• Home
  • News
  • Are Partners Banned From ‘Fraternizing’ With Associates at Your Firm?

Question of the Week

Are Partners Banned From ‘Fraternizing’ With Associates at Your Firm?

Posted Feb 11, 2009 11:23 AM CST
By Martha Neil

image

We were intrigued to see that an article in the Washingtonian about a business boom for Washington, D.C., divorce lawyers notes that many area law firms are prohibiting partners from socializing with associates. The fear is that they'll end up in hotel rooms together—where they won't necessarily be reviewing documents or discussing trial strategy.

"The problem has become ... detrimental to law-firm morale," the article says. "But lawyers agree that the rule is universally ignored."

What's more, the Washingtonian claims, the culture of the nation's capital is "uniquely suited to bitter breakups," because those in legal and legislative jobs put in long workdays "often in close quarters with attractive colleagues."

That got us wondering: Has your law firm, or any other that you know of, drafted express rules against partner-associate fraternization to prevent late-night attorney assignations? If so, how are these rules enforced?

Answer in the comments below. Bonus points if you can provide a legal definition of "fraternization."

Read last week's answers to this question: Given the chance, what would you ask Justice Scalia?

Our favorite answer:

Excerpted from AC's answer: "I would ask Justice Scalia how he puts up with all the garbage thrown at him by the media, law school professors, and the like.

Anyone who ever critically reads his opinions, or his other works (e.g., his books) sees that this man is an amazing writer, is incredibly intelligent, has a good sense of humor, and holds true American ideals as being nearly of religious importance.

In other words, anyone who could look past a position he doesn’t agree with would see not only a patriot, but a man with true moral clarity (whose position will not change based solely upon popular thinking at the time).

Law and justice are truths, not political tools. Unfortunately, many writers on this site don’t seem to agree..."

Comments

1.

Jenny
Feb 11, 2009 11:30 AM CST

I go out for drinks all the time after work with partners and associates at my firm.  What a stupid rule.

Flag this comment

2.

Carlene
Feb 11, 2009 11:42 AM CST

I am the only associate for 2 male (married) partners.  We do not socialize except for firm lunches and birthday parties (with 2 secretaries) and when out of town at conventions.  It is not a written rulle, but just how it is.  I wouldn’t be interested in either one of them anyway in a romantic way.

Flag this comment

3.

B. McLeod
Feb 11, 2009 1:12 PM CST

If “associates” are off limits, won’t the partners just move on down the food chain to the staff attorneys, paralegals, bookkeepers, IT staff, secretaries, receptionists and couriers (i.e., all the employees who really share the same hours as the partners)?

Flag this comment

4.

Kevin
Feb 11, 2009 1:23 PM CST

Let’s nit forget librarians here.  Everybody always forgets librarians—some of whom are pretty attractive.

Flag this comment

5.

George
Feb 11, 2009 2:28 PM CST

Usually the secretaries are better looking than the associates.

Flag this comment

6.

JW
Feb 13, 2009 7:41 AM CST

Just stop hiring pretty associates.  That should go a long way in stopping it, if they really wanted to stop it.

Flag this comment

7.

Teri
Feb 13, 2009 8:04 AM CST

This has got to be the STUPIDEST rule I have ever heard of.  If the only way this firm can avoid the problem of partners getting it on with associates is forbidding “fraternization”, it has too many other issues preventing its success to mention.  Hello?  Anyone heard of mentoring?  As an associate, especially at a large firm, a close (but appropriate) relationship with a partner is invaluable for a young associate as they grow up into a mature lawyer.  How else can all the unwritten rules for success be passed on?

Flag this comment

8.

Donald
Feb 13, 2009 8:42 AM CST

Actually, at my old firm there is a partner who started sleeping with a female summer associate.  The partner was married at the time.  The summer got a permanent job, the partner got divorced, and now they’re married.  But who knows who he’s doing now.  It happens.  An HR policy isn’t going to stop it.

Flag this comment

9.

Brandy
Feb 13, 2009 8:50 AM CST

I am a young, attractive and single female associate at a mid-size law firm in the NYC area.  Yes, I have attended out of town conferences with partners (single and married) and yes, I have engaged in what some would call inappropriate behavior.  As Donald writes, there is no HR policy that can stop this.  Let’s face it, we have very demanding work schedules that prevent us from seeking relationships outside of work and I, for one, need the “fraternization” from a partner to relieve my stress.

