Rob Hockett offers simple advice on retirement issues in Through the Looking Glass: Why Many of Your Retirement Assumptions Are Wrong.  Retirement may seem lightyears away, but acting as if that’s the case is (in my financially uneducated opinion) a mistake.  I appreciated Rob’s article because it provides some benchmarks that anyone can use to begin getting a handle on what needs to happen to make a reasonably comfortable retirement a real possibility.

Sheryl Sisk Schelin gives terrific advice on Leaving Your Employer to Launch Your Solo Practice, most of which is absolutely applicable (with a few adjustments, of course) for leaving one firm to join another. 

Facts presented in Carl Cooper’s Women  Attorneys of Color Work Under a Sword of Damocles surprised me greatly.  Articles over the last few years have demonstrated that women attorneys of color face special challenges in the profession, but I was astonished to read that, according to NALP, 100% of African-American women have left their firm by the 8th year of practice.  This article presents some steps toward a solution, though clearly this is a deeply ingrained and multifacted issue.

Stephanie West Allen, Victoria Pynchon, Gini Nelson, and Diane Levin discuss The Human Factor and how lessons learned in mediation and negotiation can be applied more broadly to your life and work.

For those thinking of leaving the practice: Monica Parker presents seven reasons to leave the law in Before You Choose Your Exit Strategy, Choose to Exit.  (The article is an excerpt from her book (to be published this month!) Unhappy Lawyer: A Roadmap to Finding Meaningful Work Outside of the Law.)  And Anne Whitaker offers an insightful self-assessment to help determine not only whether leaving practice is the thing to do but also what might be a better choice.

And finally (for now, anyway), I wrote an article discussing three common challenges law firm associates face (”I made a mistake and I’m not sure I can recover,” “They must not like me,” and “I’m not advancing professionally”) and how both associates and their firms might work to resolve those challenges.  I’ve seen lawyers leave when they needn’t have, and I’ve seen them hang on when they shouldn’t have.  Should I Stay. . . or Should I Go? is intended to provide guidance in each of those situations as well as in others.

I would like to highlight most every article in this issue, and I may highlight more in a later post.  Do yourself a favor and check out all of the fine articles.  There’s such diversity among them that you’re sure to find one that speaks to you.

�

No, I’m serious.  Pause and imagine it.

When I try to envision that world, I get deeply distressed.  If work and life are separate, and if life has no part in work, what does that imply?  Work = no life, and the absence of life = death.  So, work = death. 

Ouch.

I began thinking about this when someone recently questioned the name of my website and blog (and, for that matter, business): does “Life at the Bar” mean I focus on work/life balance?  (An ironic question, since that’s a phrase that I truly dislike and find dangerously misleading.)  But no, I focus on a much broader scope of topics, and I’ve never had a coaching engagement that’s centered on or been directed primarily toward work/life balance.

Or perhaps I’m a life coach for lawyers?  There’s nothing wrong with that; life coaching can be a valuable service.  But that isn’t what I’m about.  I work with clients on business development, career strategy, leadership development, among other issues, and we typically address life coaching issues only to the extent that it affects my client’s professional life.  In other words, if a client is going through a divorce, we may touch on how to stay focused on work when in the office, even when grief or anger threatens to overwhelm, but I’m not the coach to help with sorting through how to approach friends who stop calling because of their divided loyalty resulting from being friends with the divorcing spouses.

Instead, “Life at the Bar” derives from the concept that, to be effective advocates and counselors, we must be alive — fully present, focused, and all systems go — in practice.  While there’s certainly a separation between professional and personal life, it strikes me as sad that work and life are viewed as being divisible, separate domains that must be balanced.  And I begin to imagine conference rooms and courtrooms full of zombies citing legal maxims, just waiting to leave the office and return to life.  Thank goodness that isn’t true for most lawyers!

