Good policy, especially for dads. We get 2 weeks paternity leave at my firm. That's not enough.

how do they define primary caregiver? Is this only for parents whose husband or wife isn't taking off work when the baby is born?

Guys at my high school used to get 18 weeks of paternity leave all the time, 'twas no big deal.

p.s.: YIPEE KA YE

Before anyone starts complaining about benefits being given unfairly to those who choose to have children at the expense of those who don't....

1. No one is entitled to ANY paid time off. Period. Paid time off is a benefit bestowed upon employees by their firms.

2. Everyone CAN choose to adopt, give birth to, or otherwise raise a child in such a way as would allow them to take advantage of this benefit. This is the same sort of benefit (albeit on a much larger scale) as the firm subsidizing your travel to and from work each day. Those who choose to live close enough to their offices such that taking public transit or driving and parking doesn't make sense are not being treated unfairly. Those who decide not to own cars are also not being treated unfairly.

Bottom line: If you don't choose to become the primary caregiver of a child, you can't take the benefit. No one cares why you didn't make that choice. If you want the paid time off, have a baby, adopt a baby, or find another way to become the primary caregiver.

3. There are intrinsic benefits to maintaining a benefit like this, even at great financial cost to the firm. Your firm is better for it.

Seems a little shady and opens the firm up for some litigation depending on how they enforce this. "Primary caregiver" - what the hell does that mean?

weil did this months ago (sept i think)

how do they define primary caregiver? Is this only for parents whose husband or wife isn't taking off work when the baby is born?

Primary caregiver is the person primarily responsible for caring for the child. Practically, it means that whoever stays home to take care of the child is the PG. If both parents stay home, tie usually goes to the female. If one was already staying home, that person will be considered the PG.

primary caregiver is really not that hard to define. the use of the word is essentially so that mom and dad dont both spend 18 weeks at home getting paid. but instead of saying mother, who is often the primary caregiver, at least at the beginning, firms want to make it open to fathers as well, should the need arise-say in the case of an adoption, the death of the mother, or simply a mr. mom scenerio.

You see, this is why people hate lawyers. This firm does something nice for the employees and you people start figuring out a way to file suit against them for not being generous enough. And yes, I understand that it's not all generosity, but come on.

what a scam.

i bet biglaw females will start getting knocked up left and right now. these girls have it made in the shade.

If both parents work at different law firms, it's likely that the parents will have to work out between them who gets to take the additional time off as PG and who gets the shorter leave.

Does anyone think 3:50's response was over-the-top for what is a fairly innocuous subject? No one brought up anything of the sort, and yet 3:50 seems ridiculously defensive about a subject no is attacking.

Wow - 3:50, you sound like a real piece of work.

4:03,

There was a long and vitriolic thread on it when Latham announced their new procedures. This was likely an effort (maybe misguided?) to stem that debate---or at least get the first shot in.

4:03,

There was a long and vitriolic thread on it when Latham announced their new policy. This was likely an effort (maybe misguided?) to stem that debate---or at least get the first shot in. Who knows? You should go back and read the debate though---got pretty heated.

what a waste. REAL women don't work in BigLaw.

Does anyone know what other firms offer 18 weeks? I've heard Simpson, Latham, Sullivan and now DPW. What about Weil? Skadden? Cleary?

3:50 has drooping ovaries.

"In order to be considered the 'primary caregiver,' the lawyer must be the parent who provides the primary day-to-day care for the child during the Primary Caregiver Leave."

My primary care giver was Lat, and look how I turned out.

I hope all the women who use this benefit get knocked off the partnership track...

4:24 - I'm sure you turned out great- Latty Boy's awesome!

What kind of documentation does the firm require? Could you just say you had a kid and take the time off? Or do they need some sort of proof?

greedy slacker,

My guess is that, if you try to fake it, the firm will dispatch one of its lawyers (likely a sexy, Jessica Biel lookalike) to investigate and confirm your claim of fatherhood. Expect zany hijinks to ensue.

427, please tell me youer kididng. but in any event, they dont. and i know from experience.

People who have children are selfish. Soon we will all struggle to gain access to valuable resources.

3:50, you're an idiot, and not very bright. Comparing a firm's decision to subsidize its employees' child-rearing to subsidize their travel to and from work is ridiculous. The former is something people choose to do; the latter is something everyone has to do.

These policies are unfair, and should be illegal (and probably are under jurisidictions that bar familial status discrimination). This is dangerous path for firms to tread, and it will backfire.

4.45 - the closest you have ever got to a naked woman is when you came out of your mom.....

I do not think DPW cares about whether or not anyone thinks it's sexist or unfairly biased towards people with kids or what have you. They're one of the last real old school white shoe firms left - they still give you a small monetary gift if you get married.

Anyway, good for them.

4:56,

If you live 2 blocks from the office, you don't HAVE to take a form of travel that requires you to pay money each day (in the form of parking or public transit fares). People CHOOSE to live either close enough where it would be stupid to take a car/public transit to work or they CHOOSE to live far enough away where they can can advantage of a firm's subsidy.

Choosing to live close or far from work is not a permanent, life-altering decision. A better analogy would be the firm giving paid leave to the morbidly obese or the incarcerated, which clearly doesn't happen and shouldn't--just like this garbage.

and why shouldn't it?

Because people should not be rewarded for making poor life choices (or really for making any life choice that doesn't further the goals of the firm).

and if it furthers the goals of the firm---like giving paid time off to primary caregivers?

Just another move toward socialism...next it will be men will get paid leave to take care a vaction, ahh, I mean take care of a child or sick relative...wait, sounds like that already happened...