Flag this comment

10.

P
Feb 13, 2009 8:54 AM CST

Brandy:
How you doin? We should get a drink sometime…

Flag this comment

11.

Hadley V. Baxendale
Feb 13, 2009 8:55 AM CST

I have found that a healthier work relationship occurs inh smaller firms where the partner/associate distinction is softened.  Each has to respect the other’s work, knowledge, expertise and perspective, and sometimes the associate’s is better than the partners.  Occasional social interaction is healthy, such as drinks after work, and no reason a true friendship can’t form.  Why can you have a friendship between two associates, or two partners, but not between a 6 year associate and a second year partner?  Is there really a grand metamorphisis?  As for sexual shenannigans, those will occur regardless of rules, but perhaps open socializing makes it less likely than furtive get-togethers.

Flag this comment

12.

Christy
Feb 13, 2009 9:01 AM CST

I agree 100% with the comments of Brandy.  I am also an attactive, twenty something, female associate in a decently sized law firm.  Meeting guys outside of work is almost impossible due to my hectic schedule. Plus, there is something exhilarating about flirting with a partner during work hours and then satisfying our desires after hours.  Married or not, partners make great lovers.  An HR policy curbed to prevent this will only result in an increased desire to do so.

Flag this comment

13.

Chad
Feb 13, 2009 9:06 AM CST

Christy,

What city is your firm located in?  If it is in the Boston area, maybe we can get together.

Flag this comment

14.

Brandy
Feb 13, 2009 9:07 AM CST

P:
Do you work in the NYC area?  If so, which firm do you work for?

Flag this comment

15.

HVB
Feb 13, 2009 9:18 AM CST

Seriously, posts like those of Brandy’s and Christie’s show that the concept of the female victim of harrassment is not always* the case; they are adults making a choice about personal and physical relationships.  But if things go awry in their voluntary relationship, they have a “get out of jail free” card in the form of a winning lawsuit against the firm.
*yes there are many cases of real sexual harrassment and it is a real problem. But not always, is my point.

Flag this comment

16.

Vito
Feb 13, 2009 9:43 AM CST

No. 9 . . . send me your phone number.

Flag this comment

17.

Rocco
Feb 13, 2009 9:44 AM CST

She’s already mine, Vito . . . keep it up and you’ll be swimming with the fishes.

Flag this comment

18.

Not Fooled
Feb 13, 2009 9:48 AM CST

HVB: If the Brandy and Christie posts are really written by women I will eat my hat.

I also find it sadly interesting how all the commentators presume that a partner must be male and a junior associate female.

Flag this comment

19.

JME
Feb 13, 2009 10:37 AM CST

the military fraternization rules work fairly well, since a career is on the line.  As in everything, there is a way around it.  If you are going to do it, remember that someone else was probably there before you, and there will be someone after you.  When a guy divorces his wife and marries his associate, his secretary, whatever, She has got to think that if he did it to her, he’ll do it to me.

Flag this comment

20.

VOR
Feb 13, 2009 1:12 PM CST

First, I have never heard of an anti-socializing policy, which seems absurd any way you look at it.  There are plenty of partners at my firm who are within my age group, and associates in the parnter age group for that matter, and happy hours are what make this place more friendly and fun, no matter what your age or rank.  I think I would quit if I worked at a place so freaking uptight, or so full of irresponsible hellions, to feel the need to ban “socializing.” 

However, my relatively large law firm apparently considers whether we should have an anti-fraternization policy each time one such relationship becomes known, including my own two years ago.  But, reason seems to always win out and no policy gets enacted.  While there are very real concerns to consider, the real issue is whether two people are enaged in appropriate behavior inside the workplace.  If it actually is sexual harassment, obviously that is a BAD problem for the firm.  If it creates an inappropriate distraction or causes a risky exchange of information becasue the two people cant be trusted, then that can be a problem.  But trying to prevent relationships between people who work together is impossible, and frankly may cause the firm to lose valuable people.  Having a policy seems to me a bad idea.  Dealing with each individual on a case by case basis is the only way to handle it. I’ve never understood why a few bad apples always have to create policies.  Do we ban the internet or cell phones because some poeple abuse or misuse them in the workplace?  No. And you shoudln’t ban real relationships just becasue of the fear of the inappropraite ones.  If the behavior was totally inappropriate, you wouldn’t need a policy to have grounds to fire them.