I’m moving more and more toward the concept of WorkLife Integration.  Integration means that, while professional life and personal life remain separate (as I would suggest they should), there’s life in work, and work and life go hand-in-hand.  Work is endowed with passion and purpose and emotion and logic and humor and relationships and all the other things that make life lively. 

Most importantly, no one has to spend hours at the office, slugging through the slew, waiting for 5 PM or 7 PM (or later) to begin living again during precious non-work hours, and no one has to attach an ill-fitting mask to survive.  When work and life are integrated, we’re reasonably authentically who we are, whether at home or at work, and rewards flow in both places.  Of course, there will be times when we’re eager to leave the professional focus at work and to turn to the personal focus at home, or vice versa, but there’s life in both places.

So.  How integrated is your WorkLife?

And, I’d like to share a celebration with you: I learned last week that I’ve received the ACC credential (Associate Certified Coach) from the International Coach Federation.  While I’m the first to admit that the path to that credential was nothing like as onerous as getting my license to practice or becoming registered to practice before the Patent Office, it’s a significant accomplishment nonetheless — especially in light of the fact that only about a quarter of ICF members are currently credentialled, and many, many other coaches aren’t ICF members at all.  I know some excellent coaches who aren’t credentialled, so I help certainly don’t intend to cast any aspersions there!  But I’m quite pleased, and happy to share the news with you.  I learned in practice to celebrate at least briefly whenever an opportunity arises, especially since those moments can be awfully fleeting, and I follow that habit today.

Now, on to the legal news!

Leading BigLaw Leaders to Lead  That’s the title of a recent article from the New York Lawyer.  (Free registration required.)  The article offers a nice overview of some of the leadership training alternatives in which law firms are now investing, ranging from one-on-one coaching to in-hour training to multi-day programs at major universities, including Harvard and the Wharton School.  It raises a few warning bells:

Paul Zwier, a professor at Emory University School of Law [and] author of the book Supervisory and Leadership Skills in the Modern Law Practice (National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 2006), said that in some cases leadership training can serve as an “opium of the masses.”

In other words, what some firms call “leadership training” in reality is a way to get lawyers on board with a firm’s strategy, rather than truly honing leadership skills.

Dubbing it “leadership training” can make participants more willing to sign on to a program and feel more valued if they think that they are recognized as special. However, Zwier said that even lawyers without supervisory duties within a firm need leadership skills, since such skills are necessary in dealing with clients.

And, as recognized by Larry Richard, an attorney and psychologist with Hildebrandt International:

To truly change behavior, training must include much more than a few days at an impressive school, Richard said. He divides programs into two categories: conceptual education and skills-based education. Conceptual education models are the popular “boot-camp” executive programs offered at prestigious schools that use mainly the case-study method. Those programs are valuable, he said, but limited. Attorneys also need long-term training, or skills-based education, to enhance specific leadership behaviors, which are more readily measurable.

I’m a proponent of leadership development work (both training and coaching) for lawyers.  Some might question whether expenditures on such “non-essentials” can be justified, especially in today’s economic climate.  My answer is, not surprisingly, absolutely.  More on why in a future post.

If leadership interests you, I invite you to receive my complimentary weekly email newsletter, Leadership Matters for Lawyers.  Each month, you receive 2 articles on aspects of leadership, a book review, and quotations and other resources pertinent to leadership.  My goal is to present material that will assist you in your own leadership development and that you can apply right away to increase your client service and development skills and your satisfaction with your practice.  Sign up here.

It’s About Time II  The Georgia Association for Women Lawyers released its study of flexible and part-time work arrangements this week, following up on the 2004 initial study.  From the Executive Summary:

Results from this study suggest that it is about time. Few working professionals feel the “time crunch” more acutely than attorneys. Billable hours requirements render the business of law virtually all about time. Should it be any wonder then that the issue of time would weigh so heavily in attorneys’ evaluation of the work they do? Our findings indicate that the availability of flexible and part-time work arrangements is extremely important to male and female attorneys alike. Regardless of whether they themselves plan on taking advantage of such policies, attorneys place a high value on the availability of flexible and/or reduced-time work at their firm. Isn’t it about time that firms recognize that value as well?

