In terms of my own views on these questions, I'm a moderate (as I am on so many things these days). Of course, now that I'm back to full-time writing I work from home -- which is fine, since writing is a fairly solitary activity -- but I do have thoughts on office culture for lawyers, who often work in teams (at least when it comes to the large litigations or transactions that are the staple of Biglaw firms).
I do think that at least some in-office work is helpful for lawyers, given the collaboration that's often required, the training and mentorship that are so valuable to young (and not-so-young) lawyers, and the like. If I were still a practicing lawyer, I wouldn't want a 100 percent remote position. Instead, I'd like the option to go into an office (and get some time away from my three-year-old, as lovable as he is).
As for employer expectations, I like the approach being taken by Ropes & Gray, Lowenstein Sandler, and certain other firms: an expectation or recommendation that employees spend at least three days a week in the office, but no hard requirement, with employees enjoying the flexibility to pick when they go into the office, without having to clear it with any supervisor or central authority.
Some firms, such as Jones Day, Paul Hastings, and Sullivan & Cromwell, seem to be trying to return to five days a week in the office, or something close to that, as the default. I think that will be tough to sell to associates (and partners) who have now seen how productive (and profitable) lawyers can be while working remotely.
Firms that take a hard line on five days a week from the office could lose out on talent. I don't know that many lawyers who are already at a firm and otherwise happy would actually quit over this. But if I'm a law student choosing where to summer (and therefore probably work post-graduation) or a lateral associate choosing between multiple firms, and Firm A expects five days a week in the office while Firm B is more flexible, I would favor Firm B, all things being equal.
This is a tough one. I think the best training happens organically, often times while working with someone in the same room. Being on conference calls with your team in the same room is very valuable and difficult to replicate virtually - it is just not the same. I think some time in the office is necessary and a warranted ask by firms. Firms that take a more flexible and middle of the road approach will probably fare the best in terms of associate and partner satisfaction, retention, and hiring. Mandating a required 5 days per week in person seems extreme and not a particularly thoughtful approach. If I were a big law associate, I don't think I'd personally leave over that alone, but I would take issue with the approach and am sure many others who rely more on the flexibility would look elsewhere.
One of the fascinating things about law firm life is the layers of culture that develop, even within a firm, that can have a distinct impact on the associate experience and which may bear directly on the question of whether increased openness to remote work will continue to take root at Biglaw firms. I would not be surprised to see firm-level policies get adopted, but with adjustments taken at the practice group-level to take into account the idiosyncrasies of a particular practice. Likewise, you may see different branch offices of a Biglaw firm adopt office-specific "interpretations" of a firm-level policy on remote work. I anticipate this return-to-work period at many firms will require a real focused effort on the part of practice group leaders and assignment partners to make sure everyone is complying with firm policies on remote work (and of course remaining busy billing away). At the same time, I think it behooves associates -- particularly more senior associates who have earned a measure of trust at their firms -- to communicate clearly and forthrightly with firm management about whether the firm's remote work policy is a help or a hindrance to their practices. As with most things, if the different stakeholders maintain a flexible approach to this transition period, things should end up working out at the majority of firms.
I agree with you both. Angela, I think you're totally right that the best training happens organically, as opposed to through some formal training process. For example, having a partner sit down with you and go over something you drafted is a great learning experience. Yes, it can happen over Zoom. But it's more likely to happen if you're in the same office, and it's a better experience in person too (perhaps because you have the marked-up document right in front of you).
And Gaston, I think you're totally right on how distinctive firm cultures are formed in many ways through being there in person. It will be interesting to see how much internal variation firms will allow. Partners definitely have personal styles and preferences; some are big on "face time," while others might be remote themselves and therefore indifferent as to whether someone is in the office or not.
There's a Biglaw partner who lives in my condo building here in Manhattan; he spends much of his summer in the Hamptons. He forwards his office phone to his home office out there, and you wouldn't know he's not in the office unless you physically went to his office yourself.
And yes, some firms will perhaps struggle with this issue. On the one hand, some Biglaw firms can be bureaucratic, and they will want to have a "uniform" policies. On the other hand, partners (especially partners with a lot of business) can be quite autonomous (and powerful). If a rainmaking partner and her group continue to make a lot of money for the firm, does the managing partner really want to die on the hill of "you must be here five days a week"?
I work in government. Our office likely will return to 5-days-a-week attendance later this summer. I wouldn't up and quit if and when that happens. But that's partially because both the substance and the pace of the work are already things that are attractive to me. I can understand those who work in private firms feeling like a rigid in-person requirement -- in addition to a sometimes-impossible-seeming billable hour requirement -- is just too inflexible or too stressful to put up with. A final straw, of sorts. But I don't have those other added stressors.
This is tough one for me as well and, as someone who works from home full-time. I think the requirement that people must be in the office five days a week (although, let's be honest, we all know lawyers who work seven days a week) post-pandemic seems antiquated. That being said, WFH is not for everyone and some people prefer to be in an office for whatever reason (better demarcation between home and work, enjoy working around people, likes their office environment more for work than their home, etc. needs face-to-face interaction, etc.). A hybrid approach seems to be the best compromise and letting people decide for themselves what they prefer. I personally would not quit over that issue alone.
