Yes…. but, or as we were all taught in law school, “it depends.”

Yes, lawyers can have work/life balance at times.  Yes, lawyers can have work/life balance if they are willing to sacrifice pay and prestige. And sometimes, yes lawyers can have work/life balance if they are lucky, a rainmaker, or running their own show.

There has been a lot of press lately about how miserable most lawyers are. The WSJ law blog asked us at the beginning of the year, Why Are So Many Lawyers Depressed?.   [Although, as an aside and as an employment lawyer, I have to say that I'm sure if a study was done there would not be more depressed lawyers than depressed people in the general workforce.] Indeed, many lawyers aren’t sure why they went to law school.  Lawyers drop out of the profession in great numbers, with women lawyers leading the way.

California Lawyer magazine reported last February (2007) that within five years of entering a firm, more than three-quarters of associates leave.  Female associates were nearly twice as likely as males to depart to pursue a better work/life balance.

Indeed, many older women who paved the way for younger women to make partner in firms and get ahead are frustrated by younger women’s refusal to sacrifice their family, their health and overall well-being.

The January issue of the California Bar Journal continues the theme with a cover-page article entitled, Billable hours ‘intersect’ with the profession’s woes.

The article starts off with a story about Diane Farber, a woman who “had it all” — that is all the legal profession had to offer:  the prestige of having the best academic credentials, partnership in a well-respected large firm in Los Angeles, choice cases to work on… and no life.  She notes she had little time for her faith or a family. 

Does anyone remember the movie, Devil’s Advocate?  Is it all vanity?

Farber notes that working “part-time” at a firm was not for her.  Why?  She didn’t want to be treated like a second class citizen.  She didn’t want to be marginalized or to miss out on plum case assignments.  She wanted to be held in high regard.

Even well-meaning people have bias against the men and mostly women who opt to work part-time in law firms.  Never mind the issue about whether you will advance in your career (e.g. make partner) at a firm if you work less than 110%. 

And so the question really becomes more complicated than can lawyers have work/life balance.  The initial question only begs many further follow up questions.

It comes down to values and culture.  The current revenue objective of most law firms is simple:  maximize partner profits.  The way to do that is to have a lot of associates bill a lot of hours and to have profitable niches.

  Large firms want to attract the best talent at all levels of the firm — and the only way to do that is to be on the Am Law 100 (Am Law 25) and have high profits per partners.

The premium value of the current system is money.  Yet, many lawyers are now asking themselves, at what cost?

Many law students coming out of law school are looking at compensation and prestige.  So the system perpetuates itself.  Every year a new class of graduates enters the system with loans to pay off.  There is a large supply of associates willing to do their time in large law firms.

Of course billable hours are directly connected with lawyers’ misery!  (And everyone collectively shouts duh!) Do the math and you’ll figure out why… 2000 hours per year x 50 weeks per year is billing 40 hours per week.  This is just to make the minimum hours.  But in order to bill 40 hours a week you have to work much, much more (unless you have “easy” hours like document review, court days, depositions, due diligence etc.)  Where’s the time to enjoy life?

The California Bar Journal article also cited a survey that found that of 2,377 associates polled, 84% said they would be willing to earn less money in exchange for lower billable hour requirements.

Many men and women are opting out of big firms, they are going in-house if they can find the jobs, or branching out on their own.  The WSJ and the California Lawyer have featured women who have formed small firms with other attorneys.

Lawyers are starting to buck the system (by offering alternate billing arrangements) but these are mainly small firms.  The article noted that of the 30 firms contacted, only 4 would even discuss the topic with them.

A few lawyers manage to figure out a way to work reduced hours at prestigious firms and still make a decent living, but not many are partners.

So the question becomes what matters most?  Money, prestige, exciting cases?  Working with high-end clients? Status?

Or is it using your skills and talents to serve people and their legal needs while still having time to spend with family, friends, and in a faith community?  To exercise regularly and live a more balanced life?

Some day it may be possible for more attorneys to have more of all of it, but for now, it requires choices and give and take.  Choose well.

I haven’t seen a copy of the entire handbook, so I can’t opine about its contents other than what was reported on the WSJ law blog.

The post noted that employment lawyers were critical of the humorous handbook:

[S]ome employment lawyers think it’s dangerous, telling the Times that the book, which is laced with humor, could be a legal minefield. For instance:

* “7.1. If you use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job acceptably, you are likely to be terminated. See Rule 1. Coming to work drunk is bad judgment.”

* “7.2. If you do not use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job acceptably, you are likely to be terminated.”

San Fran labor lawyer Mark Schickman tells the LAT that while he admires the book’s plain language, they’ve made a lot of mistakes. For instance, the manual encourages employees to “Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer. You will earn respect, and not get into trouble for asking tough questions.” But Schickman says that if an employer tries to fire someone for insubordination, the employee could argue she was simply questioning authority and pushing back.

The controversy begs the question: What is the purpose of an employee handbook?

Is it the place to provide a boost to employee morale as one reader commented? 

No doubt about it, when a company gets sued by an employee (or former employee) a well-written handbook setting forth clear policies and procedures is helpful for the defense.

Here are some of the goals for an employee handbook:

1. Set forth policies to educate employees how to comply with workplace laws (and avoid breaking the law);
2. Set forth clear expectations for appropriate conduct;
3. Set forth benefit information; and
4. Set forth performance standards.

The point is to create clear expectations for appropriate conduct and to notify employees of the company’s policies and to make sure the policies comply with a host of anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, privacy and other laws.

A new topic that many employers will want to add to their handbook relates to your company’s internet policy.   Particularly with the rise of video sharing sites, blogs, and social networking pages – managers will want to address how they will protect the company’s confidential information and think about whether they will discipline or terminate employees that may disparage the company or management on the internet.

Certainly using plain language is helpful, as is brevity.

And even though most lawyers aren’t inclined to include statements as to the company’s vision, mission and goals communicating the company’s big picture items to employees at all levels is one step toward creating a team of committed workers. 

Is it inappropriate to communicate corporate values in a handbook?

It seems to me that if you want to create a corporate culture where employees think criticially and challenge authority, then it’s unlikely you will be firing employees for insubordination.

This is an example of when business strategy and typical lawyer risk adversion clash.

Thus, I thouht I would write a blog exploring the intersection between and among the laws affecting the workplace (labor and employment laws, trade secrets, competition and unfair competition) and business leadership and management.  And, of course, because I am also a mediator in addition to a lawyer, conflict management and mediation will also be a theme.

I welcome your feedback, comments and suggestions.  I am sure the blog will evolve in interesting ways along the way.

Innovation and exploration, let’s go.