Career Clinic: A baby before my training contract starts?

You are setting yourself a pretty ambitious timetable. However, assuming (and it is a pretty big assumption) that you manage to get pregnant quickly enough and happily slip into a world of blissful motherhood, juggling your LPC with a newborn is probably achievable, even if you don't get the best grades. Training contract is a different ball game altogether. Your training contract can pretty much define your legal career - you need to get the right seats, get on with the right partners, be seen to be out and about at social/client events after work and above all be brimming with enthusiasm when asked to stay up all night for a completion at no notice whatsoever. How on earth are you going to juggle a corporate/banking seat with the inevitable late nights in the office? Even other so-called "easier" departments will require long hours at times and there will be plenty other trainees willing to smile, grit their teeth and get on with it. Many women manage to juggle both but it tends to be after getting a few years experience and goodwill under their belt so that their firms are more willing to be flexible with them - selfishly, of course, because they don't want to lose a valued employee whom they have invested in. They also by then earn more money and can more easily afford the necessary child care/domestic help that makes life bearable. Unfair as it may seem, career wise it's probably not a good move so how much do you really want to put your career above your personal life?

Associate, City firm -29 May 2008 | 12:47

I would recommend you get qualified first. Then kids. Once you have that certificate you're in a more powerful position because you can make choices. As great as having a kid may be, you may have too much on your plate, especially as a City trainee given that you probably will not get home till about 8 or 9 on average.

Anonymous -29 May 2008 | 12:51

Whilst ambitious, it is feasible. I had my first child during my part-time CPE (after having secured a training contract with a magic circle firm) and my second during my training contract. It is feasible, but a good support network is a must. Also, I would not try to 'time' a baby around when you may or may not qualify or get a particular seat. It does not generally work like that. Also, if you start your training contract in 2010, you would presumably qualify in 2012. Do you want to wait four years to get on with your family life?

Pregnanttrainee -29 May 2008 | 14:51

There is never an ideal time to have a child. But you must be aware that having a baby doesn't stop with the birth - it is a lifelong commitment and is not a case of "getting it out the way" to let you concentrate on your career.

Got-the-t-shirt -29 May 2008 | 15:11

I say family comes first! Life isn't all about work!

Anonymous -29 May 2008 | 15:31

I got pregnant (planned) during my CPE and managed to juggle looking after a baby and study for my LPC, coming out of law school with good grades. As soon as I started my training contract at a mid-sized City firm, they went out of their way to help me - letting me start work early and leave early to pick up my daughter from nursery. As long as you show yourself to be a keen, intelligent trainee while you're at work and hence endear yourself to the partners, you'll be okay - better to have a family now than when you're five years qualified. I've got two children now and am 2 years qualified - it's hard but it is possible - and definitely worth it.

lawyer with kids -29 May 2008 | 16:05

If you want kids right now, then go and have kids right now, don't let career ambitions stop you. Your work should be able to work around that, and not the other way around.

Anonymous -29 May 2008 | 16:16

I know the legal profession is naturally chauvinistic but it is odd why no-one has mentioned the obvious here - what commitment can your other half make to bringing up the child? If he is not in work or if he is able to be more flexible than you will be able to be then can't he do his bit? It will require some difficult decisions on your part if this is a possibility but speaking as a dad who regards the period of time I looked after his kids whilst my wife worked as one of the best times of my life, I wouldn't rule it out.

Simon -29 May 2008 | 16:31

erm - forgive the Freudian slip - "looked after MY kids". Though they do look like the milkman...

Simon -29 May 2008 | 16:50

I have lost count of the number of female lawyers known to me who put their personal life on hold while they developed their careers. Now in their forties, these women are mainly single (I realise the poster is married) and all would love to have a family. For many of them it is too late short of a miracle. They are all bright,lovely women. If one were to have a baby only when practical (or affordable) no-one would have them. Unfortunately the legal profession is notoriously behind the times about female lawyers with children, especially part time workers. But that is not a reason to postpone a baby if you want one. Look at it this way: if you have a baby now by then time you are established in your career - say 5 years qualified, your children will be at school. I agree with the poster who says babies are not something you fit in around your career. They are the most precious things in the world. If you want one, or two or more, go for it. (But avoid Ealing hospital, recently found to be the dirtiest in the country).

