Law firm greed. 

I have been writing about the negative impact of greed in the law profession since 2016.  It was then that I first discussed how the greed manifested by large law firms is undercutting the professionalism of the business of law.  Those comments appeared in an article I penned for Corporate Counsel in its September issue that year, and I have discussed the concepts many times since in articles and remarks to legal audiences.

In essence, I argue that it was the greed of Wall Street that brought our economy to its knees in 2008, and it will be the greed of the law profession that will bring the business of law to its knees all too soon if we do not reverse course.  Reversing course will require a renewed dedication to the values of our workforce and the wellness of our law professionals, thoughtful consideration and action on specific issues of telecommuting and work-life balance, examination of the role of billable hours in determining competence and value, and use of our resources and talents to serve communities and society.

Most recently, I discussed these concepts at a law firm partnership retreat within the larger context of a discussion about what millennial lawyers want.  By building on the reality that millennial lawyers will be 75% of legal professionals by 2030 and the research that millennial lawyers desire less greed and more caring, I found my audience to be much more attentive than some audiences of the past.  Law firm managers now recognize that the future of their firms and robust succession plans lie with millennial lawyers and their millennial clients.  Numbers do not lie.

So, I was cautiously encouraged.  And then I was even more encouraged to see a reverse course from the Business Roundtable last week.  As reported in a Wall Street Journal article, leaders of some of America’s largest companies are rethinking the notion that corporate decisions should rightfully revolve around the needs and desires of shareholders.  Meaning profit to the exclusion of everything else.  Meaning greed.

So, business leaders extraordinaire, including the likes of Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Bezos of Amazon and scores of their corporate colleagues, have decided that corporate leaders should take into account all stakeholders — to include employees, customers and society at large — when making decisions about corporate direction.

The newly-formulated “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” begins with this sentence:

The new statement goes on to identify multiple obligations to support this goal, in the following order of importance:

• Delivering value to customers.
• Investing in employees.
• Dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers.
• Supporting the communities in which they work.
• Generating long-term value for shareholders.

Some of these directives are mirror images of the arguments leveled against greed in the legal profession.  This is not surprising because law is a business, and, like other businesses, it must survive in a changing world.  Rules that worked yesterday may not work today.

Hopefully, this new view of corporate responsibility will rub off on law firm leaders who know that the clock is ticking and that the law firm leaders of tomorrow have different values and different world views.  And that those different values and world views need to be taken seriously and respected.

So much at stake.  So many watching.

Last week’s blog addressed the realities of non-equity partnership.  As pointed out in that blog, there is a lot of difference between equity partnership and the increasing non-equity partnership cohort.  If you have to refresh your memory, this might be a good time to do it because family planning for women lawyers builds on some of the themes of that blog.

For example, even though non-equity partnership may not include all that women lawyers are seeking, it could be a fine landing place for them while they are trying to make motherhood and lawyering work.

When making that decision for yourself, the first thing that you have to understand is that reconciling those two roles is not just a matter of who takes on the responsibilities of childcare.  Typically that is a decision for you and your partner, but that decision is too often made on an uneven playing field.

That is because some of the important considerations going into that decision start long before you and your partner share parenting roles.  Specifically nine months before.

Once a woman becomes pregnant and is carrying a child, a strong bond develops that is not easily broken.  By the time that bond has developed over the period of gestation, the bond between mother and child is so strong that giving birth is like feeling the earth move.  It is the ultimate defining moment, and the responsibilities of that bond are not easily handed over to another — not even a partner.

At least, that is the way it worked for me and for so many women I know — Boomer Moms, Gen X Moms and, now, Millennial Moms.  Age does not seem to make a difference when it comes to the strength of the bond between mother and newborn.

As a result, often new mothers feel like they are the only ones to properly care for their babies and toddlers, especially.  Call it instinct.  Call it the bond.  Whatever you call it, the feelings are almost uncontrollable.

And these feelings do not always lend themselves to an equal division of childcare.  Although domestic partners, who both work outside the home, are sharing much more of home and childcare responsibilities today, the issues of childbearing are not shared.  They are personal to a woman — and not any less so for a woman lawyer.

So, I encourage you to read this article from Law.com addressing how women approach family planning in the legal profession.  It will give you critical information to help you make the best decisions about motherhood and your career when the time comes.

Here are some topics that are addressed there:

• The legal profession is based upon a rewards system that values the attorney who is always at work and has few outside obligations — AND that does not describe women with family responsibilities;
• The best time to start a family on the road to partnership;
• The impact on a woman’s physical being during pregnancy while practicing law;
• Whether having children effects opportunities to make partner;
• Whether being able to work remotely “without judgment” has a bearing on making maternity/motherhood and law practice work;
  
• The importance of a generous maternity leave; and
• The importance of knowing yourself well enough to set realistic goals and make good career decisions.

Many sacrifices have been made in the careers of women lawyers for the sake of families.  In the day, I gave up my partnership for the privilege of  practicing part-time after my baby was born.  Yes, it impacted my career, but it also enriched my life.  And I never have regretted waiting longer for partnership.  It was a choice I was willing to make.

And you will have to make similar choices.  Know yourself, know the facts, and be prepared.