Interest in flexible and part-time arrangements is particularly strong among women attorneys. Reduced-time work options are so highly valued that women are willing to exit employment to find more flexible work arrangements. Indeed, firms that provide formal, written policies governing part-time work arrangements enjoy higher retention rates of women lawyers and firms that maintain a successful part-time program reap the rewards of retaining highly satisfied, highly motivated, and highly committed attorneys.

The study is based on surveys completed by 84 Georgia law firms, and the results fall squarely in line with national results: flexible and part-time options are important to lawyers, many firms don’t have written policies to solidify those options, many lawyers are concerned that taking part-time or flex status is a career-limiting move, and there’s evidence to support that concern. 

The full report is almost 100 pages long.  The Executive Summary is 3 pages.  It’s well worth a read.  GAWL and Kilpatrick Stockton are presenting a panel to discuss the findings on March 20 in Atlanta.

Your personal Board of Directors  I always recommend that lawyers develop a group of mentors.  Did you notice that’s mentors, plural?  Because each mentoring relationship is unique, I find that those who have multiple mentors realize significant benefit.  And mentors need not be in your firm or city (indeed, some mentors absolutely should be “external”) or even in your profession.  Collectively, this group of mentors forms your personal board of directors.  Wondering how to fill all the spots?  Michael Melcher, author of The Creative Lawyer (which is on my list of books to review here) has suggested finding people with 25 attributes and narrowing down the nominees to a group of 6 to 10 “board members.”  Attributes include:

4.    Can give you encouragement in tough times
5.    Can talk to you straight about your weaknesses
20.    Gives good advice about office politics
21.    Gives good advice about professional development
22.    Gives good advice about how to get ahead
23.    Thinks you are great at what you do
24.    Thinks you have great talents other than your present career

Check out the whole list.  You may be surprised.

What about lawyers’ efforts to integrate work and life?  Does that go by the wayside in the event of recession?  Should it?

I’ve talked recently with more than a handful of lawyers who are feeling the pinch, and with associates who are sensing or even being told flat-out that they should count themselves lucky just to have jobs, to put their heads down (subtext: quit complaining) and get to work.  Especially in the firms that have just raised associate salaries to levels previously unknown, it isn’t surprising that they might get such feedback. 

And yet, the shut-up-and-work mentality flies in the face of efforts to help lawyers shore up declining professional satisfaction.  Work/life balance or integration continues to be an important issue for many lawyers, but how to manage those concerns when times get tight?

Cali Williams Yost, creator of the apt “work+life fit” concept, has posted some thoughts about why smart leaders will continue to integrate flexibility.  The short version, according to Cali:

*  Even in a recession, talent will still be a scarce commodity.
*  You can’t effectively service global clients and manage global teams without flexibility that considers impact on work+life fit.
*  In a recession, more needs to be done with fewer resources.
*  Finally, companies that need to cut back will use flex to creatively downsize.

I think she has some excellent points.  My concern is that between the anger that some law firm leaders feel concerning the escalated associate salaries and the remaining somewhat rigid view that law firms sometimes have on flex time and work/life balance (to use the phrase that firms tend to use), firms may be less willing to use flexibility as a management tool. 

The word is already out about some firms firing associates for “poor performance” without any warning signs.  Other firms are openly laying off associates and poor-performing non-equity partners and/or de-equitizing partners.  As much as I’d like to believe that firms will adopt flexibility in greater numbers despite the tight economy, I find it hard to believe.

What do you think?

 A snippet from the article:

Over the last few years and, most strikingly, the last few months, law firms have been forced to rethink longstanding ways of doing business, if they are to remain fully competitive.

As chronicled by my colleague Alex Williams in the Sunday Styles section earlier this month, lawyers are overworked, depressed and leaving.