In terms of my own views on these questions, I'm a moderate (as I am on so many things these days). Of course, now that I'm back to full-time writing I work from home -- which is fine, since writing is a fairly solitary activity -- but I do have thoughts on office culture for lawyers, who often work in teams (at least when it comes to the large litigations or transactions that are the staple of Biglaw firms).
I do think that at least some in-office work is helpful for lawyers, given the collaboration that's often required, the training and mentorship that are so valuable to young (and not-so-young) lawyers, and the like. If I were still a practicing lawyer, I wouldn't want a 100 percent remote position. Instead, I'd like the option to go into an office (and get some time away from my three-year-old, as lovable as he is).
As for employer expectations, I like the approach being taken by Ropes & Gray, Lowenstein Sandler, and certain other firms: an expectation or recommendation that employees spend at least three days a week in the office, but no hard requirement, with employees enjoying the flexibility to pick when they go into the office, without having to clear it with any supervisor or central authority.
Some firms, such as Jones Day, Paul Hastings, and Sullivan & Cromwell, seem to be trying to return to five days a week in the office, or something close to that, as the default. I think that will be tough to sell to associates (and partners) who have now seen how productive (and profitable) lawyers can be while working remotely.
Firms that take a hard line on five days a week from the office could lose out on talent. I don't know that many lawyers who are already at a firm and otherwise happy would actually quit over this. But if I'm a law student choosing where to summer (and therefore probably work post-graduation) or a lateral associate choosing between multiple firms, and Firm A expects five days a week in the office while Firm B is more flexible, I would favor Firm B, all things being equal.
This is a tough one. I think the best training happens organically, often times while working with someone in the same room. Being on conference calls with your team in the same room is very valuable and difficult to replicate virtually - it is just not the same. I think some time in the office is necessary and a warranted ask by firms. Firms that take a more flexible and middle of the road approach will probably fare the best in terms of associate and partner satisfaction, retention, and hiring. Mandating a required 5 days per week in person seems extreme and not a particularly thoughtful approach. If I were a big law associate, I don't think I'd personally leave over that alone, but I would take issue with the approach and am sure many others who rely more on the flexibility would look elsewhere.
One of the fascinating things about law firm life is the layers of culture that develop, even within a firm, that can have a distinct impact on the associate experience and which may bear directly on the question of whether increased openness to remote work will continue to take root at Biglaw firms. I would not be surprised to see firm-level policies get adopted, but with adjustments taken at the practice group-level to take into account the idiosyncrasies of a particular practice. Likewise, you may see different branch offices of a Biglaw firm adopt office-specific "interpretations" of a firm-level policy on remote work. I anticipate this return-to-work period at many firms will require a real focused effort on the part of practice group leaders and assignment partners to make sure everyone is complying with firm policies on remote work (and of course remaining busy billing away). At the same time, I think it behooves associates -- particularly more senior associates who have earned a measure of trust at their firms -- to communicate clearly and forthrightly with firm management about whether the firm's remote work policy is a help or a hindrance to their practices. As with most things, if the different stakeholders maintain a flexible approach to this transition period, things should end up working out at the majority of firms.
I agree with you both. Angela, I think you're totally right that the best training happens organically, as opposed to through some formal training process. For example, having a partner sit down with you and go over something you drafted is a great learning experience. Yes, it can happen over Zoom. But it's more likely to happen if you're in the same office, and it's a better experience in person too (perhaps because you have the marked-up document right in front of you).
And Gaston, I think you're totally right on how distinctive firm cultures are formed in many ways through being there in person. It will be interesting to see how much internal variation firms will allow. Partners definitely have personal styles and preferences; some are big on "face time," while others might be remote themselves and therefore indifferent as to whether someone is in the office or not.
There's a Biglaw partner who lives in my condo building here in Manhattan; he spends much of his summer in the Hamptons. He forwards his office phone to his home office out there, and you wouldn't know he's not in the office unless you physically went to his office yourself.
And yes, some firms will perhaps struggle with this issue. On the one hand, some Biglaw firms can be bureaucratic, and they will want to have a "uniform" policies. On the other hand, partners (especially partners with a lot of business) can be quite autonomous (and powerful). If a rainmaking partner and her group continue to make a lot of money for the firm, does the managing partner really want to die on the hill of "you must be here five days a week"?
I work in government. Our office likely will return to 5-days-a-week attendance later this summer. I wouldn't up and quit if and when that happens. But that's partially because both the substance and the pace of the work are already things that are attractive to me. I can understand those who work in private firms feeling like a rigid in-person requirement -- in addition to a sometimes-impossible-seeming billable hour requirement -- is just too inflexible or too stressful to put up with. A final straw, of sorts. But I don't have those other added stressors.
This is tough one for me as well and, as someone who works from home full-time. I think the requirement that people must be in the office five days a week (although, let's be honest, we all know lawyers who work seven days a week) post-pandemic seems antiquated. That being said, WFH is not for everyone and some people prefer to be in an office for whatever reason (better demarcation between home and work, enjoy working around people, likes their office environment more for work than their home, etc. needs face-to-face interaction, etc.). A hybrid approach seems to be the best compromise and letting people decide for themselves what they prefer. I personally would not quit over that issue alone.