More bonus news, please. I heard Bingham started announcing this week.

2L: They do indeed. Most Biglaw moms I know, at least here in DC, have either taken the full maternity leave, or else the full maternity leave plus a little vacation time. Hasn't been an issue--a number of them have made partner after doing this repeatedly.

I work with an associate (5th year or so) who just took a few weeks off as a non-primary caregiver. Nobody seemed at all fazed by it. Who knows what'll happen down the line, but still.

Whoops, I missed the "non." Yeah, lots of non-primary caregivers take some time, but I'm not sure how many take all of it. Honestly, if someone else is at home with the baby full-time, it can be nice to get out of the house for a bit.

And the screwing of single people, forced to subsidize the lifestyles of married chumps, continues.

Where's the list of shame? I want certain "family friendly" firms to see where they stand.

Outstanding benefit enhancement which should become the new market standard.

Non-primary caregiver parental leave is essential, especially if there are other children in the home.

Late nights and weekends will always pop up in large law firm work, but this is one concrete way that firms can improve quality of life.

All firms should feel pressure to follow Covington's commendable lead.

Outstanding benefit enhancement which should become the new market standard.

Non-primary caregiver parental leave is essential, especially if there are other children in the home.

Late nights and weekends will always pop up in large law firm work, but this is one concrete way that firms can improve quality of life.

All firms should feel pressure to follow Covington's commendable lead.

while people are on leave, are they paid their salaries for 18 weeks? do they have to pay for their own benefits?

Yes, they are paid salaries, and no they don't have to pay their own benefits. If they exceed the paid leave, they do have to pay their own benefits during the additional unpaid leave.

10:39 -

1) You don't need to be married to have a kid.

2) Without people who have children there will not be a next generation to pay for your social security (although the SS system is screwed up, regardless) or to populate the country (see Russia, where they have negative population growth).

3) Single people, especially lawyers are not necessarily a prudent group of people when it comes to their money (see discussion board on spending $5000 on a suit that no one sees you wearing except for your computer and the task chair that you sit in 80% of the time). Subsidizing the population of the earth, as opposed to subsidizing your bar tab, fashion fetish, "massage," etc. seems to make good sense.

4) There is a vested interest in you subsidizing the population of the U.S. by married chumps. Intelligence is tied to genetics. Assuming that the average lawyer at big law is at least of above average intelligence, you have an interest in their proceating. The rest of the average and below average intelligence world is having children...and when you are old and gray and want to have you a good doctor, T&E attorney, pension fund manager, etc. you want my kids to be born because otherwise you are going to be left to the average moron who can barely ties his/her shoes.

5) Ha ha!@

For unpaid leave, are you expected to make up the billable hours? I.e., your billable requirement is pro-rated downward for those 12 weeks of paid leave, but if you take an additional 3 months of unpaid leave, are you expected to make up those 3 months of hours upon your return? That's how it is at OMM (really).

For unpaid leave, are you expected to make up the billable hours? I.e., your billable requirement is pro-rated downward for those 12 weeks of paid leave, but if you take an additional 3 months of unpaid leave, are you expected to make up those 3 months of hours upon your return? That's how it is at OMM (really).

There is an advantage to taking as much parental leave as possible - it lowers your full time equivalence for billable hours purposes. So if you take 6 weeks * 40 hours, that's 240 fewer hours you have to bill that year. This is in contrast to vacation, which doesn't make a whit of difference to your billables.

Covington & Burling does not give ANY paid parental (maternity or paternity) leave to Staff Attorneys (full time employees at their firm). So while we slave away here on the document reviews that the associates don't like doing, we are forced to save up money to fund parental leave. Or not take any leave at all. Don't be fooled by Covington's "generosity". The rich and privileged get more and more and those who don't quite hit the "elite" status are shafted.

10:39 = balding overweight type A senior associate who can't get a date.

Or just angry guy to his friends.

By the way, while Covington's Staff Attorneys are on unpaid parental leave they ARE required to pay their own benefits.

While on the subject, Staff Attorneys also do not receive paid short term disability leave, jury duty leave, or bereavement leave.

Staff Attorney numbers however, are included in statistics for "attorneys" at the firm. Just a note on that, there are much higher percentages of miniorities and women working as staff attorneys than the percentage among the associates and partners.

Do not cross bread with Staff Attorneys unless you want to introduce the angry and the "that's not fair" gene into your gene pool.

