|
Although most large law firms make part-time schedules available to their
experienced attorneys, in 2002, as has been the case since NALP first compiled
this data in 1994, very few attorneys have taken advantage of this option. These
are among the findings of the most recent analyses of the NALP Directory of
Legal Employers, the annual compendium of employer data published by NALP.
The 2002-2003 Directory comprises listings from primarily large firms and
includes part-time information from more than 1,200 individual law offices
representing about 615 firms and over 100,000 partners and associates
nationwide.
The 2002 analyses reveal that 96.3% of the offices in the Directory allowed
part-time schedules, either as an affirmative policy or on a case-by-case basis
— close to the figure of 95.9% reported in 2001. The number of attorneys
reported to be working on a part-time basis was 3.7%, as compared with 3.5% in
2001. Associates took greater advantage of part-time schedules than did
partners, with 4.8% of associates working part-time, compared with 2.4% of
partners.
NALP's data reveal differences in the availability and use of part-time
schedules when measured by size of firm, city, and state. For example, although
part-time schedules were not quite as widely available in firms of 100 or fewer
attorneys, the extent to which associates in those firms used part-time
schedules during 2002 (4.6%) equaled that of the largest firms.
Associate use of part-time schedules was greatest in firms of 101-500, at
about 5%. Part-time partners, however, were much less common than part-time
associates regardless of firm size, ranging from 2.2% in firms of 101-250
attorneys to 2.6% at smaller firms.
The availability of part-time schedules also differed greatly among cities,
from a low of about 85% in Hartford and Phoenix to 100% availability in about
half the cities studied. Hartford had the highest percentage of attorneys
actually using the part-time option, at 7.9%, followed by Boston and Denver
where the percentages were between 6% and 7%. Denver boasted the highest
percentage of part-time partners, at 8.4%, followed by Seattle, Boston, Phoenix,
and San Francisco. Associate use of part-time schedules was somewhat higher in
general, and ranged from 1.5% in Charlotte to 11.2% in Hartford.
Entry-level lawyers in search of part-time schedules found their options more
limited. Nationally, 57% of the offices that offered a part-time option
precluded entry-level associates from using that arrangement, and slightly less
than 6% had an affirmative part-time policy that made the option available to
all attorneys. Nonetheless, an entry-level attorney's chances of finding
part-time work were somewhat higher in firms of 250 or fewer attorneys. Offices
in Hartford and Boston offered the best prospects for entry-level attorneys
looking for part-time work — the cities least likely to offer a part-time option
to entry-level attorneys were Newark and Kansas City.
Seven states, or portions of states not represented by the cities above, had
sufficient data for a parallel analysis. Among these states, part-time work was
more available in Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, where all of the offices
represented in the Directory reported extending the part-time option; Texas
showed the least possibility of part-time work. Following the national patterns,
these states had higher percentages of part-time associates than part-time
partners. Of note: in some states, such as New Jersey and New York, the
differences were especially pronounced. Returning to the subject of availability
of part-time work for entry-level associates, among these seven states, Virginia
had the highest percentage of firms that made part-time work available to new
attorneys.
Part-Time Lawyer Ratios Differ from the Workforce at Large
Interestingly, the dearth of part-time attorneys at law firms distinguishes
private law firm practice from both the U.S. workforce as a whole and from more
defined segments of the workforce. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), almost 11% of all individuals aged 25 or older who were employed in
non-agricultural industries during 2001 usually worked part-time, and about 13%
of those employed in professional specialties (e.g. engineers, architects,
physicians) during 2001 usually worked part-time. These rates contrast markedly
with the 3.7% rate among attorneys at major law firms.
NALP's data show that the relatively low percentage of part-time attorneys
during 2002 is not an indication that the option was not available. It is likely
that many factors play a role in determining whether or not an attorney avails
him or herself of the part-time work option. The relatively low use of what may
be perceived as a positive perquisite may reflect law firm cultures. A decision
to pursue a part-time schedule in a law firm setting would naturally include
concerns about the effect part-time work might have on one's career path, in
addition to various personal desires.