City Lawyer -29 May 2008 | 16:55

Simon, why do you assume that this person has another half, and if so, that it's a he?

In house lawyer -29 May 2008 | 17:13

It depends upon your long-term priorities. My wife worked for a magic circle firm and saw many mid-30s lawyers unable to conceive having left it too late. They were all utterly miserable because of it. We therefore started a family at 29 and we have never regretted it. If you want a family then start now and work around it otherwise you may miss your chance.

Regional Solicitor -29 May 2008 | 17:20

Do it! Don't wait and don't try to time it so that it's convenient. You have more energy now than you will ever have later on. A career in law is challenging, so is raising a family. If you want both at some point you will have to learn to manage both and you may as well start as you mean to go on. I wish I'd used at least some of the energy I had in my twenties on babies rather than offering circulars!

Ex-MC Lawyer -29 May 2008 | 17:30

You work to live, not live to work. Having a family is the most important decision you'll ever take - do it when and if it is right for you, not your employer. Letting career development dictate when you have a family is letting the tail wag the dog.

Associate, US Firm -29 May 2008 | 17:34

Wow! What a tricky question! My wife and I present a bad example. We were both 'dinkies' with demanding high-pressure professional careers (she in architecture, me in law). We didn't intend having a baby, until a happy accident late in life (she in her 40s, me in my 50s - risky but turned out OK). My wife said: "After six months, I'll go back to work". She didn't. Having a baby changed her and now 12 years on, she's a full-time mum, not regretting her career after all, although she was well established. Yes, we're lucky that we don't need two incomes, and of course it's very different for you if you and your partner are just starting out. One takes the point made by 'City Lawyer', as we also know many delightful, attractive ladies who have missed out by not having babies early on. There's no glib answer, and as other posters have indicated, there's never a best time for having babies, and you can manage to 'juggle', etc. All in all, I think just go with your instincts - you can't plan these things like a business. If you really want a baby (or two or three!) then just go ahead and que sera sera. You'll always manage somehow, and you never know what's around the corner! Good luck!

Group Solicitor (In-house) -29 May 2008 | 17:51

To in-house lawyer's question "Simon, why do you assume that this person has another half, and if so, that it's a he?" - because the poster says that she is married. I did wonder if I should keep the reference to the partner gender-neutral (post the advent of civil partnerships) but I thought that it would be fairly obvious that what I said about a male spouse would apply to a spouse of the same gender and therefore concentrated on the point at hand. As opposed to rabbitting on like this.

Simon -29 May 2008 | 18:35

In House Lawyer - the original poster describes herself as a "married" prospective "mother", ergo "other half" and "he" are fair assumptions, I'd say.

Associate, US Firm -29 May 2008 | 18:41

Statement 1: "having a child now means that I can get it out of the way and fully focus on my career afterwards". Statement 2: "I dread...being made to feel like a terrible mother". Statement 1 is indicative that you will be a terrible mother. Many women manage to juggle a career and family, this must require huge self-sacrifice and a difficult balancing act between the priorities demanded by their careers and those required by their children. To those individuals I extend my respect. You demonstrate no intention of attempting any balancing act as is evident from statement 1. Therefore if statement 1 actually represents your honest frame of mind then you will be a bad parent. Turning to statement 2, if someone is a bad parent why shouldn't they be made to feel like one?

Anonymous -29 May 2008 | 18:48

I thought the current state of the law was that two people of the same gender cannot be married. A civil partnership is a legally distinct relationship. Therefore if a female is married, by definition her spouse must be male.

