Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu May 02, 2013 9:47 pm

I looked around to find an old thread on point but surprisingly couldn't find much. Also anon for obvious reasons.

When should a woman aim to get pregnant (to the extent that you *can* time a pregnancy) after she starts full-time as a biglaw associate in NYC? I'm assuming not when she's a first year associate. So should she wait til her third year? Is second year too soon? What is the best timing, career-wise?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Anonymous User » Thu May 02, 2013 9:52 pm

I was going to lunch with a partner during the summer. We ran into a former associate who now works in-house. She is currently on maternity leave and seems very happy. I am guessing pregnancy after securing an in-house job sounds like a good idea.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby 09042014 » Thu May 02, 2013 10:03 pm

Year 2, 4 and 6. They won't fire you right after maternity leave, and they won't fire you once you are pregnant. And at the end of the last one, just don't come back. BAM they'll pay you a million dollars for like 3 solid years of work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Anonymous User » Fri May 03, 2013 8:37 am

I'd be interested to hear as well. I was planning to have the first in the 2nd/3rd year, just because I'll almost be 30 when I start practicing and the negatives of having a kid after 35 are too much for me. My belief is that there really is never an ideal time to have a kid (unless you have a millionaire husband or something). I'm hoping to go part-time at the firm, and I have heard that a number of women there do (and met some of them). But we'll see how soon I get pushed out or I voluntarily leave.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby IAFG » Fri May 03, 2013 8:56 am

After making partner seems like a favorite time.

If I didn't have a kid as a 3L, I would wait until RIGHT before you're going to start looking for lateral options. As DF alluded to, let that firm pay for your maternity leave/medical expenses, and go to your new employer ready to focus on work again.

Also, buy and read Lean In, if you haven't already.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby IAFG » Fri May 03, 2013 8:57 am

Anonymous User wrote:I'd be interested to hear as well. I was planning to have the first in the 2nd/3rd year, just because I'll almost be 30 when I start practicing and the negatives of having a kid after 35 are too much for me. My belief is that there really is never an ideal time to have a kid (unless you have a millionaire husband or something). I'm hoping to go part-time at the firm, and I have heard that a number of women there do (and met some of them). But we'll see how soon I get pushed out or I voluntarily leave.

WHY would anyone want to go part time. They work you damn near as much, for half the pay and 1/4 the respect.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby NYstate » Fri May 03, 2013 9:18 am

IAFG wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I'd be interested to hear as well. I was planning to have the first in the 2nd/3rd year, just because I'll almost be 30 when I start practicing and the negatives of having a kid after 35 are too much for me. My belief is that there really is never an ideal time to have a kid (unless you have a millionaire husband or something). I'm hoping to go part-time at the firm, and I have heard that a number of women there do (and met some of them). But we'll see how soon I get pushed out or I voluntarily leave.

WHY would anyone want to go part time. They work you damn near as much, for half the pay and 1/4 the respect.


Part time is a flame.

For me, the firm preferred me to be on disability leave until I could come back full time. The part- time option just doesn't work that well. And, no one will respect you around the office. You rapidly become a non-entity.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22779
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri May 03, 2013 9:33 am

Full disclosure: I have not done this, so have your grain of salt ready. But academia is sort of similar, in the sense that you have a period of time as a grad student, then you enter into a 6+-year associate-like period (tenure track) where, at the end, you're "up or out" (tenured or booted). And the short answer from all those discussions is that there is no perfect time to have a kid, career-wise, so you might as well do it whenever works for you, personally, and your family.

(Slightly longer version: do you have a kid in grad school when you have no money and possibly delay your degree and look insufficiently "serious" as an academic? Do you have a kid early on the tenure track and piss everyone off by taking maternity leave as soon as you get to a job and look insufficiently "serious" as an academic? Do you do it later in the tenure track when you're taking on more responsibility and need to be ramping up research production and taking leave makes you look insufficiently "serious" as an academic? Do you wait till you have tenure and you might be 35 and facing fertility issues etc.? I see these different stages as kinda paralleling the biglaw track - obviously the facetime/hours of biglaw is different (tougher) than academia, but in academia, you are the only person in a department who can offer your classes, so that complicates leaves in a way it doesn't in biglaw, so they sort of equal out.)