Availability and Use of Part-Time Provisions in Law Firms —
2002
| |
Availability — Percent of
Offices |
Use — Percent of Attorneys Working
Part-Time |
# of Offices |
| Part-Time Avail.* |
Not Avail. to Entry-Level** |
Affirmative Policy Applicable to
All |
# of Partners |
% Part-Time Partners |
# of Associates |
% Part-Time Associates |
% Part-Time Overall |
| Nationwide |
96.3% |
57.4% |
5.6% |
48,812 |
2.4% |
57,097 |
4.8% |
3.7% |
1,233 |
| Firms of: |
| 100 or fewer |
88.8 |
56.7 |
5.9 |
7,254 |
2.6 |
5,428 |
4.6 |
3.4 |
268 |
| 101-250 |
97.8 |
63.2 |
6.7 |
13,385 |
2.2 |
12,002 |
5.3 |
3.7 |
275 |
| 251-500 |
99.3 |
48.1 |
4.6 |
12,150 |
2.5 |
13,531 |
5.0 |
3.8 |
287 |
| 501+ |
98.3 |
59.6 |
5.4 |
16,023 |
2.5 |
26,136 |
4.6 |
3.8 |
403 |
| Offices in: |
| Atlanta |
90.3 |
42.9 |
0.0 |
1,388 |
2.2 |
1,679 |
4.3 |
3.4 |
30 |
| Austin |
100.0 |
60.0 |
5.0 |
388 |
0.8 |
469 |
3.6 |
2.3 |
20 |
| Baltimore |
100.0 |
77.8 |
0.0 |
487 |
3.7 |
354 |
7.1 |
5.1 |
9 |
| Boston |
96.3 |
19.3 |
15.4 |
1,563 |
4.9 |
2,381 |
7.2 |
6.3 |
26 |
| Charlotte |
85.7 |
58.3 |
0.0 |
405 |
3.2 |
397 |
1.5 |
2.4 |
14 |
| Chicago |
100.0 |
48.3 |
6.7 |
3,993 |
2.3 |
3,725 |
3.3 |
2.8 |
59 |
| Cincinnati |
100.0 |
40.0 |
10.0 |
321 |
2.2 |
265 |
4.2 |
3.1 |
9 |
| Cleveland |
100.0 |
63.6 |
0.0 |
589 |
2.2 |
582 |
5.8 |
4.0 |
11 |
| Columbus |
100.0 |
58.3 |
0.0 |
522 |
1.0 |
403 |
5.5 |
2.9 |
12 |
| Dallas |
96.9 |
58.1 |
3.2 |
1,198 |
0.8 |
1,314 |
2.8 |
1.9 |
30 |
| Denver |
94.4 |
47.1 |
17.6 |
498 |
8.4 |
408 |
4.9 |
6.8 |
18 |
| Detroit area |
100.0 |
57.1 |
0.0 |
668 |
1.8 |
351 |
3.1 |
2.3 |
13 |
| Hartford |
84.6 |
27.3 |
27.3 |
270 |
4.8 |
249 |
11.2 |
7.9 |
11 |
| Houston |
93.1 |
63.0 |
7.4 |
1,128 |
0.4 |
1,255 |
3.3 |
1.9 |
29 |
| Indianapolis |
85.7 |
33.3 |
0.0 |
308 |
1.3 |
259 |
5.0 |
3.0 |
6 |
| Kansas City area |
100.0 |
81.8 |
0.0 |
585 |
1.9 |
497 |
2.4 |
2.1 |
11 |
| Los Angeles |
98.7 |
73.0 |
1.4 |
2,227 |
2.3 |
3,050 |
4.4 |
3.5 |
74 |
| Miami |
94.4 |
52.6 |
0.0 |
401 |
3.2 |
396 |
3.8 |
3.5 |
18 |
| Milwaukee |
88.9 |
45.5 |
0.0 |
684 |
4.2 |
494 |
6.1 |
5.0 |
9 |
| Minneapolis/St. Paul |
94.4 |
35.3 |
11.8 |
1,109 |
3.3 |
810 |
4.8 |
4.0 |
18 |
| Nashville |
100.0 |
62.5 |
0.0 |
326 |
0.3 |
241 |
2.5 |
1.2 |
8 |
| New York City |
98.4 |
66.6 |
4.8 |
5,754 |
1.3 |
12,089 |
5.1 |
3.8 |
124 |
| Newark |
100.0 |
85.7 |
0.0 |
242 |
0.0 |
362 |
6.4 |
3.8 |
7 |
| Orange Co., CA |
100.0 |
73.9 |
13.0 |
486 |
2.1 |
652 |
5.1 |
3.8 |
23 |
| Philadelphia |
100.0 |
45.8 |
8.3 |
1,420 |
3.5 |
1,426 |
5.6 |
4.6 |
21 |
| Phoenix |
84.6 |
54.5 |
0.0 |
574 |
4.5 |
516 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
13 |
| Pittsburgh |
100.0 |
61.5 |
0.0 |
506 |
2.2 |
523 |
3.4 |
2.8 |
12 |
| Portland, OR |
100.0 |
61.5 |
0.0 |
