|
Although most large law firms make part-time schedules available to their
experienced attorneys, in 2003, as has been the case since NALP first compiled
this data in 1994, very few attorneys took 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
2003-2004 Directory comprises listings from primarily large firms and
includes part-time information from more than 1,300 individual law offices
representing approximately 625 firms and 109,000 partners and associates
nationwide.
The 2003 analyses reveal that 96% of the offices in the Directory allowed
part-time schedules, either as an affirmative policy or on a case-by-case basis
- little difference from the 2002 figure of 96.3%. The number of attorneys
reported to be working on a part-time basis was 4.1%, as compared with 3.7% in
2002. Associates took greater advantage of part-time schedules than did
partners, with 5.4% of associates working part-time, compared with 2.6% 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 as widely available in firms of 100 or fewer
attorneys, associate use of part-time schedules was greatest in firms of 101-250
attorneys and 251-500 attorneys, at 5.9% and 5.7%, respectively. Part-time
partners, however, were much less common than part-time associates regardless of
firm size, with figures ranging only from 2.5% to 2.9%.
The availability of part-time schedules also differed greatly among cities,
from a low of about 83% in Indianapolis and Newark, to 100% availability in
about half the cities studied. Denver and Hartford had the highest percentage of
attorneys actually using the part-time option, at 7%, followed by Boston and
Seattle, where the percentages were about 6.5%. Denver boasted the highest
percentage of part-time partners, at 8.8%, followed by Seattle, Boston, and
Portland. Associate use of part-time schedules was somewhat higher in general,
and ranged from just over 2% in Birmingham and San Jose to 10.7% in
Hartford.
Entry-level lawyers in search of part-time schedules found their options more
limited. Nationally, 59% of the offices that offered a part-time option
precluded entry-level associates from using that arrangement, and only about 5%
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 251 - 500 attorneys. Offices in
Cincinnati, 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 Milwaukee and San Diego.
Six 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 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. In some
states, such as New Jersey and New York, the differences were especially
pronounced.
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), about 14% of individuals employed in non-agricultural industries during
2002 usually worked part-time, and about 13% of those employed in professional
specialties (e.g. engineers, architects, physicians) during 2002 usually worked
part-time. These rates contrast markedly with the 4.1% rate among attorneys at
major law firms.
NALP's data show that the relatively low percentage of part-time attorneys
during 2003 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 —
2003
| |
Availability - % of Offices |
Use - % of Attorneys Working Part-Time |
# of Offices |
| Part-time Available* |
Not Available to Entry-level** |
Affirmative Policy Applicable to All** |
# of Partners |
% Part-time Partners |
# of Associates |
% Part-time Associates |
% Part-time Overall |
| Nationwide |
96% |
58% |
5.2% |
51,360 |
2.6% |
57,753 |
5.4% |
4.1% |
1,305 |
| Firms of: |
| 100 or fewer |
84.7 |
59.7 |
3.8 |
7,484 |
2.9 |
5,505 |
4.6 |
3.6 |
281 |
| 101-250 |
98.9 |
56.8 |
7.1 |
13,582 |
2.5 |
11,446 |
5.9 |
4.1 |
283 |
| 251-500 |
100 |
44.7 |
3 |
12,411 |
2.7 |
12,509 |
5.7 |
4.2 |
302 |
| 501+ |
98.6 |
61.3 |
6.2 |
17,883 |
2.5 |
28,293 |
5.2 |
4.1 |
439 |
| Offices in: |
| Atlanta |
94.9 |
51.5 |
0 |
1,512 |
2.1 |
1,743 |
5.3 |
3.8 |
34 |
| Austin |
90.5 |
52.6 |