Anonymous -29 May 2008 | 18:56

I would say a baby is a gift, if it is meant to happen, then you are lucky. Unfortunately, I am in the unmarried 40-something category - while working as a paralegal my not-very-pleasant boss started poking his nose in my private life and I became introverted as a consequence as I found it offensive. He even took up the Bar Directory to attempt to locate someone for me. What he did not appreciate was that I was single for a reason as I was studying and working and did not have much of a social life. Therefore I considered his intentions were suggestive that I did not have a career with the firm : but saw it as defocusing away from his own problems of having no clients by ensuring the male populace in the firm was focusing on me - I was asked some very bizarre questions by male fee earners which raised a presumption that I was a topic for discussion and a target: hence introspection. I also noticed that another person who had been qualified for a number of years also appeared to have it suggested to her that she got married and thereafter had kids and she complied. I have also noticed that some woman take convenient career breaks when there is not a lot of work around. Because I became introspective I perhaps missed an opportunity and may have upset someone who genuinely liked me - I probably will never know. Unfortunately, law offices also tend to have a policy concerning work-based liaisons even where they are genuine - being junior I have never engaged in this activity and found being a target horrendous. I also consider the legal profession has difficulty in being discreet, behaving with decorum and etiquette and decently to each other and as a consequence I stepped away, did not associate with my colleagues and was largely insulted by their conduct. So even if my boss thought he was well-meaning, the detriment I experienced was not nice/offensive. I suspect there are many lawyers out there who have an eye on a lovely little thing but don't know how to address the issue - so us 40-somethings are dedicated to our jobs, etc. You have yet to engage with the office culture; I would say let nature take its course, rather than let the unnatural world of the legal firm impact on nature.

ANON -29 May 2008 | 21:35

To those that are debating the gender of my spouse - yes, it is a 'he', and yes, he earns enough for us to get by and even afford the prospective childcare costs. In any case, I will only be out of 'work' for one year (LPC), after which I'll be back to earning (in my first year of training) about the same as I do now.Short of telling you where I do my banking, suffice to say we can afford it. It's just the guilt issues that are the main problem at the moment. I've seen people guilt themselves about their work and their home lives simultaneously that they eventually end up being rather rubbish at both; and I would hate for that to be me. Then again, I don't want to get to my mid-late 30s and realise that it's too late or, failing that, a massive biological mountain to climb.So, since I sent this post in, we've decided to start trying - watch this space for the next instalment entitled "Now I have one, I really want to get rid of it!" I kid, I kid ... (no pun intended).PS - A lot of you on this board are a real bunch of softies! :) Was fully expecting to get ripped another one, so many thanks for helping to put things into perspective.

Future_Trainee -29 May 2008 | 23:35

All of the above posts are quite sensible (for once). There are risks for you in either case - you may find law and small children a hard juggling act (many do), or you may wait too long and fail to conceive (a recognised phenomenon among stressed legal high flyers). I would say that having children is the best thing I ever did, and I sometimes wish that I had been less cautious in my thirties (I stopped at two to allow more focus on my career).Things never turn out quite how you plan them (if you think so, don't have kids!) On balance, if your instinct says have a child now, why wait?

Another working mother -30 May 2008 | 10:49

Good luck, future trainee, think of all the fun you will have making that/those baby/ies!

City Lawyer -30 May 2008 | 11:44

I'd say go for it, assuming you're in a stable relationship etc. There's no good time (legal career wise), the work does not get any easier as you progress through the ranks, arguably gets worse. If you are going to be a working mum, you've got to accept that you will need a full-time nanny, possibly two shifts of nannies if you're going to do banking or M&A work. You are lucky if you are so fertile you can conceive to pinpoint accuracy, we waited years, went through the usual treatment cycle a few times, gave up, and then lo and behold, she was conceived when we least expected it! So if you tried and it didn't happen immediately, don't despair - keep trying! A baby is a blessing whenever he or she arrives.

May -30 May 2008 | 12:03

You're young, married/in a stable relationship, your partner is in financially good stead - why would you possibly let anything deter you from having babies? And besides, you can never regret having a baby even if it was at the expense of your career, but it doesn't quite work the other way around (as the biological clock ticks away!) Go for it while in full vigour and energy before a law career gets to turn you cold and stern.

