It’s Never Too Early to Think About Having Children

For many lawyers, the question is not only when to have children, but whether their workplace makes space for family-building without sacrificing career progression.

The nature of legal careers can make family-building particularly challenging for women and others assigned female at birth (AFAB) as professional expectations often peak while fertility declines.

Since law graduates typically are in their mid to late twenties when they enter the profession, the years spent articling and building a practice often coincide with peak fertility years. By the time many lawyers feel established enough to consider taking parental leave, they may already be in their early- to mid-thirties.

Waiting for an intermission from a legal career to try to conceive (TTC) can have real consequences: egg quantity and quality decline with age, and that decline accelerates around age 35.

Fertility timelines can also be influenced by a range of factors, including smoking, certain medical conditions, and prior medical treatments such as chemotherapy or radiation. Individuals with questions about how their personal medical history may affect fertility should speak with their healthcare provider.

These realities do not affect everyone equally, but they can create timing pressures for lawyers whose careers require years of training.

Family-building is often treated as a choice that exists in a silo. In reality, it is a choice shaped by the invisible architecture of legal practice: billable targets, partnership timelines, leave policies, benefits, file coverage, and assumptions about commitment and availability.

While fertility places limits on our bodies, workplace culture often determines whether lawyers feel able to act on their plans.

These pressures are not limited to women and other AFAB people. Society's views on fatherhood have evolved, and more lawyers are taking paternity leave as active parenting becomes a shared expectation. Yet many still face uncertainty about how those requests will be received within their firms.

Fatima*, 34, a cis woman in Vancouver, had always dreamed of a legal career and children.

When she was younger, she investigated in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and cryopreservation “just in case.” Before moving forward, she consulted a fertility counsellor, physician, and lawyer.

Using her eggs and donor sperm, she created five embryos that remain in storage.

Now, in her mid-30s and a senior associate at her firm, she has made the decision to be a Single Mother by Choice (SMBC).

Her firm has policies and a culture that support family-building.

She is now ready to take her maternity leave.

This level of institutional support for parenthood should not be rare, especially when women make up 53% of legal professionals in Canada, according to a recent International Bar Association report Raising the Bar: Women in Law Project.

Fatima’s story shows what support can make possible.

Salem and Justice’s story shows what happens without it.

Salem*, 42, and Justice*, 39, are mid-career lawyers preparing to welcome a child.

Salem is an AFAB genderfluid person and has been married to their wife, Justice, a trans woman, for 15 years.

Salem owns a firm, while Justice is a senior associate.

Mindful of fertility decline and the realities of 2SLGBTQIA+ family-building, they considered embryo adoption.

They chose altruistic gestational surrogacy because Salem was concerned that pregnancy could intensify their gender dysphoria.

Although reproductive medicine helped them build their family, workplace barriers remained.

Justice hopes to take meaningful parental leave, but the firm offers little guidance, support, or leadership from senior partners.

That uncertainty is heightened because Salem is self-employed and must also keep their own firm running.

They have heard partners make disparaging comments about colleagues who took their full parental leave.

Their concern remains; they have seen colleagues become pregnant and later lose their positions.

The difference between these stories is not commitment, foresight, or ambition. It is infrastructure.

Fatima’s choices are supported by her workplace environment.

Salem and Justice’s choices are constrained by uncertainty and the absence of precedent.

The couple’s story also highlights that the “motherhood penalty” can begin before motherhood itself: in assumptions about future availability, commitment, leave, flexibility, and ambition.

For many women and other AFAB people, the challenge is not simply deciding whether to have children. It is deciding whether the profession they love makes space for that choice.

Whether you are considering parenthood now or years from now, understanding the available supports and challenges can make a meaningful difference. 

Evaluating those supports begins long before a parental leave request. It starts with recruitment.

During recruitment, employers cannot legally ask about your marital status, age, or plans to have children.

Lawyers evaluating potential employers may also wish to pay attention to how they speak about parental leave, flexibility, and work-life balance. Negative comments about lawyers who take leave can be a warning sign that formal policies and workplace culture are not aligned.

The following might be evidence of whether family-building is part of the workplace’s DNA: 

• Health benefits that cover fertility treatment and/or adoption.
• Gender-sensitive leave policies for fertility-related issues, such as bereavement leave for miscarriage and menstrual leave.
• Parental leave policies with full top-up.

Creating supportive workplaces should not fall solely to those currently navigating family-building. Lawyers who have already built their families, along with firm leaders, can advocate for better policies, benefits, and workplace cultures for the next generation of lawyers.

If you are affected by fertility challenges and need support, you might connect with some of the incredible resources at QMUNITY, Fertility Matters Canada, and the Butterfly Support Network.

*This is a fictional example. All names, businesses, places, events and incidents are used in a fictitious manner. Any similarity to real individuals is purely coincidental.