A policy would mean you have to fire people who did it.  People WILL violate it, and then what is the firm supposed to do when it is two people engaged in a real and healthy relationship and in no way presents a problem for the firm? 

“Fraternization” is not always a predatory, immoral, or incidious thing. Firms are right to be concerned and take appropriate action.  In my case, when a very important partner and I (a mid level associate) began a relationship, we told the powers that be.  The human resources person and the head of personnel had what Im sure was a CYA meeting with me to officialy make sure that I wasnt being “harassed.”

The managing partners also met with him, a fellow managing partner, to congratulate him.  Just kidding.  They met with him to discuss whether I could work directly with him, which obviously we didnt and would not be able to now.  Two years later and he and I have maintained professionalism at work, the firm is protected by their CYA efforts on harassment, and I figure by the time he and I marry, I think any claims of such would be deemed waived anyhow. 

The firm would have lost two valuable people had their been a policy. 

Policies like these dont really stop people from being people, they only make it impossible to treat people like people when varying circumstances arise. 

P.S.  Thank you for the comedic relief, intended or not,  on some of these comments!  But I thought there should be a real voice of reason on here.  Not just assumptions that partners were predatory or associates were nymphos. 

But I do agreee with one thing Christy said…..

Flag this comment

21.

Avon
Feb 13, 2009 5:09 PM CST

I was thinking of a lateral job transfer to D.C., since it appears that the female attorneys there might be eager to meat me. 

However, for now I’ll stick to the editors’ challenge, which no one yet seems to have taken up.  I’ve chosen a military legal definition of “fraternization” because I believe it’s clearly a military legal term that has been relatively informally adopted by the civilian world, at least in the U.S.:
>> fraternization—an “unduly familiar relationship” that blurs the line between officers and enlisted personnel. 
http://www.military.com/news/article/alibi-heard-for-chaplain-in-rape-case.html

(I guess unconstitutional vagueness is no defense under military law!  ... I’d also note that among the points made in the article was whether it was unfair to charge only the male superior and not the female subordinates - each of whom was equally willing in the acts, according to the superior’s lawyer.)

Flag this comment

22.

His Grace
Feb 13, 2009 7:34 PM CST

Thous shalt not S——where Thy Eat.

Flag this comment

23.

LA
Feb 14, 2009 12:16 PM CST

I agree with #22, what ever happened to common sense?

Flag this comment

24.

sapper
Feb 14, 2009 6:15 PM CST

it is too bad that brandy and christie are without morals it must effect their whole outlook on life

Flag this comment

25.

sapper
Feb 14, 2009 6:18 PM CST

oops—affect—sorry about that but seriously, their values seem screwed up, and sooner or ater some one—maybe them, maype partern or partner’s family—wiil be paying

Flag this comment

26.

sapper
Feb 14, 2009 6:20 PM CST

maybe those two aren’t as gorgeous as they think maybe partners are just deperate

Flag this comment

27.

B. McLeod
Feb 14, 2009 11:41 PM CST

Hey, thanks for sharing all that, Sapper.  If you would turn on that little lamp on your helmet, maybe you could see your keyboard.

Flag this comment

28.

gea
Feb 15, 2009 6:16 PM CST

Well, if you don’t mind being the gist of small talk - go right ahead. If a Partner decides to date a guy who is an associate, after working hard to get to become a partner, then when the associate gets downsized you will never know if it was due to sleeping with the partner, because she got tired of seeing your face or if it was your work habits. good luck!

Flag this comment

29.

3rd year associate
Feb 16, 2009 8:01 AM CST

I wish there had been something, if not a hard and fast rule, at my small firm. A fellow associate and the senior partner started dating several months ago. The partners are aware and openly joke with the partner and associate about it. It has created a poor work environment for the other associates and staff who have to hear about the partner’s now pending divorce and the associate’s “tough time” dealing with the soon to-be-ex. It’s simply not something that makes any sense for a productive work environment.

Flag this comment

30.