I do agree that, to the extent you can time it, the first year in the job is probably not ideal, and people's suggestions about doing it right before you lateral (or after you get partner, if you plan to stay in big law) make a lot of sense to me. But really, there are so many pros and cons to any possible schedule that if you don't want to wait that long, I think it's kind of up to what works for you/your family.

Torney12
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:14 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Torney12 » Fri May 03, 2013 9:58 am

There's no ideal time to get pregnant in big law because the big law model isn't meant to accommodate employees who need to take off as much as half a year (whether due to pregnancy, illness, relatives' illness etc). Big law is meant for those who can work year round. I consider myself supportive of those with families, yet even I often find myself initially irritated whenever an associate or the rare partner decides to leave for maternity. All I worry about is that their work will land on my desk and make my days even longer. I get over it because I have a mother and know mothers and I respect motherhood, but most people in big law couldn't care less about others' babies. The nature of our work is 24/7/365, so anyone who checks out for even a moment is a pain in the ass.

What this means is that trying to plan your pregnancy for a time when it will cost you the least in big law is impossible. No matter when it is that you leave, you will be inconveniencing and displeasing someone and missing out on something. If you take maternity as a junior associate, then you risk falling behind in building skills that you will need as a midlevel (when the demands made on you really ramp up). If you take maternity as a midlevel, then you're going to really piss people off because by then, you'll actually know enough to be useful and relied upon. If you take maternity as a senior associate, it could cost you partnership or put you on a much-delayed and much more difficult track, and if you take maternity as a junior partner, it could cost you valuable time spent building business/credibility and being mentored by senior partners. Regardless of when you take time off, there is always a risk that it will negatively affect your career and annoy those whose favor you need to succeed. Of course, once you are an established partner, then there is minimal risk and you can easily take maternity leave. By then, however, your fertility will be greatly compromised and even nonexistent due to age.

So, my advice to you would be to plan pregnancy around your family, not your firm. Give yourself a couple of years to settle in at your firm. Taking maternity during the first year is not even an option at most firms anyway because policies usually require you to have worked for anywhere from a year to two years. Even if there is no actual minimum time at your firm, however, you should give yourself a couple of years to get to know people, become known for good work, and learn something (very important in case you get the cold shoulder upon returning from maternity and need to lateral). After this two year period, however, I would say go ahead and get pregnant whenever you and your husband are emotionally and financially ready for a baby. Don't try to wait until the timing is perfect because it never will be. The price you might pay for your baby is an often-temporary (though sometimes prolonged) hit to your career, but if you care about motherhood, then the price should be worth it. FWIW, in my experience, there are far, far more big law women who regret delaying childbearing for career reasons than those who regret not delaying childbearing for career reasons. You don't get any awards for being so dedicated to big law that you missed out on children.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Anonymous User » Fri May 03, 2013 10:18 am

OP, are you currently a 1L, 2L or graduating 3L? I'm trying to plan for a 3L kid. From every woman that I've spoken to that was not 22 when she went to law school, they have overwhelmingly told me to try and have a kid while I'm in school if at all possible. Lawyers,professors--I've even heard this from biglaw "women in law" panels at school. You have more time than you will as a young associate learning the ropes.

User avatar
Borg
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:08 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Borg » Fri May 03, 2013 10:36 am

I think you should wait until your third year. That way you will be senior enough to assign work to the baby, and the baby will be old enough to understand.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Anonymous User » Fri May 03, 2013 10:41 am

Torney12 wrote:There's no ideal time to get pregnant in big law because the big law model isn't meant to accommodate employees who need to take off as much as half a year (whether due to pregnancy, illness, relatives' illness etc). Big law is meant for those who can work year round. I consider myself supportive of those with families, yet even I often find myself initially irritated whenever an associate or the rare partner decides to leave for maternity. All I worry about is that their work will land on my desk and make my days even longer. I get over it because I have a mother and know mothers and I respect motherhood, but most people in big law couldn't care less about others' babies. The nature of our work is 24/7/365, so anyone who checks out for even a moment is a pain in the ass.