Anonymous -30 May 2008 | 12:37

I am concerned that you are already trying for a baby as I am not sure you have really thought this through. For instance, do you only want the one child. If not, when are you going to have the second one? During the training contract is a bad idea, and the first couple of years post-qualification are a really important learning curve - to miss out on one of those those would, I think, affect your career. I also agree with the comments posted by others about the commitment that is expected from a trainee both in terms of hours worked and face time at social events. Leaving aside the issue of whether your husband is prepared to babysit every night, or you are lucky enough to have family close by who can help out, has it occurred to you that once you have a child you won't actually want to be in the office all the hours? Having a child is a massive commitment and fundamentally alters your life view. Believe me, once you have a small child waiting eagerly to see you when you get in, you won't want to be stuck in the office round the clock waiting for a deal to complete. The views expressed here polarise the issue - if you don't have a baby now you don't have to wait until you are forty and your fertility has declined, particularly as you have already done the difficult bit and found a willing partner. I started a family at seven years PQE, and it has worked for me. I have enough seniority and goodwill in my department to arrange my working days as I need to be able to leave early. Unfortunately, as a trainee or NQ, you are not in a position to decide when you should leave the office. I think it will be immensely stressful.

city litigator -30 May 2008 | 17:31

Just one other view: spare a thought for your future colleagues. When i was qualifying (a few years back), a fellow trainee had a baby just prior to the start of the TC. So she was allowed to be away from work from time to time, depending on the urgencies of the baby-related matter and usually at the last minute. It didn't exactly endear her to any of her team/fellow trainees as someone had to pick up the pieces. Though she claimed to be working from home, how she could do her trainee work from home was anybody's guess. Now I can hear people from all over the country telling me about work-life balance/legal rights etc - all i am saying is that your colleagues are entitled to their feelings too, when they are the ones who have to bear the brunt of your last-minute absence. And come the day when you can't qualify into your desired banking/corporate seat, don't then turn round and say nobody's warned you. After all, a law firm is a busienss first and foremost.

associate -31 May 2008 | 12:49

Have your baby when and when you want. Jobs come and go and you already have the golden TC :) . What point is there is staying up all day and night to impress partners at firm 1 when you may well move on to firm 2 on qualification ? Well I give firms /companies/employers as much love and thought as they give me ;)

2PQE -01 Jun 2008 | 11:11

In response to 2PQ - I am not sure the 'I don't have to impress anyone as I can always get another job' attitude is particularly big or clever in the current economic climate...

city litigator -02 Jun 2008 | 10:25

I think you should wait until the end of your TC. Firstly, you'll have job security (ish) and can claim your firm's maternity benefits, which may be better than the statutory minimum.Also, and this is probably not what you want to hear - you need to consider that something could go wrong - maybe the baby will be ill, or you have a difficult birth and you or the baby could need looking after for a while afterwards. If you are already qualified, you know that you can return to work later, but if you have not yet commenced your TC, you will be in a very difficult position if you need to recover from a difficult birth or your baby has had problems and needs you, rather than a carer to look after it and you have to let the TC go because you need to be a stay at home mum for longer than you anticipated. In any event, you assume you can get pregnant right away. I did, when I first tried, but many people don't. Wait until 2012 - then start trying. You can be in control of many things in your life, but babies and pregnancies are not within your control.As for the person above who claims this lady is likely to be a bad mother - I'm interested you clearly think you are or would be a perfect parent, (as you sit in judgment) since such a thing does not exist.

Helen -02 Jun 2008 | 11:27

A baby is for life, not just for the "infant years" and they need lots of support at primary school and after, even if it is not nappy changing. If you are still in your twenties, get your training contract under your belt. Even if you decide not to go back to the law after your baby, at least you can use that experience to do something else. By the way, why should you be made to feel like a bad parent when presumably your husband will be working all hours and will not be regarded as a bad parent?

