A&O moves to retain talent with new flexi-time scheme for partners

Surely other firms have already made measures to retain female staff? A&O can't be the first.

Lady Gaga -21 Jan 2010 | 11:36

Lip Service?

Someone with more time on their hands and greater investigative powers than me (yes, I'm looking at you Legal Week), please run a cross-reference of A&O redundancies against participants in their flexi-working scheme at the time, feel free to add columns for gender breakdown of redundancies, women on maternity leave, women recently returned from maternity leave, and anything else that takes your fancy. When you've done that, please post a comment on this article that doesn't rhyme with "rollocks".

Stupot -21 Jan 2010 | 13:29

I am a male associate at A&O. I think this is a brilliant idea if put in practice. I think it is a good move to retain female lawyers but also other associates who might have slightly different plans for their lives than the traditional magic circle firm offers.

Associate -21 Jan 2010 | 13:48

Here we go again..

Bleeding heart liberals.

toby -21 Jan 2010 | 15:30

Fair enough, I'd say.

Hmmmmm -21 Jan 2010 | 15:45

You spin me right round baby right round because I want a baby

I often worry that I increase in cynicism on a Friday. Perhaps blame a scurrilous Friday newsletter website for that. But, looking at this again, I can’t help but think that this could be used to take equity points away from an underperforming partner in a face-saving way. “Not bringing the fees in to justify your points? Let’s make you a beacon of our flexible working policy.”

Or how about: “Partner in a department that is feeling the recession? Nice to have around, useful client base in due course, but a drain on resources right now? How about you spend some more time with the kids?” And so on.

Something tells me it won’t be: “Recently made up and desperately hard-working partner in a busy department? Take some time off and start a family.”

But then perhaps I’m a terrible person. Of course it will be applied for by individuals and not thrust upon them. Because there is generally a great acceptance in law firms for the need for a work/life balance and lawyers are falling over themselves to be considered willing to volunteer for part-time arrangements. Mmm. Or perhaps those partners will just continue to dump on the associate and head home to see the kids before logging on a bit later, just like they’ve always done...

Stupot -22 Jan 2010 | 15:58

You're quite right - you're a terrible person.

Hmmmm -25 Jan 2010 | 10:08

This is good news for some. However, I was at a conference last year where folks were required to 'think outside the box a bit' on employability. Flexibility obviously came up. One chap suggested: "Do we really need 9-5?" and the discussion turned to how many people working 9-5 would actually work 37.5 hours better outside of 9-5 hours, or a combination of. The work/life balance. Food for thought.

ANON -25 Jan 2010 | 15:38

Hmmm A&O?

Thanks for shooting at the open goal I left in my comment Hmmmm. Perhaps a short note of clarification is worthwhile:

1. Do I think that flexible working practices can work in principle? Yes. Works for a number of my colleagues (in-house).

2. Do I think they can work in a law firm? Yes. Provided whomever runs the deal can manage client expectation, they work fine. Too often, they will make promises that cripple their associates without checking our timelines though, because they think that equates to client service. However, I know if my external advisers send me emails over the weekend, in the main I will tell them off for being losers. If I'm organised enough to request the advice early enough, there is enough time for the lawyers to work flexibly. And for the big deals... well a lot of the work there is interchangeable - I'm not too fussed about who did most of the due diligence, for example, as long as they are competent, and I really don't think it takes that long to get someone up to speed on the deal for the "grunt" due diligence.

3. Do I think they will work in a law firm? Here I worry. The trouble is many of the law firms compete on service to justify the fees, and unfortunately, many seem to think service means 24/7 availability. Why do I use magic circle firms? Generally, because something is so big-ticket (for whatever reason) that I want to comfort non-execs with the wonderful brand of "magic circle advice". Do I give a monkey's whether that advice came in at 3am or 10:30am? No. I want the correct advice, that's the main thing, but a lot of it is piggy-backing off the brand so we know we've done the right thing (and can convince non-execs, FSA, whatever). For the BAU work, I'm unlikely to want to pay MC rack rates.

But... do I give a monkey's whether the MC adviser works three days a week, has kids they see, whatever? No. Yes, there are relationship partners, and sometimes I will want to hear a particular individual's thoughts, but rare indeed that I can't wait a week or two on something that important to allow them to come back from holiday.

4. Do I think A&O really means this scheme? Have a look at the Andrew Ballheimer email about 24/7 availability and secretaries never giving the impression someone is unavailable to external or internal callers (email available from all good scurrilous lawyer news websites). Or indeed the pride they took in answering the phones on a spec call put through on NYE one year.

Have a look at the points alluded to in my first post on this topic.

Now let's be clear. I am not having a dig at A&O in particular here, it just happens A&O is the subject of this article. But if we regroup in a year Hmmmm, I'll give you 50p if this has been rolled out at A&O (or indeed, any other MC firm - not grinding a specific law firm axe here) in a manner other than that suggested in my last post.

Stupot -29 Jan 2010 | 11:01