5.3 |
443 |
1.6 |
442 |
7.2 |
4.4 |
21 |
| Baltimore |
100 |
77.8 |
0 |
493 |
3.7 |
356 |
9.3 |
6 |
9 |
| Birmingham |
100 |
66.7 |
0 |
365 |
2.7 |
231 |
2.2 |
2.5 |
6 |
| Boston |
96.8 |
33.3 |
16.7 |
1,793 |
5.2 |
2,335 |
7.5 |
6.5 |
31 |
| Charlotte |
100 |
57.1 |
0 |
457 |
4.2 |
410 |
3.9 |
4 |
14 |
| Chicago |
98.3 |
56.9 |
8.6 |
3,986 |
2.6 |
3,549 |
3.5 |
3 |
57 |
| Cincinnati |
100 |
27.3 |
9.1 |
455 |
2 |
393 |
5.9 |
3.8 |
11 |
| Cleveland |
100 |
61.5 |
0 |
694 |
1.6 |
653 |
6.6 |
4 |
13 |
| Columbus |
100 |
53.9 |
0 |
573 |
0.5 |
434 |
5.5 |
2.7 |
13 |
| Dallas |
96.8 |
60 |
0 |
1,470 |
1 |
1,510 |
3.6 |
2.3 |
30 |
| Denver |
94.4 |
41.2 |
17.6 |
537 |
8.8 |
419 |
4.8 |
7 |
18 |
| Detroit area |
100 |
76.5 |
0 |
913 |
2.5 |
506 |
4.2 |
3.1 |
17 |
| Hartford |
92.9 |
30.8 |
15.4 |
459 |
3.5 |
431 |
10.7 |
7 |
14 |
| Houston |
93.3 |
53.6 |
3.6 |
1,059 |
0.8 |
1,247 |
4.7 |
2.9 |
30 |
| Indianapolis |
83.3 |
50 |
0 |
442 |
1.1 |
379 |
8.4 |
4.5 |
6 |
| Kansas City area |
100 |
63.6 |
9.1 |
647 |
0.9 |
509 |
2.8 |
1.7 |
11 |
| Los Angeles |
94.5 |
73.9 |
1.4 |
2,244 |
2.6 |
2,994 |
5.3 |
4.2 |
72 |
| Miami |
94.7 |
55.6 |
11.1 |
550 |
1.8 |
469 |
4.1 |
2.8 |
19 |
| Milwaukee |
87.5 |
85.7 |
0 |
592 |
3.4 |
395 |
7.1 |
4.9 |
8 |
| Minneapolis/St. Paul |
95 |
36.8 |
21.1 |
1,220 |
4.3 |
846 |
7.1 |
5.4 |
20 |
| Nashville |
100 |
37.5 |
0 |
334 |
0.6 |
245 |
3.3 |
1.7 |
8 |
| New York City |
97.6 |
66.9 |
4.8 |
6,075 |
1.1 |
12,934 |
4.6 |
3.5 |
123 |
| Newark |
83.3 |
70 |
0 |
420 |
0 |
605 |
7.1 |
4.2 |
12 |
| Northern Virginia |
100 |
65 |
0 |
311 |
1 |
356 |
3.7 |
2.4 |
20 |
| Orange Co., CA |
95.7 |
72.7 |
9.1 |
419 |
1.7 |
565 |
7.6 |
5.1 |
23 |
| Philadelphia |
100 |
40 |
4 |
1,627 |
2.5 |
1,712 |
8.2 |
5.4 |
23 |
| Phoenix |
100 |
73.3 |
6.7 |
613 |
2.9 |
515 |
6.6 |
4.6 |
15 |
| Pittsburgh |
100 |
57.1 |
0 |
643 |
2.6 |
592 |
4.1 |
3.3 |
14 |
| Portland, OR |
92.9 |
69.2 |
0 |
506 |
5.1 |
344 |
5.8 |
5.4 |
14 |
| Raleigh/Durham |
100 |
40 |
0 |
235 |
4.3 |
170 |
8.8 |
6.2 |
9 |
| Richmond |
100 |
77.8 |
0 |
520 |
0.6 |
403 |
5.2 |
2.6 |
9 |
| San Diego |
94.1 |
81.3 |
0 |
422 |
4.5 |
535 |
3.9 |
4.2 |
17 |
| San Francisco |
94.6 |
63.7 |
5.8 |
1,478 |
4.5 |
1,891 |
7.3 |
6.1 |
55 |
| San Jose area |
87.5 |
67.9 |
0 |
686 |
3.1 |
1,463 |
2.1 |
2.4 |
32 |
| Seattle area |
93.3 |
60.7 |
7.1 |
978 |
6.2 |
723 |
7.1 |
6.6 |
30 |
| St. Louis |
100 |
62.5 |
12.5 |
516 |
3.1 |
401 |
8.5 |
5.5 |
8 |
| Tampa/St. Petersburg |
100 |
66.7 |
0 |
337 |
1.8 |
264 |
4.9 |
3.2 |
12 |
| Washington, D.C. |
100 |
52.3 |
8.6 |
4,914 |
3.3 |
6,002 |
6.3 |
5 |
127 |
| Wilmington |
100 |
63.6 |
0 |
283 |
0.7 |
291 |
3.8 |
2.3 |
11 |
| States: |
| California |
90.9 |
65 |
0 |
448 |
2.2 |
436 |
3.4 |
2.8 |
22 |
| Florida |
96.2 |
68 |
0 |
594 |
1.7 |
421 |
2.4 |
2 |
26 |
| Michigan |
92.3 |
66.7 |
0 |
468 |
1.5 |
250 |
4 |
2.4 |
13 |
| New Jersey |
100 |
76.5 |
5.9 |
547 |
1.5 |
619 |
5.2 |
3.4 |
17 |
| New York |
100 |
42.9 |
0 |
583 |
3.1 |
466 |
8.8 |
5.6 |
13 |
| Texas |
88.2 |
60 |
0 |
319 |
0.9 |
241 |
2.9 |
1.8 |
17 |
*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: 72 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, usually for the "home" office, to avoid double counting. The Kansas
City area includes offices in Leawood and Overland Park, Kansas. Orange County
includes offices in Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach. The San Jose area
includes offices in Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, and
Sunnyvale. The Seattle area includes offices in Bellevue and Kirkland. The
Detroit area includes offices in Bloomfield Hills, Bingham Farms, and
Southfield. The Newark area includes offices in Newark, West Orange, and
Roseland. A few offices in Canada and Puerto Rico are included; offices in
Europe and Asia are excluded.
Source: NALP, 2003 NALP Directory of Legal Employers.
|