What this means is that trying to plan your pregnancy for a time when it will cost you the least in big law is impossible. No matter when it is that you leave, you will be inconveniencing and displeasing someone and missing out on something. If you take maternity as a junior associate, then you risk falling behind in building skills that you will need as a midlevel (when the demands made on you really ramp up). If you take maternity as a midlevel, then you're going to really piss people off because by then, you'll actually know enough to be useful and relied upon. If you take maternity as a senior associate, it could cost you partnership or put you on a much-delayed and much more difficult track, and if you take maternity as a junior partner, it could cost you valuable time spent building business/credibility and being mentored by senior partners. Regardless of when you take time off, there is always a risk that it will negatively affect your career and annoy those whose favor you need to succeed. Of course, once you are an established partner, then there is minimal risk and you can easily take maternity leave. By then, however, your fertility will be greatly compromised and even nonexistent due to age.

So, my advice to you would be to plan pregnancy around your family, not your firm. Give yourself a couple of years to settle in at your firm. Taking maternity during the first year is not even an option at most firms anyway because policies usually require you to have worked for anywhere from a year to two years. Even if there is no actual minimum time at your firm, however, you should give yourself a couple of years to get to know people, become known for good work, and learn something (very important in case you get the cold shoulder upon returning from maternity and need to lateral). After this two year period, however, I would say go ahead and get pregnant whenever you and your husband are emotionally and financially ready for a baby. Don't try to wait until the timing is perfect because it never will be. The price you might pay for your baby is an often-temporary (though sometimes prolonged) hit to your career, but if you care about motherhood, then the price should be worth it. FWIW, in my experience, there are far, far more big law women who regret delaying childbearing for career reasons than those who regret not delaying childbearing for career reasons. You don't get any awards for being so dedicated to big law that you missed out on children.


I know in my heart everything you said is true but it still hurts to hear it.
Sigh.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby IAFG » Fri May 03, 2013 10:57 am

Don't be defeatist. Women do it, stay in biglaw, and are glad for it. It can be done.

Shibal Procedure
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:59 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Shibal Procedure » Fri May 03, 2013 11:07 am

Abstinence. :wink:

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby NYstate » Fri May 03, 2013 11:08 am

IAFG wrote:Don't be defeatist. Women do it, stay in biglaw, and are glad for it. It can be done.

This is very true. Most of the women partners at my firm have at least one kid.One has four. It is doable. You just need to figure it out with your SO and also plan for having lots of support.

Some of these women manage with planned C-sections. I have no opinion on that, just saying that is an approach. Recovery is longer but they seem to not really stop working.

Like everything else in big law, it helps greatly to have unlimited energy and super organization skills.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby kaiser » Fri May 03, 2013 11:11 am

Sure, it is doable, but it is difficult, and less common than we would like to think. So you can't go in and simply expect that to be the workable and probable outcome. Its the same reason you don't point to a crappy school and note the grads who did happen to get biglaw (i.e. "but I know a bunch of people who went to that school yet turned out alright"). That just simply isn't the expected outcome, and you can't just assume that you can make it work, when the biglaw lifestyle is largely incompatible with the kind of home/family life people desire.

My motto is always "hope for the best, expect & plan for the worst". That way, you are prepared for the worst possible outcome, even if it is unlikely. Here, unfortunately, the "worst" outcome isn't uncommon (i.e. people being unable to balance a rewarding home/family life with biglaw commitments). So it would behoove you to plan for that to some extent.

Torney12
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:14 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Torney12 » Fri May 03, 2013 11:56 am

NYstate wrote:
IAFG wrote:Don't be defeatist. Women do it, stay in biglaw, and are glad for it. It can be done.

This is very true. Most of the women partners at my firm have at least one kid.One has four. It is doable. You just need to figure it out with your SO and also plan for having lots of support.
Meh. It's absurd to accuse a person of being defeatist for acknowledging the truth and it is extremely misleading to point to female partners. The fact that some female partners have children really isn't useful because you have to really get close and see what their lives are like. How often do they see their children? How old were they when they had the first kid? Is the kid even biologically theirs? Giving birth and basically handing the kid to a nanny in order to return to work immediately is pretty common. Strange, uncomfortable arrangements like surrogates, foreign adoptions, and claiming stepkids are also common. And you really need to get to know some of those who have to resort to in vitro or egg donors at age 39. They go through hell to have the one kid that they never see. The only female partner I know who had multiple kids as an associate and still made partner also "coincidentally" comes from money, married into even more money, and used those connections to carry her through. The firm always pushes her forward as their resident 'you can have it all' mother of the year, but how many women have social and political connections so powerful that the firm needs them, not the other way around?

Like everything else in big law, it helps greatly to have unlimited energy and super organization skills.

