Top Law Schools

I'm considering a lateral move to another big law firm in the next couple of months. Hubs and I are "trying" but the maternity policies for most firms don't seem to kick in until you've been there for 12 months. Just curious about how a firm might handle a situation where a lateral is due before the 1 year anniversary.

Anyone dealt with this? Will they still give you full leave? Will they pro-rate it? Will you not get anything?

This happened to my colleague. She was due 10 months in. The firm let her take the entire leave. Probably because they didn’t want the potential bad press.

Anonymous User wrote:This happened to my colleague. She was due 10 months in. The firm let her take the entire leave. Probably because they didn’t want the potential bad press.

Thank you. That's kind of been my thought (and hope). Seems like any progressive firm would do their best to accommodate an expectant mother in this case rather than catch any bad press for not.

You will get the leave. Firms care about mothers and babies health, at least in my experience.

They will absolutely give it to you, in part because, as people say above, HR and the staff side will be much more concerned with helping you and putting on a good face for the firm. Partners could look at it negatively, but won't so long as you make good relationships. Likely they won't even be aware of the time frame if it's only a few months difference.

First anon poster.

Would you discuss this policy with HR before accepting an offer? Just to be sure that "if" you did get pregnant before your eligibility kicks in, you'd be okay?

Biglaw can be a mixed bag. I know of a couple of people who had kids in the past two years who got shafted by not being at their new firm long enough for the leave to kick in, one who got a shortened discretionary paid period, but two who got told basically "tough luck." It's going to be firm dependent and possibly also "your value to the firm" dependent. In the grand scheme of things, if you can fudge it a few months to wait, it may be worth it to be sure you don't ged scr*wed.

Anonymous User wrote:First anon poster.

Would you discuss this policy with HR before accepting an offer? Just to be sure that "if" you did get pregnant before your eligibility kicks in, you'd be okay?

I don't think it'd hurt to discuss with HR post-offer, but I also am not sure of the value add to asking HR. HR is not going to say, "sure, we have a policy requiring 12 months, but it's really not enforced!" And even if HR says there's a mechanism for seeking an exception from the 12-month rule, you won't really get a sense of whether you'd be able to get an exception in practice.

(Although I guess it might tell you something if HR says the time requirement is strict and the firm has never ever made a single exception. So might still be worth asking.)

IMO, far more valuable to sound out associates re: the firm's general friendliness (or lack thereof) toward parenting. IME associates are generally pretty frank about answering questions relating to firm culture.

What about a situation where you lateral while already pregnant and start 4 or 5 months out from the due date? Obviously not an ideal situation, but assuming pros of moving outweigh cons/unique opportunity that’s unlikely to arise again, are you likely SOL at most firms?

Anonymous User wrote:What about a situation where you lateral while already pregnant and start 4 or 5 months out from the due date? Obviously not an ideal situation, but assuming pros of moving outweigh cons/unique opportunity that’s unlikely to arise again, are you likely SOL at most firms?

Biglaw is such a revolving door that I am struggling to think of a once in a lifetime unique opportunity. My advice is if you are going to lateral should you find such a situation make sure that benefits apply to your current pregnancy. Otherwise I wouldn’t lateral until after maternity leave and working a bit at the current firm.