jca -- i don't think that the P's opinions are limited to law firms. i've known plenty of women -- my mother included -- who went back to work very soon after having a child because they were bored out of their gourds. i don't see it as a career preference, i see it as a personal one. (or as my mother put it -- "what do you have against my kids that you would wish to inflict me upon them all day?")

for an example of the other side, my boss -- a fabulous woman who made a 20-plus-year legal career for herself at a variety of federal agencies -- did the job/kids juggling act (3 kids, 9 years spanning the lot of them) by working part-time when they were very young and full-time when they got older. while she's a definite workaholic, she's supremely devoted to her family. it is possible to do the balancing act!

JCA,

Very interesting post.

Just a note about your last point regarding their outside involvement. It is possible for people to sit on boards, etc and not actually be involved in them. In fact, I understand that it is often expected that partners be involved in the community as a way of networking and business building.

Not so. My wife and I are among many two lawyer couples that we know, and although child care issues are a challenge for all of us, a challenge is all it is. Day care, nannys, grandparents-- and bringing work home. Having children shouldn't define a person anymore than on's vocation should.

I will say, however, that in our instance the fact that my wife was employed in the public sector for the earliest parts of our child rearing years was helpful. I guess the trick in this, as in many things, is to take the long view. Your children will be gone when you still have a long career left. Enjoy them while you have them, and focus on what you have rather than on what you are missing.

It is hard for me to believe that at some point or another you wouldn't have to put either your job or your kids ahead of the other. For example, my mother worked 60-80 hour weeks my whole life, on the night shift no less, and thus I never saw her. My dad worked FT as well, but was home by 5 everyday, so between him and daycare and grandparents I was raised. However, let me note that I spent MANY years resenting my mother for spending more time at work than with me...in fact, I'm not sure I'm completely over it now.

Second observation, of the mother who puts the kids before work. The first law firm I worked in was a small practice with two partners. The lead partner was female and had two small children when I started working there (2 and 4). I worked there for 3 years and left at the end of year 3 because we were going bankrupt. The female partner had decided her family was more important than the job, on multiple occasions, and thus the firm slowly began to spiral downward. Not only did the firm suffer, but because of the demands of the dying firm and her children...the partner has been in and out of a mental care facility for over a year now suffering from a nervous breakdown.

I think it must be very hard to balance both a law career and children and offer both enough of your time. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm sure that it can, but there will always be times when you have to choose between the two and one will suffer. I personally don't think I want to have children. If I'm going to have children I don't want someone else (father, nanny, grandparents, daycare) raising them. However, if I want to be involved in their lives it'll mean I can't work 60 hour weeks, or stay late at the office to work on a case when they have a school play. It all just seems like a lot to juggle. God bless the women who do so successfully! :)

Out of curiosity, what types of responses were you expecting? There are a limited number of ways the world works:

1. Mom works, Dad doesn't.
2. Dad works, Mom doesn't.
3. Mom works part-time, Dad works full-time, outsourcing used part-time.
4. Mom works full-time, Dad works part-time, outsourcing used part-time.
5. Both parents work part-time, outsourcing probably needed at least part-time.
6. Both parents work full-time, outsourcing needed.

What other options are there? It seems to me that you shouldn't feel disgruntled that these are the options, but should be trying to figure out how satisfied people are with the option they've chosen.

If both parents work full-time and feel like they are able to see their children an appropriate amount while still conducting careers that they consider to be fulfilling and meaningful, then that's success. If they are miserable and never see their kids, that's not success. By the same token, if a parent (of either sex) elects to stay home full time, if the parent at home feels like he or she is spending meaningful quality and quantity time with the kids as well as leading a fulfilling and meaningful adult life, then that's success for the at-home parent. If the at-home parent feels resentful about not leading an adult life, then he or she is probably not operating at 100% with the kids, either, and that whole enterprise is not successful.

So the trick, as I see it, is for everyone to try to find a situation where they are happy with the choices they've made on both a professional and personal level. That isn't an easy task, to be sure, but I feel like you're setting potentially insurmountable hurdles.

You're right, by the way, about the notion that one starts to care about women's issues (if one didn't care before, which I, like you, didn't) when you have kids or are preparing to do so!

I feel like you're setting potentially insurmountable hurdles.

Maybe I am, in which case I'll wind up reassessing when faced with the actual decision instead of just the hypothetical. I just came away from all of these partner interactions with a grim, grim picture of my potential family life: it looked like neither hubby nor I would ever be home, and that's more outsourcing than I'm ready to commit to.

If both parents work full-time and feel like they are able to see their children an appropriate amount while still conducting careers that they consider to be fulfilling and meaningful, then that's success.

Couldn't agree more. I was just unnerved since it looked like stepping onto the partner track -- which otherwise seemed eminently worth a shot -- would preclude the former.

Fortunately there are plenty of other fulfilling and meaningful careers in law outside of the partner track! (At least as far as I'm concerned; the P's and I clearly differ on this. But that's why they're P's.) Frankly, something off the partner track has been the plan all along. I just never enjoy ruling out options, that's all.

