In a surprising departure from prevailing trends, DLA Piper, a notable player in the Biglaw circuit, has announced a substantial reduction in the parental leave offered by the firm. As opposed to broadening the scope of parental leave, a pattern attested by many law firms recently, DLA Piper has decided to decrease the leave period by six weeks. The move could have a significant impact on the work/life balance of its attorneys and potentially fuel lateral moves between companies.
The firm’s revised policy leads to a reduction in its parental leave policy specifically for non-birthing parents. While they previously offered 18 weeks to all parents, the new policy provides a 12-week leave for baby bonding, with an additional six weeks for attorneys giving birth covered under short-term disability.
The timing of this change seems extremely unfortunate. The new scheme will affect parental leave starting after May 1, which could cause significant disruption for expectant parents and their meticulously planned leave schedules. The implications are particularly severe for adoptive parents, foster parents, and fathers. Even though birthing parents can reach an overall 18 weeks off by combining leave with short-term disability, the policy restricts them from reaching the earlier 24-week threshold.
The changes enacted by DLA Piper are not without precedent, though the comparison is hardly favorable. The firm’s decision echoes that of Kyte Baby, a baby brand that had faced severe public backlash for under-serving an employee adopting a child. The Kyte Baby incident led to an admonitory lesson on the significance of a comprehensive parental leave policy.
Arguably, any monetary gain DLA Piper might achieve from this policy modification is overshadowed by the detrimental impact it may have on their standing among attorneys. After all, practices like these clearly communicate the firm’s priorities, potentially prompting associates to discontinue their work with firms that seem to value financial savings over their well-being.