471 |
4.0 |
363 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
13 |
| Raleigh/Durham |
100.0 |
33.3 |
0.0 |
176 |
4.0 |
148 |
6.1 |
4.9 |
8 |
| Richmond |
100.0 |
75.0 |
0.0 |
475 |
2.5 |
402 |
4.0 |
3.2 |
8 |
| San Diego |
92.9 |
61.5 |
7.7 |
442 |
2.9 |
642 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
14 |
| San Francisco |
95.8 |
67.4 |
4.3 |
1,391 |
4.5 |
1,896 |
6.2 |
5.5 |
47 |
| San Jose area |
85.7 |
75.0 |
4.2 |
652 |
3.2 |
1,691 |
2.5 |
2.7 |
27 |
| Seattle area |
92.9 |
50.0 |
7.7 |
862 |
5.2 |
734 |
5.9 |
5.5 |
28 |
| St. Louis |
100.0 |
62.5 |
12.5 |
572 |
2.8 |
419 |
6.4 |
4.3 |
8 |
| Tampa/St. Petersburg |
100.0 |
58.3 |
0.0 |
345 |
2.0 |
241 |
4.6 |
3.1 |
12 |
| Washington, D.C. |
99.2 |
55.9 |
9.4 |
5,112 |
3.1 |
6,292 |
5.3 |
4.3 |
125 |
| Wilmington |
88.9 |
37.5 |
25.0 |
262 |
1.1 |
264 |
5.3 |
3.2 |
9 |
| States: |
| California |
93.8 |
66.7 |
0.0 |
402 |
3.0 |
382 |
3.9 |
3.4 |
16 |
| Florida |
95.5 |
85.7 |
0.0 |
634 |
0.6 |
518 |
2.3 |
1.4 |
22 |
| Michigan |
100.0 |
63.6 |
0.0 |
371 |
2.4 |
198 |
5.1 |
3.3 |
11 |
| New Jersey |
100.0 |
58.8 |
5.9 |
600 |
1.2 |
735 |
6.1 |
3.9 |
17 |
| New York |
100.0 |
56.3 |
0.0 |
698 |
0.7 |
566 |
8.8 |
4.4 |
15 |
| Texas |
91.7 |
63.6 |
0.0 |
218 |
0.5 |
155 |
1.9 |
1.1 |
12 |
| Virginia |
96.2 |
52.0 |
4.0 |
442 |
0.2 |
427 |
2.8 |
1.5 |
26 |
*Percentages are based on all offices and reflect availability either as an
affirmative policy or on a case-by-case basis.
**Percentages are based on offices which make part-time work available.
Note: 55 firms/offices which make part-time schedules available did not
report on the availability of part-time work for new associates. In this
analysis, these firms were counted among those not offering part-time work to
new associates. The count of offices reflects the number of offices reporting
whether or not part-time work is available. In some cities the number of offices
reflected in the use statistics may be less because, for firms reporting firm
wide information for each of their locations, use information was counted only
once rather than in each city with a listing for that firm. The Detroit area
includes offices in Bingham Farms, Bloomfield Hills and Southfield. The Kansas
City area includes offices Leawood and Overland Park. Orange County includes
offices in Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach. Portland, OR includes offices
in Lake Oswego. The San Jose area includes offices in Cupertino, Menlo Park,
Palo Alto, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. The Seattle area includes offices in
Bellevue and Kirkland. State information excludes any cities listed separately.
Foreign offices are excluded from these analyses.
Source: NALP, 2002 NALP Directory of Legal Employers.
|