I think that a lot of women want to think there is some perfect time in their lives to have children. In March of last year less than six months before I was do to start law school I got pregnant. It was definitely unexpected so then I had to decided whether or not to postpone law school or go for. I went for it (at your old law school).

Being pregnant in law school, especially during my first year was difficult. My main school concern was making it through finals since I was do one day after my last final which happened to be Civ Pro. I almost made it. I went in to labor the night before and had to make up my final. And I did that too. I went back to school about a month after I gave birth. I took a reduced course load, nine instead of fifteen units. I definitely had times when I felt like maybe I was a bad mother and I had times when I felt like a bad law student. But I got through it. Now I'm working part time this summer. You can make it work.

I know I just rambled on and on about my personal life and at this point you may be thinking good for you, but what does that have to do with having a baby and making partner. I guess my point is just that if you plan things out too far into the future you can probably plan your life and some how completely skip fitting kids in. If that sounds good to you go far, but if it feels like something important is missing then just know that you can make kids work in your life even if you're a busy, career oriented woman (without totally neglecting the child either).

If you want to talk any more you can email me about it. (If you have no interest I won't be hurt).

I just reread my post and I see I left out a word or two and at one point wrote far instead of for. Not a huge deal but definitely something I would have noticed pre-baby and don't notice quickly enough post-birth.

I know for myself, and speaking as a husband who would at some time like to be a father, I chose not to go the law firm route (I know that really isn't what you're interested in JCA). I know when I was thinking about where I wanted to be, I wanted to be in a place where 50 hours was about normal (because really that is normal in the private sector), and the 60 hour week was quite rare, so I chose Tax, with an accounting firm.

It helped that I had a background in accounting. For me, life's too short to spend it all working, so I just knew that a law firm wouldn't be a good fit. What's really scary, is that when you run the numbers, on a per hour basis, is that there isn't too much of a disparity, it all comes down to what is your time, perhaps more importantly what is your time as a youth >=40 (no offense to those over 40) worth?

Since my aspirations are to political office more than a judgeship, I don't think legal vs. accounting would make much difference, in fact to the voters accounting may be preferred, but I suppose if you like the idea of being a judge, being in a law firm may be a necessary evil.

Raising children to be independant, socially-contributing, "happy" individuals of society is tough work.

Can it be balanced? Certainly.

But American women have been sold a myth by the early feminist movement in the US encouraging the superwoman "you can have it all now".

Reality is no one can have it all: man or woman.
There will always be tough choices ahead and as a parent you strive to make the "right" decision.

Think of a clown juggling balls in slow motion.

It is a balancing act and the fancy trick is to not to keep the balls all up in the air but to be able to enjoy each ball as it grips in your hand.

My hubby's friend's mother is the first woman judge to India's Supreme Court and raised three successful, "happy" chidlren. Yes, India.
Where women don't have half the opportunities and resources of America. She didn't try to have it all, all at once.

It took time (with the kids) and sacrifice (at some opportunities) but she raised a Ivy-league, professor-son, an-acclaimed doctor-son, and a successful attorney-daughter and eventually pursued a rather satisfying career in the law.

Ironically she wanted to be a high-flying female attorney but she became nation's first female judge (not a bad compromise, huh!)

Stop reading your law school textbooks, got down to the used book store and buy Eduardo Del Rio's Marx for Beginners. Pay close attention to the part about the expropriation of the immediate producers. Recognize that the whole purpose of a law firm is to pay the workers less than their labor is worth and pocket the difference. To be a partner is to skim off the associates cream, to be the founding partner is to skim off all the cream. You cannot get to be a founding partner if you work for someone else.

Then, read Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America by Jerold S. Auerbach and recognize that the only purpose of law school is to keep the jews and the Irish from the practice of law. Once you have done that, you can decide if you want to graduate from school, take an entry-level position in a small firm or in a branch of government and clerk for the three to four years it takes to become an effective lawyer (not just one with a license). If you do, you can a wonderful profession and spend your life helping people. If not, you can take that associate position at a big firm and spend your life fucking the working man and keeping the [N-word deleted] down.

I would like to say that I "make it work," at least that's what it looks like from the outside looking in. Two parents, working full-time, with busy, rewarding careers, who both share equally in the responsibility of a beautiful, bright toddler who is the sun and the moon to them both. It is possible, it most definitely is.

But there are everyday heartbreaks, and always that doubt and sometimes pangs of guilt. You can attend every doctor's appointment, be a homeroom mother, and be very attached to your child, and you will still wonder if there is more you should be doing.

But then again, I would wonder if every mother feels that way, regardless of whether she stays at home, or works outside the home.

Wow. Something to think about and another huge reason why I never want to work in a firm. I know a friend's sister who has a nanny and she once said "I can't wait until the nanny gets back, so the kids behave." Uh?????

Outsource parenting.