I just got back from the men's room. I thought I was giving birth but the end result was an abortion. No paid leave for me!

What's next? Paid leave for that time of the month? Or a headache?

4:58 - BEST.INSULT.EVER.

So should a firm give paid leave to people who get HIV? That's like gay pregnancy.

5:28, they already do---most firms offer sick leave for people who need to take time off for illnesses. If someone needs to take time off to deal with HIV, that certainly would count.

The reality is that any firm can "give" you six weeks for this. Honestly, I had four weeks a year vacation at a large firm, and I was lucky to get 10 days off a year - mostly just a week. So yes you can "take" the leave, but don't think that this won't have a negative effect on your partnership track (unless the father is a partner at the firm!)

5:31 - how much sick time can you typically take in a year? Given that it could be used to deal with a new HIV case, I assume that it could be significant. Do you need to provide documentation, or can you simply assert that you are sick and will return to the firm when well?

What, no ninjas vs. pirates debate? Yeah, that's right. Because I pwn them both.

If 18 weeks becomes the new "market rate," you can count on papa McDermott to allot 3 weeks, and call it "market."

MWE bonuses came in today. I don't know anyone with less than 2200 hours (and JDs 2003-2006) that more than a $10,000 bonus -- many got far less than that. Those approaching 2300 hours still clock in well shy of $20,000, some of them under $10,000 as well.

Income partner "bonuses" (the firm emphasizes that this is not a bonus) were also pathetic.

And yet, our bonus memo says "We continue to believe that it is important to reward our associates who have performed well during the year. The 2007 total compensation amounts reflect the Firm's commitment to reward the significant efforts of our associates and to remain competitive with other Firms in our markets."

Every floor of the office is buzzing with discontent. Morale in toilet. Management committee generally reviled.

Note to law students: DO NOT WORK HERE -- GO TO A REAL FIRM.

Note to laterals: DO NOT WORK HERE -- NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE, YOU'RE BETTER OFF.

Note to fellow MWE suckers: NICE KNOWING YOU; HOPE TO SEE YOU AT MY NEW PLACE.

NOTE TO MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE:
THANKS FOR NOTHING, CHEAPSKATES

NO FAT CHICKS!!

We love you! Take as much time as you need! Oh, but we're not adjusting your billable hours requirement so you better bust that fat ass before you go and when you get back (and let's face it, while you're home, too). Congrats on your new addition! Send pictures!

A&P gives 6 weeks paternity leave. No idea about maternity.

18 weeks!? Wow. This is a bit much. Let's facts here folks; the vast majority of people benefiting from this policy will be female, and it does not take 18 weeks for a vagina to heal. They need to line up the day care after a week or two and get back to billing. I don't even care if they need bring one of those donut things to sit on.

This has been "market" in California for years, except *both* parents get 6 weeks paid leave (in addition to the additional 12 weeks of paid leave a mother gets as medical leave).

am i missing something or does this policy violate Title VII? the firm gives a mother who gives birth and is the primary caregiver up to 18 weeks of paid leave but a father who is the primary caregiver up to 6 weeks of paid leave. the distinction -- that the mom gave birth and the dad did not -- doesn't track any kind of medical necessity (at least in the ordinary case). that is, a woman who gives birth typically does not require 12 weeks to recover from the birth itself. isn't the differential in access to leave premised on the notion that women will be caregivers and men will not? and isn't that unlawful? i suppose one could argue that the policy doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex because women who adopt have access to only 6 weeks, but this policy seems to have a disparate impact on men. maybe i'm missing something.

no, 10:07 -- either parent can take the primary caregiver leave. just because you give birth to the child does not mean you are the primary caregiver under these policies

Don't forget, women actually deliver the child, but men put up with 30 to 50 years of nagging.

Who needs the time off, I just want my firm to pay for a hot foreign (naughty) nanny. Giggidy giggidy.

yes yes, i see that, but only birth mothers can get the additional 12 weeks. so i suppose it's not the new policy that concerns me, but the pre-existing (and apparently continuing) policy under which birth mothers get additional 12 weeks of paid leave. if the policy allowed for 2-4 weeks of "birth leave," that could plausibly be tethered to the difficulty of recovering from childbirth (especially for a c-section). but 12 weeks is wildly out of proportion to what it geniinely necessary to recover from childbirth, so it can't justifiably by classified as a kind of "disability leave." i mean to suggest that the "real" reason birth mothers are given an additional 12 weeks is as a kind of additional parenting leave, and parenting leave cannot be parceled out on the basis of sex.

yes yes, i see that, but only birth mothers can get the additional 12 weeks. so i suppose it's not the new policy that concerns me, but the pre-existing (and apparently continuing) policy under which birth mothers get additional 12 weeks of paid leave. if the policy allowed for 2-4 weeks of "birth leave," that could plausibly be tethered to the difficulty of recovering from childbirth (especially for a c-section). but 12 weeks is wildly out of proportion to what it genuinely necessary to recover from childbirth, so it can't justifiably by classified as a kind of "disability leave." i mean to suggest that the "real" reason birth mothers are given an additional 12 weeks is as a kind of additional parenting leave, and parenting leave cannot be parceled out on the basis of sex.

10:22, I'm not sure how you have figured the other 12 weeks are split. We don't know. We know that 12 weeks are given for "parental and disability/maternity" leave. But how much of that is the preexisting disability/maternity? How much of it is the preexisting parental leave?

It might break down to 8 weeks (parental) and 4 weeks (disability/maternity). If that's the case, your complaint becomes less problematic.