Thriving as a working parent in litigation – an impossible dream or a near reality?

31 Dec 2024Opinion

Tim Sales, a Committee Member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) and a Partner at CMS, discusses the progress made in terms of thriving as a working parent and the challenges that remain

Over the last few years, the boundaries between working and parenting have become increasingly blurred, in a positive way. Parents have always worked, but the joys and tribulations of working through the pandemic brought parenting (and children) much more to the fore, often quite literally with children regularly videobombing business calls. The challenge of balancing working and parenting exists across the legal profession and all other industries. But there are some unique challenges presented by litigation work that led the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) to host a roundtable discussion earlier this year, focusing on surviving and succeeding as a working parent in litigation.

The discussion built on a previous LSLA roundtable, focused on closing the gender gap at partner level within law firms, where the importance of male and female role models, successful in their careers and engaged in uninterrupted quality time with their families on a day-to-day basis, was one of the resulting themes.

There are many working parents in our law firms

At risk of stating the obvious, many lawyers within firms across London and the nation are working parents. The latest diversity statistics from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, collected in 2023, report that over a third of lawyers have primary caring responsibility for children. The figure is higher at partner level and higher still in firms that mainly do litigation work, at nearly 40%. Even taken at its lowest, a significant proportion of lawyers (and litigators) are balancing working and parenting, and the proportion is on an upward trajectory.

A parenting challenge – not a women’s issue

There was very clear consensus from the LSLA roundtable that for parents to thrive as litigators, the challenge needs to be recognised neutrally, and not as a women’s issue. It was equally clear that there is still a long way to go for this to be a universal reality, with women still often holding more of the parenting responsibility, both practically and in regard to the mental load.

Quality time both to work and to spend with children is key

Thriving at work and as a parent cannot be achieved without dedication to both, involving significant time focused on work and quality time with children. Historically, in the early stages of parenting, women have tended to dedicate more time to children, and men, more time to work. If a conscious choice, there is nothing wrong with this and the division of responsibilities works well. But where economics is the sole (or main) driver of that choice, this has tended to disproportionately impact the careers of women and parenting by men. The introduction of shared parental leave (SPL) in 2015, enabling (in principle) parents to share time off following the arrival of children, has had some impact, but it has been limited. The Department for Business and Trade’s latest report found that since the introduction of SPL, only 5% of eligible fathers took SPL, across all industries.

Outside of SPL, parental leave policies tend to be imbalanced. However, more recently there has been a shift in approach by a few firms. Rather than limiting leave to SPL, some firms are taking the step of matching parental leave policies for all new parents. In September 2024, Deloitte was the first of the Big Four to announce an equal parental leave policy entitling parents to take up to 26 weeks leave on full pay. This follows similar steps taken by a few law firms, including Ashurst (the pioneers in this area), Clyde & Co, Lewis Silkin and Jenner & Block. But this is still not the norm.

Policies are a great starting point, and firms should be challenged on their approach. But as was clear from the roundtable discussion, encouraging take up is going to be critical, as extended leave is still often approached with caution. We are going to need to be honest: taking significant time off to spend with children may well have an impact on your career and your practice – a challenge faced by many women for years. We must grapple with it properly if the long-term goal is thriving as a working parent in litigation.

Unique aspects of litigation

There are also many aspects of litigation that present unique challenges for parents, which were explored during the roundtable. One is procedural deadlines imposed by courts or tribunals, which have potentially significant consequences if they are missed, even by a few minutes. In a court context, deadlines are often at 16:30, just post the school run and often on Fridays. Anecdotal feedback from the roundtable discussion was that where a parent works a four-day week, their day-off is more commonly a Friday. Given that is the day that court deadlines fall, and is also often the day for ordinary applications in a number of courts, this can present particular challenges for working parents who do not usually work on Fridays. There are a number of potential solutions, often involving flexibility on the part of the parents involved and case teams, but one output from the roundtable was encouragement to think about whether court deadlines always need to be on a Friday. Rather, taking into account the make-up of the case team and client needs, what would be the most appropriate day? The same principle applies for arbitration, with the added flexibility of 23:59 deadlines, which can be both a blessing and a curse for a working parent with early rising children.

Next steps

It is clear we are headed in the right direction, but there is still a lot more to do. Open discussions, such as the LSLA roundtable, are very helpful for moving this discussion forward as we seek to thrive as working parents and litigators, but we must not shy away from the real challenges.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

There are many working parents in our law firms

A parenting challenge – not a women’s issue

Quality time both to work and to spend with children is key

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...