Anonymous -02 Jun 2008 | 17:33

Nonsense! I got pregnant (whilst married, although still a happy accident!) during my CPE in a foreign country with no grandparents on hand. My husband and I sailed through the early years with ease (oh and the help of a wonderful au-pair!). I did the LPC giving birth two weeks before the winter exams and got a distiction in every single subject then and during the summer exams. Opposite to popular belief, you'll get pregnant, not stupid! and as you can't drink and hang out with your fellow students whilst large like a whale, you have no choice but study and get great exam results! as for the training contract I did a corporate seat and a banking seat during my training contract (both departments offered me jobs on qualification!), amongst others, at a top City law firm. Not at any point I felt that my motherhood hindered my career in any way. I put in the all-nighters like any other trainee, loved the client entertainment and socilaising like any of my other colleagues and just made sure that I set aside qulaity time with my son on weekends. I now have an extremely happy, mature and very well balanced 9 year-old who has a great role model in both his mummy and daddy and who also has a huge network of ex-nannies and childminders whom he keeps in touch with and knows will be there even if mummy and daddy aren't God forbid. So no, you won't be a bad mother. and in any event, who defines what a good mother is? I can see a huge number of "stay at home" types at my son's private school who give much less affection, attention and care to their children than my husband and I do to our little boy, because for us every minute with him is precious. In summary, go for it, you won't regret it, but be prepared it won't be easy and make sure you don't have to call in favours at work if you struggle. Most partners at my firm never had any idea I had a small child and why should they have? Also, make sure your husband understands the huge demand of your job as a trainee and as a newly qualified and supports you all the way through. Also, get a live in au-pair, that's your key survival kit. Good luck!

in-house counsel -02 Jun 2008 | 17:54

I genuinely do not think that having a baby now is the best course of action for you. this is especially because it is only half the battle. Afterwards, you will be faced with taking care of him/her. of course, there is always the possibility of hired help but it has its shortcomings. You will be building your career from scratch, perhaps working long hours late into the night, and a baby will be an enormous distraction at this stage.

Chioneso -02 Jun 2008 | 21:42

I started a law degree with a 3 year old and a new baby. Went on to take my (then) Solicitors' Finals and did articles as they were growing up and by the time they were in full-time school I was heading for partnership. But it was a second career. I'd spent 8 years acquiring some useful skills elsewhere and found firms prepared to be more flexible than many, but with hindsight, I was exhausted for about a decade! Remember, the qualification equips you to do many things apart from be constrained by the dated cultures in too many law firms.... follow your heart and instincts. There are more important things in life than work.

Sue Stapely, Sue Stapely Consulting -04 Jun 2008 | 18:08

Family comes first, and I'm not saying its impossible. However, even if you are managing ok as a trainee with a one-year-old and not falling behind, you will arguably need to be seen to work even harder. Many colleagues will see it as a negative point from the start, and you need to be sure that your fellow trainees don't see you getting 'extra flexibility' because of the kid, or it will likely lead to resentment.

Legally Blonde -05 Jun 2008 | 17:22

I really think that In-house Counsel needs a huge reality check. I'm sure there is a tiny minority of working parents for whom parenthood is a breeze, having abdicated virtually all responsibility for childcare to a team of nannies/au-pairs/childminders, but back in the real world which most of us inhabit, how many people can afford to do without, say, £50,000 of pre-tax income for a full-time nanny? To suggest that parenthood is something that you can just do at weekends is astonishing, and by suggesting that those who take their parental responsibilities more seriously do not treat every minute with their children as precious is, frankly, insulting. Of course the partners at her firm never had any idea that she had a small child because, to all intents and purposes, she didn't. As they say in the Mastercard adverts: "remember who you REALLY work for".