This line also makes no sense. No one has unlimited energy and all the organization skills in the world will not change the fact that the average woman going through childbirth will need time to recover from the birth and then henceforth regularly be put in the position to choose between being a hands-on mother and being a good associate. The difficulties involved with that have nothing to do with energy or organization skills.

The only part that I agree with is the part about lots of support being essential. Hands-on husband, nanny, babysitter, relatives, and even other associates willing to help you out are really important. Being realistic about the challenges is also very important. You can't go into big law with a pollyanna outlook on life. For most people, especially women, there will be unpleasant tradeoffs and you need to start figuring out what those tradeoffs are, which ones you're not willing to make, and how you're going to plan for it all.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby IAFG » Fri May 03, 2013 12:10 pm

I find it defeatist to have it "hurt" to hear that biglaw is a time-intensive job. Guess what, being a successful professional requires you to make personal sacrifices. Toughen up.

As for the whole nanny/surrogate/adoption spiel, I don't know if it's more offensive to adoptive parents or to women in general.

If you think that you personally would not want to hire a nanny, shorten your maternity leave in favor of working, spend some evenings and weekends away from your kid to work, fine. Don't do it. But don't demonize parents who do.

Torney12
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:14 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Torney12 » Fri May 03, 2013 12:16 pm

IAFG wrote:I find it defeatist to have it "hurt" to hear that biglaw is a time-intensive job. Guess what, being a successful professional requires you to make personal sacrifices. Toughen up.
The poster didn't say that she was going to roll over and die or give up. She merely said that it hurt to hear of the considerable difficulties that she would face just because she is a woman who wants to have both children and a career. To most normal people of any gender who have feelings, her reaction was human and understandable. I can understand though how you would have trouble relating to mere mortals since you are clearly Superwoman and all.

As for the whole nanny/surrogate/adoption spiel, I don't know if it's more offensive to adoptive parents or to women in general.

If you think that you personally would not want to hire a nanny, shorten your maternity leave in favor of working, spend some evenings and weekends away from your kid to work, fine. Don't do it. But don't demonize parents who do.

Feel free to be as offended as you want to be.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby IAFG » Fri May 03, 2013 12:18 pm

Maybe I read too much into OP's statement. I think your bizarre rant was hard to misinterpret though.

Torney12
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:14 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Torney12 » Fri May 03, 2013 12:21 pm

IAFG wrote:Maybe I read too much into OP's statement. I think your bizarre rant was hard to misinterpret though.

Oh. I'm stung.

Torney12
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:14 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Torney12 » Fri May 03, 2013 12:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Torney12 wrote:There's no ideal time to get pregnant in big law because the big law model isn't meant to accommodate employees who need to take off as much as half a year (whether due to pregnancy, illness, relatives' illness etc). Big law is meant for those who can work year round. I consider myself supportive of those with families, yet even I often find myself initially irritated whenever an associate or the rare partner decides to leave for maternity. All I worry about is that their work will land on my desk and make my days even longer. I get over it because I have a mother and know mothers and I respect motherhood, but most people in big law couldn't care less about others' babies. The nature of our work is 24/7/365, so anyone who checks out for even a moment is a pain in the ass.

What this means is that trying to plan your pregnancy for a time when it will cost you the least in big law is impossible. No matter when it is that you leave, you will be inconveniencing and displeasing someone and missing out on something. If you take maternity as a junior associate, then you risk falling behind in building skills that you will need as a midlevel (when the demands made on you really ramp up). If you take maternity as a midlevel, then you're going to really piss people off because by then, you'll actually know enough to be useful and relied upon. If you take maternity as a senior associate, it could cost you partnership or put you on a much-delayed and much more difficult track, and if you take maternity as a junior partner, it could cost you valuable time spent building business/credibility and being mentored by senior partners. Regardless of when you take time off, there is always a risk that it will negatively affect your career and annoy those whose favor you need to succeed. Of course, once you are an established partner, then there is minimal risk and you can easily take maternity leave. By then, however, your fertility will be greatly compromised and even nonexistent due to age.

