last 6 years).

I work three days a week, one from home. Their maternity leave policy is enlightened in that you don't have to pay back money pro rata if you don't come back full time.

My job is brilliant - I get paid an OK wage (OK nothing like what I would get in the City) to work for lovely people who treat me with respect. I never worry about my hours. Working at home a day or two a week even allowed us to move back to the countryside where I grew up, so that my parents could do DD's childcare.

Women also work as fee-earning lawyers and have children - many do work part time though obviously if you are working with clients directly things are perhaps more unpredictable than my job. Most people have gone home by 6/6.30pm though.

You are right to be very careful about which firm you think about next - some regional firms are awful - all of the stress/pressure of a City firm with none of the benefits financially or in terms of working environment/quality of work.

You could also think about going public sector or in-house? But again, there are degrees. In-house jobs for big companies are likely to be stressful - my friend does one and loves the work and the place, but is always v busy and on the blackberry as soon as her DCs are in bed. HOwever she loves it and gets paid well.

Well, if you are relying on enhanced maternity pay, it's probably move now or wait until you've had all your kids. You will need to go back to most city firms for at least a year or pay back at least a proportion of your money. You're then looking at either leaving a bigger age gap or getting pregnant v quickly in a new job and missing out on that useful settling in time.

Also bear in mind that even family friendly employers -by which I mean lower tier firms, not government legal - tend to recruit full time and allow people they value to move to part time. Flexible systems like home working can be particularly hard to negotiate as a newbie. That can be hard if you already have the kids.

I'd move a year or two before you want to start the family if you're big on planning your career moves out in advance.

Thanks all - really really helpful replies.

Gawd it's just so hard to tell until you join somewhere isn't it!

Ribena, that's interesting. Indeed my firm does have the requirement that you stay for a year or pay back enhanced ML pay (think a second bout of ML counts towards that year). I suppose I thought I could grit teeth through that time (in so far as I had thought about it at all!). Or maybe have to pay back some of it. However, you say move a year or two before DCs... Don't you think the new employer would be a bit irritated (slash reluctant) to employ someone who was going to head off on ML soon after? I think I would be if I were the employer...

AmIkidding - You don't tell a new employer you're hoping to get pregnant! It is one of the risks they will take into account when deciding whether to employ a pre-menopausal woman.

You will probably have to have been in a new job for at least 6 months before your 6th month of pregnancy to be entitled to anything other than the basic maternity package so it is worth moving and settling in while you try to conceive.

It may also take longer than you think to become pregnant which is useful settling in time. Took me 2 years to get pregnant with DD while I was working at a city firm, had ML left city firm to go in-house at a lovely organisation and started thinking about DC2 after 6 months expecting to get pregnant in a year or so. Happened first time. That was a slightly embarrassing conversation to have with my new boss but I'll be going back 4 days per week and should be pretty useful so I don't think they'll have lost out too much!

Am I kidding

I think you should move now, find the right place for you, and spend 18 months or so really giving it your all so they think you are Gods Gift and make yourself indispensable to them.

The sort of deal you are able to cut re part time working/flexible working/ working from home depends a lot on how much they know/trust and like you.

You need to build up all that before you have DCs, not move when your DCs are a year old and then try and persuade them to offer you family friendly working conditions.

Thats what I did - and now I work three days a week , two from home in the Lake District , and one on which I commute to one of our bigger offices. DD is looked after by her grandparents and DH on those three days, which is great.

I wouldnt have been able to live this lifetyle if I had not spent two years getting in their good books previously.

tummytime yes, I wouldn't tell potential new employers but it must be fairly obvious given age no?

You are right of course it may take longer than I think to conceive. To me though that seems like more reason to stay in current high earning job while we TTC? (as the hours are fine while we don't have kids)

bumpsadaisie I see your point... it's just that 18 months (plus time either end that it would take to find new job, give notice, conceive) feels like a long time given current broodiness levels... but that is not being especially practical.