Equilibrium, I think you make an excellent point with your question. My guess is yes, absolutely, all mothers wonder if there is more they should be doing. No matter how much time you spend with your kids, how much you do for them, even if you sacrifice your career, free time, etc... you will wonder if you could be doing more for your child/ren. Such is the nature of a mother's love. I am in the summer before my 3rd year of school and if I receive an offer, I will be working next year for a law firm at which I will be the only single parent. It's a daunting thought for me, but as I look back over what I've accomplished while raising my 13-year-old daughter, I believe I can do it. And while there will be tough times as there always have been, I truly believe (& pray) that my daughter will be better for it.

Thanks for the really interesting post. I have two kids, and I don't think I'd be considering big law if it wasn't for the fact that my husband now works part-time from home. I don't fault anyone who goes the nanny route, but I just don't think I could handle it.

I'm hoping that eventually I can take advantage of flextime policies, or do part of my work from home after the kids are in bed. They really aren't little for very long, and if it means that I don't get as far along in my career as my peers, then I can live with that.

LAD to pretty much everything Kim said. Also these:

You can attend every doctor's appointment, be a homeroom mother, and be very attached to your child, and you will still wonder if there is more you should be doing.

and this:

American women have been sold a myth by the early feminist movement in the US encouraging the superwoman "you can have it all now". Reality is no one can have it all: man or woman. There will always be tough choices ahead and as a parent you strive to make the "right" decision.

Additionally: I can't help but be offended by your assessment of AP as "the baby at the expense of everything else." Some people view attachment parenting as putting the baby's needs above all else. I, in contrast, see it as one of the few American mindsets that aims to balance a baby's needs with the parents' ability to provide for those needs.

It's just that this society happens to gradate personal value by age. If you are young, your needs and ideas aren't particularly important - and, by extension, neither are you. So what if the child just wants to be held? Stick it in a bucket seat and let it scream, it'll get used to that in time. Nobody stops to think that maybe the baby, as a human itself, ought to have at least somewhat of a say in how it is raised. Nobody stops to think that a need filled in infancy goes away, and a need not filled in infancy perpetuates itself

Two exampes. One: I remember going to the grocery store for my mother, before I was ten, and being passed over in line, again and again and again, because the cashier simply assumed that I was with an adult, instead of viewing me as a consumer in my own right. This pissed me off to such an extent that I vowed to never inflict the same damage on my own children or, for that matter, on anyone else's. Two: After a nursing strike at the age of five months, my mother decided I must be done with nursing and I was weaned to a cup. Babies have a particularly strong need to suck. I sublimated it onto my thumb and, despite every effort my parents made to break this habit, sucked it well into the fourth grade.

Oh, and although mainstream folks may or may not agree, I feel that I have a pretty balanced life. Ask me sometime what I'm up to, and I'll tell you.

I see that I am late to this discussion. What's always struck me as odd is that many of the same people who will readily outsource childcare are the same ones who would never delegate an important meeting with a client or a critical trial to an associate or even a colleague. In our professional lives, we recognize that outsourcing is a poor substitute, yet at the same time, it's readily accepted when it comes to kids. (incidentally, I do not regard part time dads as "outsourcing" - dads and moms are both parents and unless a mom is nursing round the clock, there's no reason why either dad or mom can't assume responsibility for childcare)

I think the only way to have balance when it comes to professional life and kids is to do both - but just not at the same time. Climb high and work hard before children if you can - and take time off or downtime and when the kids start school, go back. My younger daughter starts full day kindergarden August 31, putting an end to my 7 years of downtime. It felt endless while I've gone through it, but it's nothing more than a brief breath along the greater time line.

I first applied to law school when I was 23 and newly married. Six weeks later I found out I was pregnant and withdrew my application. We decided I would delay my dream for now and my husband would continue with his: Seminary and eventually a military chaplain. There were so many times over the years of raising children (I have four) where my heart ached to be in law school, but I knew I couldn't do both effectively. My youngest son started elementary school this past year and I started law school. I am 39 years old and my children range from 15 to 7. I just got my ranking (top 3% at a Tier 1 school) and I am applying for a transfer to Harvard. It is finally my turn. I wish I could tell you how valuable this has been for my children. They have all been totally invested in every step of my law career. When I got accepted to law school last year, you should have seen my household: my 15 year old was dancing and screaming and my 12 year old was yelling out the window: my mommy is finally going to be a lawyer!" I can't even type it without tears in my eyes. Mostly, they know that I put this on hold because I wanted time with them while they grew up--an invaluable lesson for them to learn. Yes, it's hard knowing that I'm essentially 20 years behind everyone else, but it's worth it. I know there will be long days at the office and I will be missing things with my 7 year old I didn't miss with my 15 year old, but my husband is now at a time in his career where he can take extra time. Not only that, but I'll soon have a daughter who can drive so I will be freed up there as well. Anyhow, I'm sorry this went on so long, I just wanted to offer a different view in case anyone is reading this who hasn't decided on law school yet. Sometimes, when we choose to have children, we have to put our own dreams on the shelf for awhile. It's torture, but it pays in spades. If you could see my happy, well-behaved, very normal children, you'd know what I'm talking about.