She flashes her grin and triumphantly waves her hand, standing tall on the top of the slide.
You wave back to your three-year-old. It’s a glorious afternoon. Sitting on the bench, you savor the crisp air while your little girl earnestly
explores this all-too-familiar playground.
Another mother sits on the other end of the bench as her little girl
embarks on her own exploration. Soon the two moms, perfect
strangers, begin to relish their “adult conversation” for a change.
“I was/am an attorney,” you tell her (and yes, you do wonder whether it should be the past or present tense.) Okay, perhaps you’re a little self-conscious, looking down on your faded jeans. Perhaps you once
glowed in a pinstriped suit. Perhaps your nails were meticulously
painted. But those days feel almost impossibly distant now.
“Oh?” The other woman opens her eyes wide. “So was/am I.” You two
exchange knowing smiles and sigh, lamenting “lack of intellectual
stimulation” in the domestic sphere.
I have often experienced this sort of exchange with another lawyer
mom — on the playground, at a coffee shop, at a bus stop.
Once I was a childless-by-choice woman in a politically progressive law school, where all of my five professors in my first semester were
women, and where Ms. was so naturally chosen that one totally forgot the existence of Miss and Mrs.
Years later, I volunteer to bring homemade blue- and pink-frosted cupcakes (“Blue for boys, pink for girls, Mama,” my daughter painstakingly
instructs me; so much for her parents’ gender-neutral parenting) to
school, where Ms. never exists (or so it seems).
I cherish motherhood. Nonetheless, I crave my own professional
identity, refusing to define myself through my children.
Some of the lawyers-turned-homemakers I have met appear to be
perfectly content with their new role. More, however, seem to remain
somewhat ambivalent about their choice. Ours is a profession
requiring an all-or-nothing commitment. In the name of climbing the
career ladder, one finds herself forced to toil mindlessly, often to the
exclusion of family.
The challenges of conquering the juggling act have kept many “women lawyers” away from the career world.
Not too long ago, I held a dream job for a mommy-track lawyer:
telecommuting to a Silicon Valley law firm. This job allowed me to
participate, albeit indirectly, in cross-border patent litigation, all the
while working from the kitchen table. I also carried my laptop in the
car. Between my children’s drop-off and pick-up times at their schools, I worked here and there, ultimately becoming an expert on “Free Wi-Fi” locations.
Thankfully, technology had made it possible for us — a team of about 20 lawyers scattered across the nation — to communicate and
collaborate effortlessly and effectively. Curling up on my living room
sofa with the laptop, I interacted with colleagues from Denver, San
Diego and New Orleans.
Admittedly, I sometimes felt estranged from the mainstream legal
community, especially when working in my pajamas. But after all, I was the one who had sought out a family-friendly alternative. Genuinely
grateful for my mobile office, I tried my best to produce high-quality
work as a way of expressing my appreciation.
I felt a keen sense of loss when this contract work predictably came to an end.
Michelle Bomberger and Mason Boswell, both solo practitioners as well as parents, have endeavored to create a home-based career.
Bomberger operates Small Business Legal Services, a law firm focused on serving entrepreneurs and small-business owners.
The mother of two preschoolers, Bomberger constantly felt “pulled in different directions.” Finally, she has learned to “prioritize, delegate and set boundaries.”
She has freed herself from mundane, non-legal tasks by hiring support staff, and works at home two days a week. She also worked with a
financial coach, who helped determine what the growth model for the business was. “Understanding what needed to happen to balance my
life and make the money I needed to make from the business really
helped pull things together,” she says.
Harmonizing work and family remains a universal struggle. Men are not mere onlookers. Becoming a first-time parent during his third year at a large firm, Boswell and several colleagues fought to implement a
paternity policy. “I wanted to build a firm,” explains Boswell, “where
having a family was considered natural and encouraged.” He eventually founded Boswell IP Law.
Boswell also works from home. “I may get up and work four hours, go to the park with my daughter for a couple of hours, then come back and work several hours more,” he says. “If something is due to be filed
that day, I may have dinner with my family and then pop back into the office to work another hour or two before going to bed.”
Boswell calls this working style “quite liberating.”
Undoubtedly, successful solo practices helped Bomberger and Boswell keep building their careers in the quiet and comfort of their home
offices. However, the benefits of telecommuting should be available to lawyers outside solo practice as well.
Work-at-home has remained an eagerly awaited opportunity, especially among parents with young children. But a wide variety of individuals
would benefit from a mobile and flexible workforce.
Consider many other non-traditional professionals, potentially talented and dedicated, but underused, such as the physically disabled and
those caring for elderly parents. Transcending geographical barriers
enables the employer to recruit from a broader talent pool.
There are other benefits to the employer that reaches out to a more
diverse workforce — from reductions in office overhead to enhanced productivity deriving from personal satisfaction and rejuvenation.
From a global perspective, the positive impacts of telecommuting on
the environment can be profound. Research confirms that minimizing
the daily commute would reduce air pollution and energy use.
Remote work isn’t a panacea, however. Despite advances in
communication technology, some jobs do require face-to-face
interaction. I speak from my own experience.
Once I worked on a project for a Washington, D.C. firm. Looking back, I ask myself if certain aspects of the job could have been vastly
improved if personal contact had replaced the email traffic.
As critics point out, other disadvantages of telecommuting include
lack of social interaction, limited managerial control over confidential
information, and issues and barriers pertinent to labor and
employment laws.
Nevertheless, I believe that overall benefits to the employee, employer and environment outweigh the costs. Telecommuting, even on a
part-time or “as needed” basis, would merit serious consideration.
Our national landscape makes an integrated workforce inevitable.
More and more employers are proclaiming diversity as a vital issue for their work environments.
However, diversity should mean far more than a photo of a racially
mixed group of sharp-suited individuals smiling harmoniously in a firm brochure. It should be practiced on a day-to-day basis.
Telecommuting, flex-time, shortened hours, paternity leave, job sharing — these can be powerful tools to help create a more integrated, more dynamic, more global workplace.
(追記：米国弁護士会発行新聞に、在宅勤務について執筆しました。）
