In the last two decades, as working schedules became flexible, and even accounting firms, of all places, embraced the mantra of work-life balance (at least on paper), there was one unbending, tradition-bound profession: The law.

That is why it is so remarkable to watch the legal world racing - metaphorical black robes flapping - to catch up.

Over the last few years and, most strikingly, the last few months, law firms have been forced to rethink long-standing ways of doing business, if they are to remain fully competitive.

As chronicled by my colleague Alex Williams in the Sunday Styles section earlier this month, lawyers are overworked, depressed and leaving.

Less obvious, but potentially more dramatic, are the signs that their firms are finally becoming serious about slowing the stampede for the door. So far the change - which includes taking fresh looks at the billable hour, schedules and partnership tracks - is mostly at the smaller firms. But even some of the larger, more hidebound employers are taking notice.

"There are things happening everywhere, enough to call it a movement," said Deborah Epstein Henry, who founded Flex-Time Lawyers, a consulting firm that creates initiatives encouraging work-life balance for law firms, with an emphasis on the retention and promotion of women. "The firms don't think of it as a movement, because it is happening in isolation, one firm at a time. But if you step back and see the whole puzzle, there is definitely real change."

Last month, Henry's ambitious proposal was published in the magazine Diversity and the Bar. Her plan, called FACTS, takes on law-firm bedrock - billable hours, which are how lawyers have calculated their fees for more than 50 years.

At nearly every large American firm, lawyers must meet a quota of hours. During the 1960s and 1970s, the requirement was between 1,600 and 1,800 hours a year or about 34 hours a week, not counting time for the restroom or lunch or water cooler breaks. Today that has risen to 2,000 to 2,200 hours, or roughly 42 hours a week. (Billing 40 hours a week means putting in upward of 60 at the office.)

FACTS is an acronym. Under Henry's proposal, work time can be: Fixed (allowing lawyers to choose less high-profile work for more predictable schedules), or Annualized (intense bursts of high-adrenaline work followed by relative lulls); Core (with blocks mapped out for work and for commitments like meeting children at the bus); Targeted (an agreed-upon goal of hours, set annually, customized for each worker, with compensation adjusted accordingly); and Shared (exactly as it sounds).

Henry's proposal came at the end of last year, when firms had already started backing away from the billable hour.

Some firms have gone so far as to eliminate the billable hour. The Rosen law firm in Raleigh, N.C., one of the largest divorce firms on the East Coast, did so this year, instead charging clients a flat fee.

Similarly, Dreier, a firm with offices in New York and Los Angeles, pays its lawyers salaries and bonuses based on revenue generated, not hours billed.

At Quarles & Brady, a firm with headquarters in Chicago, not only have billable hour requirements been eliminated, but parental leave has been expanded. Women can take 12 weeks with pay, men six weeks. And that time can be divided, meaning a father can take a few weeks off when his baby is born and a few more after his wife returns to work. Other firms are making smaller changes.

REDUCED PAY, REDUCED SCHEDULE

Howrey, a global firm in Washington, is tinkering not only with how much associates bill, but also with their pay.

That is the message behind changes at Chapman & Cutler, a midsize firm in Chicago, which rolled out a two-tier pay scale in September.

Associates can choose to bill 2,000 hours a year and be paid accordingly. Those who would like to see their families a little more can opt for 1,850 billable hours. Both groups will have a chance to become partner, albeit at different paces. Given the choice, more than half took the reduced schedule.

"What is happening now is not just about the needs and demands of women," said Lauren Stiller Rikleen, who directs the Bowditch Institute for Women's Success.

Law is responding to a confluence of factors, said Rikleen, the author of "Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women's Success in the Law" (Thomson Legalworks, 2006).

First, clients, reacting to spiraling legal costs, have begun insisting on flat-fee deals.

In addition, "you can't ignore the generational piece," Rikleen said. On one end of the spectrum are baby boomers, nearing retirement and mindful of the flexible schedules that did not exist at the start of their careers. At the other end are Gen Y workers, some nearing 30 and in want of a life.