Less obvious, but potentially more dramatic, are the signs that their firms are finally becoming serious about slowing the stampede for the door. So far the change — which includes taking fresh looks at the billable hour, schedules and partnership tracks — is mostly at the smaller firms. But even some of the larger, more hidebound employers are taking notice.

It includes a quick recap of Deborah Epstein Henry’s FACTS proposal, which suggests that:

work time can be: Fixed (allowing lawyers to choose less high-profile work for more predictable schedules), or Annualized (intense bursts of high-adrenaline work followed by relative lulls); Core (with blocks mapped out for work and for commitments like meeting children at the bus); Targeted (an agreed-upon goal of hours, set annually, customized for each worker, with compensation adjusted accordingly); and Shared (exactly as it sounds).

And sure enough, some firms seem to be listening.

A few of the comments address the question specifically for lawyers:

I’m at a large law firm and it’s widely-known that taking full paternity leave is far more frowned upon than taking full maternity leave. Sad, but true.

Comment by Anonymous – January 16, 2008 at 10:49 am

and

In my experience at a large law firm, I always tried to push the idea that “work-life balance” was not just a women’s issue – it had to be an issue for everyone if it was really going to work. It hasn’t fully caught on, although we did have one male associate who worked part-time (which was a big change from a few years earlier when a male associate was denied the p/t option). That said, I doubt he would have ever made partner and I think there’s still a long way to go. If I have any choice at all, I would only work for a company that has flexible schedule available to everyone. It’s just so much easier to convince the men that flexibility/part-time works when they do it too.

Comment by mamabear – January 16, 2008 at 11:17 am

It’s an interesting discussion, especially in light of last month’s NALP press release entitled, Few Lawyers Work Part-Time, Most Who Do Are Women.  According to NALP:

In 2007, nearly all offices, 98%, allowed part-time schedules, either as an affirmative policy or on a case-by-case basis, but as has been the case since NALP first compiled this information in 1994, very few lawyers are working on a part-time basis, just 5.4% overall. Associates are more likely to be working part-time (4.8%) than partners (3.0%), but other lawyers, such as of counsel and staff attorneys, show the highest rate of part-time work, over 19%. Nearly all associates working part-time (91.2%) are women; among part-time partners, 71.2% are women. (See Table 1.)

According to the survey, about 2% of male lawyers work part-time.

One commenter on The Juggle seems to have summarized a common view of the situation without referring to gender but also ignoring the potentially disparate views of men and women seeking to work part-time:

1) It is a “parent” track, not a “mommy” or “daddy” track.
–
2) Those who want/need flexibility are generally going to receive less demanding assignments, less recognition, and less compensation than those who do not. Hopefully this is in proportion to the results produced.
–
3) When jobs are tough to fill, due to a strong economy, a shortage of specialists in a given area, etc., flexibility will increase. The reverse is also true.
–
4) The higher the pay, the lower the flexibility. Deal with it.

Comment by Ann in St Paul – January 16, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Forgot something –
The lower the pay, the lower the flexibility, because you are easily replaced.

Comment by Ann in St Paul – January 16, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I’d be curious to hear readers’ thoughts on flexible and/or part-time schedules, and specifically whether there is some disparity in how men and women are viewed when working a reduced or flexible-hour schedule to help with child care.  Any thoughts?�

The article’s title hit me also: law firms let women forge their own way(s)?  My impression is more along the lines that women have been working and seeking improvement within the profession (and especially in large law firms) not to mention leaving private practice in droves, and I’m not quite sure how that translates to law firms letting women do much of anything.  But, I (perhaps) digress. 