I suppose I thought employers would be keener on someone who'd already got their ML over and done with and had childcare in place already, rather than someone who could get pg at any time? or maybe they just wouldn't look at someone with kids already

I'm not looking so much for part time or working from home, just shorter hours, ideally at a place where shorter hours are normal so I'm not seen as on some -lesser special deal. But may not exist.

anyway, time to do some work

friend works for an NHS trust. All very gentle.

I changed jobs immediately after ML with DDso started new job when she was 14 months old. Explained at interview I had DD and therefore was willing to take the 50% pay cut as salary still good but not city good. They offered the job at the interview knowing a) I had a DC already and b) I was 33 with one child - pretty high chance of forking out for more ML soon.

Go with whatever feels right for you atm.

A "regional" in london is going to expect as much as a "city firm. I'm a partner at one of the regional firms you mentioned and we consider our London office to be a city office and expect as many hours as you'd work in a magic circle firm.

In the actual regions you might find that fewer hours are expected of you but only if you go to a much smaller practice. Our regional hours targets are the same as the London office. If you want to stay in London then I would imagine you will need to either go to a much smaller firm/Local Authority or work part time.

Part time roles vary dramatically. I did it for a while and found that I ended up working full time hours for part time pay. Plus if you stay with a large firm you will be secretly or not so secretly) considered to be someone who is not committed to your career.

Think your best bet if you don't mind the pay cut would be a local authority. How many years PQE?

I am an ex-litigator and moved in-house public sector about 3 years ago. about to go back after mat leave.

Hours much better and regular, and they are all over the flexible working thing. My pay is actually pretty decent, am making more now than when I left private practice (plus have extra benefits like excellent mat leave pay and pension) and have moved from London to the regions. a lot of upheaval at my place at the mo so will be FT for a while but as and when things settle doubt unlikely there would be any problem going PT, we have 2 PT lawyers and 2 FT lawyers in the team (all women funnily enough).

I am in the same position as sylar and agree absolutely.

You will find it really hard to work in the city and leave at those hours every night, which is what you seem to be planning to do between DC1 and DC2.

The other comment I would make is that control over your hours seems to be helped the more senior you are in an organisation. To me that is a reason for moving now, settling in, maybe getting promoted if it takes you longer to get PG than you had thought. Also that gives you time to look for another job if your first move isn't right - it's really hard to tell up front what a firm's policy really looks like in practice.

Also a name change here for paranoid reasons! This is my experience of combining motherhood and working in a second tier city firm.

I work in a city firm in lets say a specialised contentious department. I have two DDs who are 4 and 2, and was promoted to a role which is a "counsel" role, eg not partnership, through my choice when I was on my second maternity leave. When I came back from maternity leave the second time, my boss agreed a really good flexible working pattern with me. In a rolling two week period, I am generally only in the office 3 days a week and I work at home 1 day per week.

But although the pattern was agreed and although I am senior but have no aspirations for partnership, I am still leaving. It makes me a bit sad/cross but even with those changes (and the knock on impact on my salary) the pressure/expectations are still there and I have reached the point where I know they do not like my working pattern and would be happy if I did leave. I am pressured to work lots on my day off, eg for eetings, client training and to cover holidays of my colleagues. I also get a lower quality work which has happened gradually but has suddenly become quite apparent.

I also think I put pressure on myself in that I know I am not working at the same pace as colleagues, particularly the junior ones. Essentially I feel like I am doing a crap job at home and at work. I ended up depressed and had some counselling and identified that work was making me really unhappy. I also realised that although I earn a good salary, it is all going on paying for a mortgage in an expensive-ish London suburb and on nursery fees. Am relocating and as soon as we have exchanged contracts, I will be giving in my notice and it will be a huge relief.

I am interested to see what recommendations for alternatives there are. For now, I have decided to stop working until my youngest DD is at school but I guess I might end up going back to something. I had thought public sector.

If you do go for an in house role, be really careful about where you go. My recent experience is that the in house counsel who instruct me at the moment are so under pressure on reducing their legal spend that they end up doing much more themselves than historically and they can work even longer hours with less support in terms of trainees, secretaries etc than the city lawyers they instruct.

I've always been under the impression that in-house function is rather precarious, especially in a bank or FTSE 100 company.

