Feature
Giving thanks for flexibility Dorothy Kellas, a partner at leading Edinburgh firm Gilson Gray, reflects on her experience of flexibility at work
L
ast year forced change on our profession and many others. I hope some of it may stick but our track record is patchy. Reflecting on this is framed by my own experience and the views expressed here are my own. But I doubt my story is unique.
Prior to becoming a partner, the idea that I may want flexibility around my working life simply did not arise – I was one of a team of young lawyers, working and playing hard. Late 80s legal life in Edinburgh was a time when firms were getting to grips with the fact that women were contenders for partnership – save for a few notable trailblazers we were poorly represented. I stepped into that arena. The assumption of women came with consequences. For a long time, many firms held the line that partnership was only for those who could work full-time, so neatly side-stepping the thorny issue of women returning from maternity leave wanting different arrangements. It was the woman’s choice to comply and organise child-care or step away. Many probably opted for the latter. Dorothy Kellas
For me, and not for the first time, I reaped the benefit of being in a firm which was willing to change. At least a bit. I was also one of two young mums in the partnership so had moral support. In truth it was not a difficult negotiation to work restricted hours in the office, but I felt a huge responsibility to ensure the arrangement was a success. Given that, with a few tweaks, I have continued with that pattern through the ensuing 27 years I think I can say I have succeeded. Was it all plain sailing? Absolutely not and it was often wrongly assumed I was not sufficiently available for meetings. The reality was I was in the office every day, just not all day. My availability was no less than that of colleagues who went for extended lunches or spent time doing business development on the golf course but, as the saying goes, perception is everything. My female partner coined a useful phrase at the time, namely “We are not part-time partners; we are full-time partners who are not in the office all the time”. We were contributing and, don’t forget, our remuneration reflected the reduced attendance during office hours. Like most mums I experienced blood-pumping races to school, having been caught last minute trying to exit the building. Working full-time would have been a whole lot easier. But these times pass quickly. I never really doubted my choices. I was pleased to be in a firm which accommodated this, of course, but never really shook off the feeling that I was being given a concession. And there was always a little bit of guilt, which I now think is mad. Whilst I hope that younger legal women find such working arrangements are mainstream, we need to ensure that this 16 | LegalWomen
does not become a reason to blight career progression. The Gender Pay Gap is real and this is part of that story too. We must not be so thankful for a sensible working pattern that we lose focus on fairness. As my children approached the end of school other pressures arose. Into the mix came an increasing need to devote time to an elderly parent. This responsibility was not so easy to package into a set time frame – in my case the parent in question was not for remembering my other obligations! It was a most stressful time. My observation there is that our colleagues with responsibilities for elderly (or other) relatives have the much harder gig. I am not sure there is as much flexibility for them. These responsibilities probably do fall mainly on female colleagues but not exclusively. In many ways I think it can be harder for others to ask. A man asking to step back for any reason may, even yet, be viewed with suspicion by those less enlightened. Of course, many firms, my own included, are willing to consider alternative arrangements as required but perhaps this is not yet commonplace across the whole profession. I have a lot of faith in the younger generation of lawyers. We are often told that balance is their key aim. Some use derogatory terms but I applaud them and hope they do not lose that focus. Our profession’s ability to attract the brightest and best people probably depends on it. The experience of COVID related issues has forced change. The Law Society of Scotland’s recent survey on homeworking1 illustrates the scale and speed of change forced upon us. Whilst the theme of balance remains, and it is unlikely we will all work from home all the time, one thing is clear. Agile working can work! It has been a bit of a leveller and has shone a light very positively on the contribution made by those who are not full-time in the office. So, let’s stop viewing these arrangements as favours, or concessions for which we need to be endlessly grateful. They are agreed on a commercial basis and work well for both parties. Many are keen to return to normal, but I hope it’s not the same normal. ■ 1. https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol65-issue-12/homeworking-a-journey/