So, my advice to you would be to plan pregnancy around your family, not your firm. Give yourself a couple of years to settle in at your firm. Taking maternity during the first year is not even an option at most firms anyway because policies usually require you to have worked for anywhere from a year to two years. Even if there is no actual minimum time at your firm, however, you should give yourself a couple of years to get to know people, become known for good work, and learn something (very important in case you get the cold shoulder upon returning from maternity and need to lateral). After this two year period, however, I would say go ahead and get pregnant whenever you and your husband are emotionally and financially ready for a baby. Don't try to wait until the timing is perfect because it never will be. The price you might pay for your baby is an often-temporary (though sometimes prolonged) hit to your career, but if you care about motherhood, then the price should be worth it. FWIW, in my experience, there are far, far more big law women who regret delaying childbearing for career reasons than those who regret not delaying childbearing for career reasons. You don't get any awards for being so dedicated to big law that you missed out on children.


I know in my heart everything you said is true but it still hurts to hear it.
Sigh.

It's okay to be hurt by a hurtful situation. It is not fair or right or necessary that big law is structured in such a way as to often penalize women for being women. Big law is tough on women and it is tough on men too because not all men want to be absentee fathers. Anyway, it's smart of you to think of these things now, rather than suddenly have to figure it all out mid-career. The profession is changing, but not as quickly as rosy accounts would have you believe.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Anonymous User » Fri May 03, 2013 12:27 pm

IAFG wrote:I find it defeatist to have it "hurt" to hear that biglaw is a time-intensive job. Guess what, being a successful professional requires you to make personal sacrifices. Toughen up.

As for the whole nanny/surrogate/adoption spiel, I don't know if it's more offensive to adoptive parents or to women in general.

If you think that you personally would not want to hire a nanny, shorten your maternity leave in favor of working, spend some evenings and weekends away from your kid to work, fine. Don't do it. But don't demonize parents who do.


As the son of parents who did just that, having a nanny take care of me, and being absent most of the time, I can say the demonization is warranted to some extent. My parents have always been strangers to me in a certain way, and of all the things they used to spoil me with, none of them actually made up for the one thing I actually wanted as a kid, which was to actually have them around a bit. So yeah, I don't look too positively on people who go that route.

Yet I chose to go to law school, and I'm praying that I hold true to my promise to not be as absent as my parents were.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby IAFG » Fri May 03, 2013 12:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
IAFG wrote:I find it defeatist to have it "hurt" to hear that biglaw is a time-intensive job. Guess what, being a successful professional requires you to make personal sacrifices. Toughen up.

As for the whole nanny/surrogate/adoption spiel, I don't know if it's more offensive to adoptive parents or to women in general.

If you think that you personally would not want to hire a nanny, shorten your maternity leave in favor of working, spend some evenings and weekends away from your kid to work, fine. Don't do it. But don't demonize parents who do.


As the son of parents who did just that, having a nanny take care of me, and being absent most of the time, I can say the demonization is warranted to some extent. My parents have always been strangers to me in a certain way, and of all the things they used to spoil me with, none of them actually made up for the one thing I actually wanted as a kid, which was to actually have them around a bit. So yeah, I don't look too positively on people who go that route.

I respect that my parents worked hard, were successful, and set a good example for me about career building. I don't look too positively on parents who don't model professionalism, hard work and dedication.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273107
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Pregnancy as a young biglaw associate

Postby Anonymous User » Fri May 03, 2013 12:32 pm

IAFG wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
IAFG wrote:I find it defeatist to have it "hurt" to hear that biglaw is a time-intensive job. Guess what, being a successful professional requires you to make personal sacrifices. Toughen up.

As for the whole nanny/surrogate/adoption spiel, I don't know if it's more offensive to adoptive parents or to women in general.

If you think that you personally would not want to hire a nanny, shorten your maternity leave in favor of working, spend some evenings and weekends away from your kid to work, fine. Don't do it. But don't demonize parents who do.


As the son of parents who did just that, having a nanny take care of me, and being absent most of the time, I can say the demonization is warranted to some extent. My parents have always been strangers to me in a certain way, and of all the things they used to spoil me with, none of them actually made up for the one thing I actually wanted as a kid, which was to actually have them around a bit. So yeah, I don't look too positively on people who go that route.

I respect that my parents worked hard, were successful, and set a good example for me about career building. I don't look too positively on parents who don't model professionalism, hard work and dedication.


Plenty of parents who are actually present in their children's lives are excellent models of professionalism, hard work, and dedication. That you imply that these things are somehow mutually exclusive is a bit odd.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri May 03, 2013 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.