Kalifornia Arnold
Feb 17, 2009 12:31 AM CST

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the term “Legal Merger” ( not to mention “Legal Relief”)

Flag this comment

31.

Counselorm
Feb 17, 2009 8:23 AM CST

Sadly, many people do not think through the consequences of their actions.  While a romantic trist at work seems convenient and fun (and even exhilerating) while it is occuring, the reality is that the relationship will likely end and then it will be a living hell not just for the couple but for many who interact with them.  Even if it works out and the couple happily marries, they may realize that working together every day all the time is taxing on the relationship.  I am all in favor of allowing people to act stupidly if they choose—that is what “freedom” requires.  When, however, such actions subject a firm to law suits and potential morale problems, the firm absolutely has a right to step in and regulate such behavior.  We as Americans seem to believe that our private lives are nobody’s business, but the reality is that the decisions made in private often have a very public effect.

For those who feel that they do not have time to find a relationship elsewhere…  You may want to rethink the decisions you have made in life and whether the scrifices are worth it.  It’s not healthy to have your entire world in one basket.

Flag this comment

32.

SeaTownAttorney
Feb 20, 2009 10:36 AM CST

I’ve never been in a firm with an anti-fraternization rule, and have found that in larger firms, an occasional happy hour or other social event is a good opportunity for associates to get to know partners in other practice groups, or who they don’t have the opportunity to work with often. Dating or other similar activities, however…. the whole notion just sort of floors me. Since 99% of a persons relationships end, and as a lawyer, you are likely to run into the same faces every day, even if you were to switch firms… why would you do that to yourself? There are lots of nice non-lawyers our there who bring the added benefit of a non-legal perspective to your life.

Flag this comment

33.

alexw
Feb 20, 2009 7:26 PM CST

30 years ago, when I worked with a local (Long Beach, CA) firm where there was no sexual interaction between partners and associates,  we just loved to mix it up after hours, drink together and share war stories.  We had some great (long since closed) bars in town where we could meet with other local attorneys and some of the more adventurous out-of-towners who, getting off a late trial, not wanting to face the freeways, would hang out.  Remember: The Hung Jury, The Docket, Hoff’s Hut backroom bar, The Pago Pago, The Circus, were some of these places.  You could see your buddies outside of the “arena” and settle a case and maybe even talk with a DA or the City Attorney, even judges who loved a good drink. (the really good old days, ahemmm). We were comrades and loved to socially non-sexually fraternize with each other, without any reference to age, sex or ethnicity.  A much healthier atmosphere prevailed when there was this alternative non-adversarial means to interact outside of the office, courtroom or bar association meetings.  Bring back the office happy hour!  Cheers!

Flag this comment

34.

mary e mclean
Feb 23, 2009 1:33 AM CST

I am not practicing yet but certainly am aware of work affairs and the potential problems they create. I do not think that an anti fraternization policy would be effective, nor beneficial. As one post indicated, it would deny, both the partners and associates, the benefits involved in those relationships(friendships, mentoring, etc.). On the other hand, the behavior that Brandy and Christy are speaking of is certainly not what should be tolerated or condoned in any workplace. As a matter of fact, in the state of NC they would be breaking the law. Breaking the law may also be against the rules of professional conduct and could subject them to disciplinary action from the bar. I am sure I suffer from the idealism of one that has not had many years of experience. I view the law as an honorable profession and do not feel that I need to be told who I can speak with or be friendly with, before, during, or after work. However, I also understand that I must act with integrity. Integrity is key to being a successful human being. And, despite the lawyer jokes, being a member of the law profession demands an even higher degree integrity. To make a blanket rule that would deny the benefits of association to so many because of the lack of integrity in a few seems to me to be missing the mark. Certainly a case by case analysis, and appropriate action, when necessary, is the better choice.  When a lawyer breaks the law whatever the law he/she should suffer the consequence. I should not suffer the consequences created by the actions of others.  No fraternization policies prevent those who act with integrity from associating with a person that could offer them much, and does not impact those engaged in the destructive behavior. Christy has said a rule would not deter her, I believe her and posit that she is representative of those that behave in the same fashion. If there is not integrity to begin with then the rule is lost on them. If deterring destructive behavior is the point of the rule it seems the rule is pointless.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.