Fine if you can get flex hours but often the hours are long, you have less support and need to schmooze internally for survival as much as anything as the management changes every few years and they like new brooms to sweep clean unless you can clearly demonstrate your worth over your colleagues.

Happy to be proven wrong, but in-house seems a risky option if you want flexibility.

thanks all for your input!

Sounds like a regional/second tier city firm in London is not the best option - as I expected, sounds like the expectations are little different to top tier firm.

Still interested to hear from anyone who works in private practice in London (perhaps for a much smaller/lower tier firm) and has decent hours? so far it appears this does not exist?

In house clearly has some risks associated. I hadn't thought about the internal politics/restructurings issue. and the increasing workload is probably true (goes hand in hand with increasing hourly rates from law firms I daresay). On the other hand those on this thread who work in house seem to recommend it. Hmmm.

Public sector seems to get good reports all round, save possibly on the pay front. Any other down sides?

Really grateful for all the advice, everyone. as you can probably tell, I haven't got very far in my own thinking yet, so this is SO helpful.

I think you'll struggle to find that in a London firm TBH- I would look for one based outside the centre if that's what you are looking for. There seem to be a few Wimbeldon/Clapham type direction that I occasionally come across.

Thing is, London living costs are high, that drives up salaries, which forces firms into a 'City firm, high cost, high responsiveness' model. Law is not a location specific service in most cases, so it's hard for a lower tier firm to compete with the prices offered by a firm in, say, Birmingham or Manchester. If people pay London prices then they expect the 'all hours, any day' in return...

yes, I do see that Ribena. Ah well.

When I did my diversity research I was astounded to discover that in the legal dept of the Bank I worked in, virtually every person in that dept worked flexi - including the bosses (and the men). I was at the time working in the Front Office and I used the legal dept all the time - I had no inkling that they all worked flexi - the UK head was very amused when I discovered the 'secret' that only he and a handful of others knew. And no one would have cared either - team had a good reputation so you didn't really mind who picked up the phone when you needed them. Hours for these guys were 8-6.30 for maybe 3 days a week; and the top people would have been expected to come in on a day off if there was a real emergency kicking up (maybe once every 3 months). None of the weekend stuff or midnight oil (unless it was transactional law - you need to avoid that like the plague).

I don't think the job itself is precarious - probably much safer and less political than in a magic circle firm where you 'eat your kill'. But the total income is precarious - it has the same bonus element as other high level roles in banking, so you have to make sure the base is enough to get by on in a good year. I know that when the credit crunch hit and many banks reduced bonuses it was a huge shock for the top people in the law dept to see their incomes drastically reduced despite them putting in so much effort.

or, even get you by in a bad year

Think the problem is is that you are stuck to London. Dh is a private client solicitor in a local firm in the city we live in. He is now equity, loves his work, can take dd to school evert day abd is usually home for 6.30 each night. He also receives a very healthy pay in return plus obviously bonuses etc being a partner. The ridiculous work pressures you hear about from London just are not there. He has very well pais non equity partners on flexible and part times hours also.

Spoke to a friend of mine who works at TSol: The pay is 46K for anyone 3PQE and above until you get promoted to "Grade 6", when it goes up to around 55K. You can only apply for the Grade 6 promotion in the December of each year and it's based on a 45 min interview, your appraisals etc. So if you join at, say, 7PQE you still only get 46K.

BUT, the hours and opportunities for part or flexi-time are much better than private practice, the work is v interesting (and you can do other areas of law if you want) and it's much less stressful than private practice (people are cost-conscious but it's not profit-driven, deadlines aren't generally as tight etc).

thanks again all!

passionfruity, that's really useful. Especially that the work at the TSol is interesting, that's encouraging.

stillsquiffy - another vote for in house then..!

these seem to be shaping up as the best options. Still trying to work out the move now/move post DC dilemma though - it would seem odd to leave a well paid job that suits me fine now, but OTOH I can see Ribena's point about making yourself indispensable somewhere else before you head off on ML/ask for any flexibility etc.

hulababy - we really are tied unfortunately. DH's job just does not exist outside London, and family is here too.