Please complete this 3-minute survey to provide feedback on the topics that most interest you.  I’ll use the information solely to guide the articles and posts I write.  And as a “thank you” for your feedback, you’ll be entered into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift certificate.  Please click here or copy this link into your browser to access the survey: http://www.lifeatthebar.com/Menu2007Survey.htm

On occasion I’ll read something that will really stick with me and change the way I think about things.  Stephanie West Allen’s December 2006 “hot worms” blog post is one of those.  In that post and other related posts, she discusses the danger in prescribing a “one size fits all” work/life balance, especially for those “hot worms” who love what they do and choose to work more hours than “experts” consider advisable.  As I’ve written over and over, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of “work/life balance” because it implies that there is a single balance that everyone should attain, and that’s clearly wrong to me.  So, I took Stephanie’s post as more evidence that each person must find his or her own balance or, to use Cali Yost’s term, work+life fit.

I enjoyed practicing law, but I was admittedly not a “hot worm” lawyer.  Some of my clients are, though, and coaching them on work/life integration is interesting because it’s hard to reduce hours or attention to something that’s thoroughly enjoyable and nourishing.  The focus of the coaching is on finding what works best for the individual, and sometimes cutting back on work is necessary (though difficult) to achieve other goals.  The process is challenging and rewarding, and my clients generally end up with a lifestyle that pleases them deeply.  As I coached these clients, I came to discover something about myself.

I’m a “hot worm” coach. 

Perhaps that’s why I work so well with lawyers who are passionate about and devoted to their practices.

You see, I often wake up thinking about an article or a resource or an approach to use with a client.  I read constantly, and until last week, I’m not sure when I last read fiction or non-fiction that isn’t related to law or business.  I couldn’t sleep one night while I was out of town and I got sucked into watching Legally Blonde, not because it’s a good movie (in my opinion, it isn’t!) but because I was mentally drafting a blog post that would discuss Reese Witherspoon’s character and what lesson she might illustrate.  When I catch up with friends, I tend to talk about my business and the ideas I’m reading or hearing or creating — to the point that a friend recently asked if my husband and I had divorced because I hadn’t mentioned him!  (Sorry about that, honey.)  I’m not unduly frazzled or bedraggled; I just love what I do and choose to do a lot of it!  I am doing what I truly love, and it doesn’t feel like work.

And yet…

I get run down when I don’t sleep enough.  I get stiff when I sit all day.  Although I enjoy the work I do, I miss seeing friends.  And I know that I sometimes come up with more and better ideas when I’m working  physically (gardening, walking, whatever gets my body going and lets my brain wander) than I do when I’m sitting at my desk and intending to think. 

These are signs that it’s time for a change.

I started this blog in January 2006 and began writing regularly in March of that year.  This is post #365.  Although I never announced it, I’ve aimed to post three times a week, and I recently expanded to include a fourth weekly post.  Since I started the blog, though, things have changed in my business.  I have more clients (as well as some openings), I’m writing more articles for formal publication, I’m doing more speaking, and I’m doing more face-to-face networking.  I’m also traveling dramatically more. 

It’s time for a shift.

Change #1…  I plan to post twice weekly going forward, though I may include additional “shorts” posts that will offer links and brief news items, trends, or ideas. 

Change #2…  On January 15, I will be launching a new email newsletter, titled Leadership Matters for Lawyers.  Each issue will include a feature article on leadership development, a relevant book review, summaries of recent posts on the Life at the Bar blog, and information about upcoming programs and presentations.  Leadership is an important topic for every lawyer, whether it’s self-leadership, leading within a bar or civic organization, being a thought-leader in your practice area, or serving as a leader of a team, a practice group, an office, or a firm.  Leadership Matters for Lawyers will reveal insights, research, and resources that will help you to create and benefit from leadership opportunities for yourself and your practice.

And a request…  It’s always been my goal to present useful information and ideas here and to address the topics that matter to lawyers in practice who are working to establish their own best “life at the bar.”  To check on how I’m doing, and to ensure that I hit the right topics going forward, I’ve designed a short survey, which you can complete in less than 5 minutes.  Your input will make my posts better tailored, so please share your thoughts! 

