- Quickdraw McLaw
- Job Tips
- 25 Comments
- 560 Views
With school started up again, many of you are reminded of the extra stress that arise as a parent practicing law. What do you do to manage that balancing act? Does your spouse do it all? Are you involved in dropping off or picking up the kids? Does your firm help you out in any way to make it easier? Does working remotely make this any easier? For those of you without kids, what are your thoughts on firms catering to parents–do you feel like you have less leeway because you don’t have kids? How do you all do it?
I torched my career to be available for my kids because my spouse refused to prioritize them. Was it worth it? Yes. I still make a living, just not anywhere what it could have been.
Don't have kids. Don't get married. I'm happy and I spend all of my money on myself.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it's a good thing you didn't have kids. It's a huge commitment. I always get a little bit cringey when I hear people making universal statements about the benefits of having kids. People that don't want kids shouldn't have kids, not for their sake, but for the kids sake. Kids need fully engaged, fully committed parents. It's a level of selflessness that not everyone can do and not everyone should be pressured into.
11:29 here – that's exactly why I didn't have children. I do have amazing nieces and nephews and I love them, but I am happy to give them back to their parents.
I juggle the care responsibility with the child's birthing parent and my domestic partner (i.e. my wife and his mother – translation done if you do not speak woke). Its not hard when you make that a priority. Bulliable hours and making your partner wealthy can wait – children's development will not.
"Bulliable hours" – good one.
Just the amount of doctor appointments, sick days, parent-teacher conferences, sports practices that start at 4 or 5 for some reason, and all the other stuff, parenting while lawyering is 1 out of 5 stars. Do not recommend.
Don't have kids unless you are fully committed to them. Male attorneys in my parents' generation usually pawned their children off on their wives, female partners or mothers. Some of the men in my generation stepped up to the plate and co-parented their children, while some did not. The idea that you are a busy professional, so you do not have time for your children, is an excuse which falls on deaf ears. If you do not have the time or the commitment, do not have kids. It is the toughest job you will ever take on.
Division of labor is the miracle that lifted mankind out of the pits of destitution. What's wrong with delegating child rearing to one's spouse? Or someone else? The elites use nannies, tutors, and boarding schools. If you can afford it (and most decent attorneys can), do the same. We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and the good Lord even made the act of conception quite enjoyable. Get to it. Procreate.
So you want to make babies but you don't want to put in the effort to raise them? A real hero.
I love French cuisine, but I prefer to have others make it. Am I a baddie? By what right does anyone seek to judge another's choices freely made in cooperation with others? Should I walk into the kitchen at Triple George and make my own sandwich? Ridiculous. Everyone can have kids. You can raise them yourself, or marry someone who would like to do so, or hire help.
There's this great scene in The Family Man where a Wall Street Mogul has his kids frolicking about just steps off the trading floor. Yes! Break the mold.
It's worth it if you are considering making the sacrifice.
There is something to be said for the traditional model where one parent works outside the home and the other is home to manage the children and household. There is absolutely no shame in taking care of the home and children; it is noble, intellectually stimulating, and rewarding. The bonus is that it tends to create a happier household and children that are more well-adjusted. If money is managed prudently, it is very possible for a family to live very comfortably on one income.
I am not LDS, Republican, or even politically conservative. I am merely the partner that works outside the home in a well-functioning single income family. And neither I nor my spouse feels unfulfilled. We genuinely regard our respective contributions to child-rearing and household needs to be valuable and equal.
Don't @ me.
Children with stay at home moms are better adjusted and the families are happier? I've done too many divorces for stay at home moms to believe that crap.
I'll tell my husband that you assumed he is a stay at home mom.
@ 9:34 and 10:05, since school just started, my reading is still behind the curve. Where does 3:34 indicate that the SAH spouse is the mom? Serious question, this isn't an attack on anyone.
10:59, waking up at an earlier hour because of school is messing with you. Here's how I read it:
3:34 – My spouse kicks ass at child rearing.
9:34 – Not All Stay At Home Moms.
10:05 (also 9:34): My boy toy kicks ass, and you thought he was a mom. I NEVER SAID MOM, YOU SEXIST!
10:59: I'm sleepy because I have children in school now. Huh?
Let me clarify. I am both 3:34 PM from yesterday and 10:05 AM from today. I am female and my pronouns are her/hers. My spouse is male and his pronouns are him his. He isn't a stay at home mom; he is a stay at home parent, a stay at home dad, if you will. He is a terrific spouse and parent in every possible way. Our family functions well and our finances are sound. 9:34 AM made an erroneous assumption that the stay at home parent in our family was a woman. I can assure everyone that he is not.
I would not have it any other way and neither would my husband nor my thriving kids.
Unrelated question: are you ethically allowed to charge a contingency fee agreement in a pi case to just settle it?
I remember seeing this on a hypo for my Professional Conduct exam or something similar.
This was a little more specific and the attorney was only going to review the final release/settlement agreement. The answer said that it was not ethical to charge a contingency to just review that contract.
So, like all things, it depends. You can take a contingency because the ability to recover is commonly unknown.
You'll see Crystal Eller got in trouble (before becoming a judge) for taking a contingency on claiming excess proceed funds following a foreclosure sale on behalf of a client. The NSC dared to analyze how much work she put in compared to how much she got paid for it, totally disregarding the fact that there was no certainty she could recover, and the fact that an interpleader could have easily been filed that tied her up and required motion practice. But, NSC is never wrong. Sounds like to be safe you may want to avoid a contingency and opt for charging some type of rate, but cap it at some contingency amount so you can stop keeping track of time?
Don't most PI cases get taken to then be nearly immediately settled?
The answer is found in the Rules of Professional Conduct. NRPC 1.5 says contingency fees are allowed where disclosed but that the total fees changed must be reasonable. So are you taking $1MM to read a 3 page settlement agreement? Probably not reasonable.
You'll need to draft or review/revise the settlement agreement, settle liens, communicate with the client at every step, negotiate the settlement amount. I think there will be more to do than you realize.
Odd that the labor theory of value is still an anachronism of the law. It's not what you put in but what you put out.
Any news or developments on the Claggett case before Judge Bluth involving Republic Services, the driver and wrongful death of the eleven year old young girl? Seems like a perfect case for the "reptile theory" that Claggett uses. How did they get those old moving violation tickets in evidence? Republic could not pick a worse time with their threats or actions of foreclosure on homeowners who have not paid their bills.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/las-vegas-trial-centers-on-girl-11-killed-by-garbage-truck-2416830/