Anonymous -05 Jun 2008 | 17:34

Don't think I said any of what insulted poster of 05 June suggests. Never had a full time nannny, just a live-in au-pair, so cost was about the tenth of what you suggest. And my husband and I did it first on one analyst salary and then on a small trainee salary and analyst salary in a tiny flat (you can do your maths 8 years ago!) and in a foreign country with both parents thousands of miles away! But we got through happily and it didn't kill us. The fact that we've been exhausted for the last 8/9 years between nursery and school runs, tea time, bath time, bed time stories and all sorts of school activities whilst holding down tough jobs (although always sharing the burden!), is a small price to pay for having a wonderful child (whom we spend time with, not only at weekends!) and a great career for both. I think we just got on with it, instead of whinging all the time and running to colleagues, friends, parents for favours. I think what I was trying to say is that with good organisation, discipline and a great partnership with your other half it's more than doable and millions of women and men around the world do it every day. By "stay at home types" I meant the ladies who lunch! Since you read and comment on this article, I suspect you are not in that category so puzzled by your being insulted. Also, if you spend quality time with your children then why you think my comment applies to you?! I meant exactly those who hand the children down to nannies living it up on well-to-do hubby's salary and rock off to the gym or nailbar or to shop till they drop(you see plenty of those where I live, trust me!). I think if you try it hard you can have it all. My mother and my gran both did it and their children turned out happy, functional and successful and I don't intend to be an exception. I think women are much stronger and can grin and bear more than they think they can if they give it a go and you don't have to be a single, childless, unloving ice queen to make it to the top. So I think I'm quite in touch with reality, thank you and I think those of you who can't reconcile family, parenthood, loving marriage and a career are the ones who got stuck in the stone ages.

in-house counsel -05 Jun 2008 | 19:12

and by "if mummy and daddy are not around, God forbid", I meant a cancer scare a few years back, love! since then I make it damn sure that my son grows up with an army of wonderful people around him outside our families who'd help him and my husband cope and get out of it happy and balanced in case next time I wasn't so lucky. I don't think I'm selfish by allowing him the opportunity to be loved by other people and build close relationships with outhers so his little world does not revolve around me entirely and that he'd have a chance to find huge comfort in people who love him to bits already if things turn sour. You probably noticed that I am now in-house, so I can also look after myself a bit more due to a more flexible working environment. But no health care or child responsibility will stop me from having an intellectually stimulating and challenging job as well as a work/life balance 9 years on. But these are just my abnoxious, out-of-touch with reality thoughts :o)

in house -counsel -05 Jun 2008 | 20:28

I am fully sympathetic to the dilemma you face. I'm currently holding an offer to start a CPE this September, now I am in the position to pursue a career in law (fees were impossible to meet in the past, as I'm not from a wealthy family). However, reality has just dawned on me: I am not actually in a position to take up my place at all. At 32, I know that if I want to have a family, I have to start factoring it in to my plans pretty soon. My age makes the prospect of two years p/t on the CPE, 1 year f/t on the LPC and 2 years of training contract feel impossible: I can't imagine putting kids off and only to end up a childless high-flyer at any cost. Although I have a good graduate job, (as good as someone who did an Arts degree could expect, at least!), I'm torn between wanting to reach my full potential as a solicitor and knowing that biology won't wait forever. True, I could probably have my first child at about 37 or so when the qualification/training contract is over, but by then I'm pretty sure the chances of fitting another baby in before my childbearing years are over are slim. It's an unfortunate position to be in - especially as at 32 I don't professionally consider myself 'over the hill' and am more than willing to undertake further study to better myself. My advice to you is this - if you are still in your 20s and are lucky to have a training contract, then for goodness sake grasp the opportunity with both hands. You'll have the early part of your 30s to have children. However, if you're in you're early 30s like me and have a little way to go yet, think very, very carefully about what you want the most. Whichever way you look at it, something will have to give.

Wished I Could Have Done It Earlier, Grad Firm, Cheshire -09 Jun 2008 | 17:34

Yes, I know this may be considered in bad taste, it not being 12 weeks and all, but I just found out that I'm officially pregnant! Conceived 2 days after my original post appeared on here (rather scary, really!)! Thanks again to everyone for their comments, and keep your fingers crossed for me!

Future_Trainee -14 Jun 2008 | 19:05

Although it is a juggle I would not put it off if you are emotionally ready now. I had my first baby whilst a trainee (and was retained by my firm). It was an enormous juggle and my husband and I had very little family support but you just have to make sure you create a good support network with other working parents. We now have three children and I have continued in the law throughout. We both work flexibly so that we can share school nursery pick-ups and holiday cover. It can be exhausting to juggle all of the responsibilities but it is incredibly rewarding.

Andrea Wright, Legal Counsel: IP and Commercialisation Manager;University of Newcastle -22 May 2009 | 13:34