If being a Staff Attorney at Covington is so terrible, maybe you should leave. I think it sucks that a lot of associates (and partners) have the attitude that all contract attorneys, temps, and staff attorneys are second class citizens, but I can guarantee you that griping about it on ATL is just going to start a "Staff Attorney insult fest."

anony - Don't you think the issues should be addressed at all? Honestly, would it go over well if addressed to the firm? As far as they are concerned you are replaceable (and with this market, it's true). Who's going to jeopardize their job when they have kids to support (assumption since this started with a parental leave issue).

No one stated they hated working at Covington (though they may). The only issue I've seen raised deals with benefits and the need for benefits to be uniform. If a mailroom clerk (i.e. staff) can get 18 weeks parental leave, why wouldn't that be extended to Staff Attorneys?

Despite playing basketball at least 5 nights a week in various basketball leagues across the city, I am not entitled to the salary earned by NBA players.

The issues here are:

1) Supply and demand; and
2) the difference between full-time employees and contractors.

I didn't get a job at Wachtell, so I earn less money even though I work in biglaw. I understand that I have a different work relationship with my employer. I am not sure why this logic doesn't seem to flow through to contract attorneys.

I will be the first to admit that there are Staff Attorneys at my firm that are far more experienced and more valuable than I am. I have to assume that if they wanted to get on board on the partnership track they could do so (though they would have to negotiate the year that they would enter as). Those attorneys that I have spoken to in that position would never do it because they like their flexibility and their ability to control their hours worked.

Also, comparing a Staff Attorney to a mailroom worker is stupid. The two jobs are not comperable because of the salary differential and the requisite job descriptions. While the hours might be similar, the fact is that biglaw firms are hiring laws who are available 24 hours a day and mailroom workers who work 8 hours a day, and that is all. Staff Attorneys have a contractor relationship with the firm...and that is why they have the benefits that they do.

no one cares about staff attorneys. end of debate.

to It's not fair:

1. Staff attorneys are full-time employees
2. Learn to spell
3. You're right with your supply/demand argument, but you're still a tool.

Hope this helps.

Well, Covington had to do something to separate itself from the pack. It's starting to face some real problems, if this article is any indication:

http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1189451732837

In response to 2:26-

First off, Staff Attorneys at Covington (as those at many other firms) are "employees" of the firm, NOT contractors.

The firm has reaped substantial benefits from the work of staff attorneys and could afford to provide full benefits to them, as it does for everyone else from the mail room workers to all other attorneys. The reason Covington has not provided parental leave and various other selected benefits to Staff Attorneys is because they have been able to get away with it up to this point. These are benefits that are not often used, so very few people will make a fuss. Plus, when a person gets into the position of needing the parental leave, she (in this case this would only apply to a female) is not in best position to find another job. As much as we like to think it doesn't matter, please try to find an attorney position in DC while you are pregnant (and not hiding it).

Also, many people do not enter a job thinking, hmm... what if I have a baby, does this employer provide paid leave? Rather, you could find yourself in the position of needing the leave, and realize, at a big law firm that provides the paid leave to all "staff" and all "attorneys", that your position as a staff attorney, apparently not being considered as an "attorney" or as "staff" does not get the paid leave.

I truly believe that a large law firm, especially one with such a positive reputation as Covington, could muster up the decency to provide full benefits to all it's employees.

"Staff Attorney numbers however, are included in statistics for "attorneys" at the firm. Just a note on that, there are much higher percentages of miniorities and women working as staff attorneys than the percentage among the associates and partners."

Now THAT is sketchy, given that they distinguish among the ranks come benefits time.

Well 2:26 playing a game for shits and giggles is not employment.

While you may feel the comparison to mailroom clerks is "stupid", the comparison is appropriate. Staff attorneys are not associates nor are they contractors (most firms, like Covington, have a separate group of contract workers), so where do they fit? I would have to say staff. If the mailroom clerk is staff and get certain benefits, why aren't the same benefits extended to STAFF attorneys.

At-will employment is not synonymous with contract or temporary work. The fact that a firm uses the term "contract" to deny reasonable benefits is unconscionable.

We aren't talking millions of dollars here folks! The cost to offer these benefits will not bankrupt any large firm. (or put a dent in profits for that matter)

Further, a great deal staff attorneys are more experienced than some associates (as most of them used to be associates or had their own firms). That experience is utilized heavily by firms, including Covington.

And I agree with ivandrago - 2:54 -- you are a tool.

all you staff attorneys need to get back to doc review asap before we take away your internet privileges.