FIGHTING FOR A LIFE

A group of students at Stanford Law School, for instance, shook up the legal world in 2006 when they formed Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession. The Stanford group has more than 130 members, and other elite schools like Yale and New York University have formed chapters. The Stanford organization has published a ranking of firms based on how they treat employees; members vow not to work for those who don't rate well.

Andrew Bruck, a president of the Stanford group, told the Legal Times: "Just because something always has been doesn't mean that it always must be."

A harbinger of changing times might well be the brief filed by the hard-driving white-shoe firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges of New York, asking a judge to reschedule hearings set for Dec. 18, 19, 20 and 27 of last year.

"Those dates are smack in the middle of our children's winter breaks, which are sometimes the only times to be with our children," the lawyers wrote. The judge moved the hearings.

The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.

The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question.

If the trial court finds the child agrees to be circumcised, the Supreme Court said, it should deny the mother's requests. But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court has to determine if it will affect the father's ability to care for the child.

The custody dispute began when the child was 4 and the circumcision issue began three years ago when he was 9.

James Boldt, a lawyer, is representing himself, had no comment, his office said. The attorney for both sides also declined to comment.

The case has drawn attention from Jewish groups concerned that the Oregon court might restrict the practice. A group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision backs the mother.

The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.

One constitutional law professor who has been following the case called it "a reasonable ruling."

"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. "He likely feels some pressure from (his parents)."

More than a million U.S. infants are circumcised each year, but circumcising adults or teens remains relatively rare. A urologist who met with the boy submitted an affidavit that said the procedure would cause him minor discomfort for about three days but not interfere with his normal activities, the Supreme Court's decision said.

The case has dragged in the courts since it was filed in March 2003.

"This appeal took two years," said Kathy Henry, one of the plaintiffs. "We're glad about the appeals court ruling, but it's been cruel to make residents wait this long."

A spokesman for Dow said the company is reviewing the opinion.

"We continue to believe that the trial court erred in granting class certification," Scot Wheeler said. "Among other things, the trial court ignored evidence that upwards of one-third of the residential properties sampled showed no contamination."

Since the lawsuit was filed, hot spots of dioxin have been found in the Saginaw River.

An earlier ruling in the case dismissed the residents' demand to make Dow pay for medical monitoring for potential health problems.

Dow contends a University of Michigan study shows that people who live in contaminated areas do not show higher levels of dioxin in their blood than people who don't live near the river.

"I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with so many gifted people and am looking forward to my next venture," Regan, who filed a $100 million defamation suit last November, said in a statement.

Regan's ReganBooks imprint at HarperCollins published a long list of racy best sellers, including Jose Canseco's "Juiced" and Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star." But she was fired in December 2006, less than a month after Murdoch canceled her plans to publish O.J. Simpson's allegedly fictional murder confession, "If I Did It." The book and a companion Fox television interview were greeted with widespread public outrage.

"Ms. Regan is a talented publisher who created many award-winning and best-selling books during her twelve and a half years at the company," the company said in a statement. "News Corp. thanks Ms. Regan for her outstanding contributions and wishes her continued success."

At the time of her firing, when she still had more than two years on her contract, News Corp. alleged that Regan made anti-Semitic comments to a company lawyer during an angry telephone conversation.

"This charge was completely fabricated," according to Regan's lawsuit.

"After carefully considering the matter, we accept Ms. Regan's position that she did not say anything that was anti-Semitic in nature, and further believe that Ms. Regan is not anti-Semitic," News Corp. said Friday.

Regan had also accused her former employers of asking her to lie to federal investigators about Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner who was once her lover, and had tried to smear her.

Regan said the smear campaign stems from her past intimate relationship with Kerik, who was police commissioner under former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and from the political agenda of News Corp.

Giuliani, a Republican, appointed Kerik police commissioner and recommended him to President Bush for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik had to withdraw his nomination after it was revealed he had not reported the wages he paid to a nanny. He was indicted last November, days before Regan filed her lawsuit, on counts including accusations of lying to the White House and filing false income tax returns. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.