DLA Piper Modifies Parental Leave Policy - Bloomberg's Claire Suddah Joins in the Growing Vilification of This "Business" Decision

 " ... [DLA Piper is] cutting parental leave benefits for 'non-partner' lawyers, reducing the amount of 'baby bonding' time it offers non-birthing parents from 18 weeks to 12 weeks. Starting May 1, fathers, non-birthing mothers, adoptive and foster parents will see their paid leave duration slashed by a third." - Claire Suddah, Bloomberg, April 18, 2024

Bloomberg joins the rest of media such as Abovethelaw at vilifying this change of parental-benefit policy by DLA Piper. Increasingly parents and those considering becoming parents have become aware of how myriad other nations provide better parental leave benefits than what is common in the US. Ironically, this law firm operates in 40 nations. Some of them such as Sweden have a very progressive approach in providing parental leave. 

DLA Piper defends its policy change by claiming a need to have adequate coverage for the work needing to be done. If the new parents aren't there working, it is assumed, the work won't be able to get done. 

Not only does shortened parental leave cut bonding time. Also, sooner does the meter start running on childcare expenses. Unless the parents have a local support system of relatives they will be taking on those high costs. 

Overall, when it comes to parental leave, the DLA Piper benefits for birthing parents are in the middle. 

This development brings to mind the current pro-se lawsuit against Jones Day about parental leave by two former employees and former US Supreme Court clerks. They are Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff. The two have been masters in generating media coverage of the issues involved. The timing for DLA Piper's move couldn't be worse. 

What the question is about the DLA Piper policy change is: Will other law firms also cut back parental leave benefits? Or will there be such a backlash against DLA Piper by so many constituencies, including other law firms, that they will have to ditch the new policy?

In my coaching practice, when I guide lawyers most contend that, unless there is a full-time stay-at-home partner, parenting can get in the way of a career. 

Even if they can afford the expense of childcare there is the extreme undertow of stress about the possibility that the arrangement fall through. In addition, the child could become so sick as to require a trip to a medical facility - that is, the lawyer's being absent from the office. 

Limiting beliefs? Self-defeating? Stuck? Complimentary consultation with Coach Jane Genova (text/phone 203-468-8579, janegenova374@gmail.com) 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Kirkland & Ellis Reported to Be Building Moat Around Firm to Deter Poaching of Stars

Akin Gump Julia Ghahramani's March 2021 Cocaine+ Death - So?

Up-or-Out: McKinsey Raises the Pressure, In Contrast Some Law Firms Ease It through Nonequity Partner Tier