With a small inducement…  As a “thank you,” I will enter every respondent into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card, to be awarded on February 4, and each respondent will receive a complimentary subscription to Leadership Matters for Lawyers.

Please take just a few minutes and complete the survey by clicking here or visiting http://www.lifeatthebar.com/Menu2007Survey.htm. 

Thank you for your input — and happy new year!�

Many who can do so elect to take some or all of this week off, and I’m joining suit.  As we continue the 10-day Lawyers Appreciate…  2007 campaign, please take some time to consider what (and whom) you appreciate.  If you’re moved to add your comments, please do!  Sharing appreciation is good for the spirit.

For my part in the appreciation festival, I truly appreciate each person who drops by the blog and those who comment.  I appreciate the lawyers who take on cases and causes, and I appreciate the Internet and the blogosphere for making the legal community connected in a way that would have been completely foreign even a few years ago.  I appreciate the professionals who support my practice (both the legal and coaching practices), and I appreciate my clients.  And I appreciate Stephanie West Allen for sowing the seeds with me to birth a bouquet of blog-based appreciation.

I’ll have one more post to share this year, reflecting on some themes and plans for 2008.  In the meantime, what can you do to bring 2007 to a successful close?

10. Your nameplate is your shingle. Remembering this mantra will help you learn how to operate in the firm setting. In many ways, you are a solo practitioner, and the partners and senior associates in the office are your clients. Think about what makes these clients want to hire you — consistently good work, value-added creativity and efficiency. Run your office so that you can deliver this type of work product to your clients every day.

How did a small IP firm build a 54% female partnership?  One of the interesting things about having practiced patent law is the overwhelming male domination in the field — though that’s changing.  So I took notice of this article about Lahive & Cockfeld, a 30-lawyer IP firm in Boston that boasts 7 women in a 13-member partnership.  Lahive represents clients such as Biogen Idec, Navartis, and Wyeth and bills over $30 million annually.  It has created a flexible compensation system that rewards lawyers for billing as well as business generation, client maintenance and associate mentoring, and the firm offers a work/life balance-friendly work structure:

“We didn’t want to encourage attorneys building their own practice in isolation,” said Giulio A. DeConti Jr., chairman of the executive committee. “We wanted to encourage being like a firm.”

Lahive fully embraces the notion of full-time flexibility, or allowing attorneys to vary their hours and office time while juggling a full workload.

Today, seven of Lahive & Cockfield’s 13 partners are women and a full pipeline of women are waiting to move up the ranks, including 67 percent of its patent agents and 58 percent of its technical specialists. Patent agents, who can represent patent applicants at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and technical specialists typically have advanced science or technical degrees and are usually attending law school part time. The firm has 18 patent agents and technical specialists.

Work/life fit:  As regular readers of this blog know, I continue to struggle with the term “work/life balance” and seek something more descriptive of the real situation — because “balance” just isn’t it.  I was delighted to discover “work+life fit inc.”, whose tagline is “It’s Fit, Not Balance.”  The company has recently sponsored a survey of 900 adults who work full time, with the following finding:

When asked what is the single most important change they would make to their jobs, respondents (51%) chose options that entailed working differently over making more money. When considering a different work style, 35 percent of those surveyed rated flexibility as most important and 16 percent rated responsibilities that better use their talents.

Of the 35 percent who chose flexibility, only 5 percent said reducing their schedule by more than 10 hours was most important. This was equal for men and women and counters previous research suggesting more people are interested in “part-time” employment. Working the same number of hours but with a more flexible schedule was most important to 13 percent, while 10 percent would opt to cut their schedule by 1 to 10 hours and 7 percent would prefer to work from a location outside the office.

“The perpetuating myths that people want to work significantly fewer hours and that work life flexibility means working less are simply not true,” said [Cali Williams] Yost [president of Work+Life Fit, Inc.].  “Most employees don’t want to work less, they just want to work differently in a way that better utilizes their talents or is a better fit with the rest of their lives’ demands and desires.”