Job-sharing has been slow to take off in the legal profession – yet such an arrangement can bring about important professional advantages, says Kate Hanley

‘Wanted: like-minded, experienced lawyer to share intimate client knowledge and caseload. Must be hard working and dedicated, but in need of a work/life balance. Friendship preferred, leading to possible long-term partnership.’ No, not the sentiments of a transaction lawyer’s lonely heart, but possibly a recruitment advertisement of the future. Job-sharing, where one full-time position is split between two people, is a viable alternative for those seeking life beyond billing targets – and one that law firms are beginning to cotton on to.


‘Having one extra day to myself has made a huge difference,’ says Paul Quain, managing associate at magic circle firm Linklaters. The employment lawyer works a four-day week, comprising a three-day job-share, plus one extra day negotiated by the firm. Not only is he male, a senior lawyer and working in a contentious field of practice, but his decision to job-share was made not for family reasons. Rather, he wanted to dedicate time to his childhood passion: playing the piano. Mr Quain obliterates the myth that flexible working is solely for support staff or career mothers.


Earlier this month, the first job-share arrangement at the bench was announced, demonstrating its feasibility at the highest level. Lorna Grosse, a family law and housing consultant at Westminster firm Winckworth Sherwood, and barrister Alison Rowley, formerly of 5 Paper Buildings, London, will share the role of district judge on the South-Eastern Circuit (see [2006] Gazette, 2 February, 5). ‘I don’t foresee any difficulties,’ says Ms Grosse. ‘Cases will be realistically listed and I will be working consecutive days; it is rare for cases before the district bench to last more than two days.’

A report by the Women and Work Commission last week recommended more Web-based schemes to match those wanting to work part time with quality job-share or part-time opportunities, and special services to put potential job-share partners in touch (see [2006] Gazette, 2 March, 1). But job-sharing among qualified solicitors is still in its infancy. Darryn Hale, a consultant at recruiter Taylor Root, confirms: ‘Job-sharing is almost unheard of. Occasionally you hear of a lawyer who strikes a deal internally with their firm, but otherwise, you don’t really see it.’

However, according to those who are making job-sharing a reality, the benefits can be reaped not only by the lawyers concerned, but also by their firms and clients. And while smaller or regional firms are unable to compete with City salaries when recruiting, the offer of flexible working can be a valuable bargaining tool.


Unlike part-time or compressed hours, where an employee is available for only ‘part’ of the time, a job-share means that no hours are left without cover. Thus, it is a realistic arrangement for senior management and professionals. Another advantage, and of particular significance to the legal profession, is the ‘two-heads’ principle: ‘Our clients feel they’re getting the input of two people for the time of just one,’ Mr Quain says. ‘A lot of our work is contentious and therefore about tactics, so it is very useful to bounce ideas of each other.’


Job-sharer Gillian Brennan, a partner at Liverpool’s BTW Solicitors, agrees: ‘It’s a bonus having two heads working on a file, and you just don’t feel the pressure as when working by yourself.’


Such is the success of job-sharing, according to Ms Brennan, that she and three colleagues, formerly of Bartlett & Son in Merseyside, established their own practice in 2003, with all four partners splitting their working week. Two of the job-sharers are married to one another. ‘We’ve all got young families,’ Ms Brennan explains. ‘We’ve got so good at working together, the clients barely notice any difference. It has always been such a positive thing for both us and the clients.’


In practice, job-sharers typically combine a mix of shared files and own clients. Both fee-earners must be able to pick up each other’s matters if needed – invaluable if either is off sick or on holiday.


At City firm Herbert Smith, senior associates Molly Smith and Nicola Dickson have been job-sharing for three months in the firm’s real estate department. Ms Dickson explains their working structure: ‘We have some files that are primarily our own – albeit that the other person can, and does, deal with them – and some which we share 50:50. This is mostly dependent on the service the client needs.’ Their corporate support work will be shared, for example, while both have letting files of their own.


Thorough file notes are essential for a successful job-share, both to avoid duplication of work and to ensure the state of play is clear at a glance. Those interviewed say this does not create extra work, arguing that a comprehensive file note is good working practice, whether job-sharing or not.


Good communication is key, and with the latest equipment, such as the BlackBerry, this is easier than ever. E-mails need to be checked on days off, but that is a small sacrifice, say the Herbert Smith lawyers. And a handover day, morning, or even lunch hour is essential.


In addition, a job-share duo need compatible personalities for the arrangement to work. Ms Smith explains: ‘It helps to be well suited. You don’t have to be best mates, but you do need to have similar working styles and attitude to work, so that you can relate to each other and don’t feel that one of you is doing more work than the other. That is where a job-share can fail, if one of you feels you’re pulling up the slack.’ A good secretary does not do any harm either, she says.


While job-sharing is not new, the legal profession has been slow to adapt compared to other sectors. Indeed, the concept is often met with suspicion. Anna Kavanagh, a former solicitor and founder of flexible working consultancy Time4Balance, says: ‘Job-sharing is probably the hardest of all the flexible working arrangements to convince an employer about, because almost immediately all they can think about is the cost.’


Admittedly, a job-share means stumping up two sets of national insurance, two pensions, double health insurance and so on. The essential handover time, where both sharers are in the office at the same time, is another extra cost.


But on balance, Ms Kavanagh says, this can be a small price to pay to retain a valuable skill set. She points out: ‘Firms’ biggest driver will be their attrition rate, not their desire to be an employee-friendly law firm.’


Time4Balance advises both employees and employers on the viability and implementation of flexible working, and is therefore well versed in the arguments raised by law firms against job-sharing. Other than cost, they include lack of continuity, administration difficulties, and primarily, a fear that clients will not like it. All these concerns are, says Ms Kavanagh, merely perceptions.


Mr Quain describes the feedback he has received: ‘The clients absolutely love it. They think it’s great that Linklaters are doing it and feel that they’re getting a better service because of it.’ It is the two-heads principle again, and the fact that their lawyer is under far less stress.


For each argument against job-sharing, there is an equally compelling one in favour. And many supposed problems simply never materialise: ‘We spent a lot of time thinking about the possible pitfalls beforehand, but there just haven’t been any,’ says Ms Dickson.


There is still a long way to go before job-sharing becomes as natural to solicitors as charging for their time. Ms Dickson and Ms Smith are the first job-sharing lawyers among Herbert Smith’s 796 fee-earners based in London. But it is a start.


Ms Kavanagh concludes: ‘It is changing; it will have to change. Law firms don’t have the luxury of continuing to work the way they are because of the number of women coming into the profession – and the number of young males willing to work every hour under the sun is a diminishing commodity.’


Kate Hanley is a freelance journalist