The debate over remote work in law firms isn’t really about productivity, training, or collaboration It’s about control and convenience. Exacerbated by a cash basis business model, individual partners often prioritize their own convenience and short-term gains over the firm’s long-term success, making resistance to remote work all but inevitable.
A lot has been written about the remote work debate within law firms. Law firm management, typically made up of either boomers or Gen X partners, usually wants more in-office work by younger lawyers, associates and legal professionals.
The argument is grounded on the theory that younger lawyers can’t be adequately trained without in-office work. If younger lawyers aren’t in the office, they will miss the random water cooler conversations that are supposedly critical. And finally, older lawyers believe younger lawyers just aren’t as productive when out of the office and will not produce the same quality work.
Younger lawyers and legal professionals want the freedom to do more remote work. They like the flexibility and independence and argue they can be just as productive if not more so, working remotely.
Where Are Law Firms Today on Remote Work?
As we came out of Covid, the younger lawyers seemed to be winning the argument as law firm management begrudgingly allowed more remote work. Gradually, though, the pendulum has swung back.
At first, law firms began demanding some days in the office. At first, this so-called hybrid model typically called for 2 days in the offices. Gradually, law firms demanded more in office work and expected workers to be totally in the office 3, 4, and even 5 days (if not more). Some firms have tied bonuses to the number of days spent in the office. There is also the indirect pressure to be in the office: when it comes to advancement, younger lawyers have to believe the firm will take into account office attendance irrespective of any stated policy (and they may be right). All are based on the notion that remote work damages productivity, innovation, and career development.
The Studies
But this theory has been debunked over and over. Most recently, an article in the ABA Journal by Anna Stolley Persky cited and discussed a Study published in the Nature Journal. The Study was conducted by Nicholas Bloom, the William D. Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford University. It reiterated many previous findings that challenged management assumptions about remote work.
Bloom’s Study focused on university-graduate employees in software engineering, marketing, accounting, and finance, whose activities are mainly creative team tasks. The Study found the following with respect to a 2 day a week hybrid work model:
- A hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance. There was no evidence of a significant effect on employees’ performance reviews,
- Hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced turnover by one-third. The reduction was more significant for female employees and those with long commutes.
- Hybrid working did not affect performance grading. There was no evidence for a difference in promotion rates.
If you aint in the office, you aint really working
Why The Resistance?
Given this Study and others, why do law firms and senior partners oppose remote work and pine for a return to where lawyers and legal professionals were in the office every day?
There are several reasons. The first is control: senior lawyers just feel that they can better control what younger lawyers are doing and how they spend their time. The idea is: if you aint in the office, you aint really working. Working in the office 5, 6 or even days a week was how older lawyers had to prove their meddle when younger and they beleive how younger lawyers should now.
The second reason, and perhaps one with more validity, is convenience. Senior partners want to know they can reach younger lawyers when they need them, not when the younger lawyer is in the office and available. Yes, that could be accomplished by reaching out to someone who is remote, but it doesn’t seem quite as easy. And if you know a younger lawyer is in the office, you can just barge right in.
Having everyone in the office also means you can call an impromptu meeting when you need something done or when something happens, requiring all hands-on deck. (I know from experience dealing with remote teams that that issue can be solved, but it takes more time, effort, and patience, attributes often in short supply among powerful partners).
If your training program depends on water cooler conversations, it’s not a training program
But what about the training theory? As others and I have written, the training idea is often a myth. A lot of firms preach training but do little to accomplish it in any formal sense. It’s often catch as catch can. If your training program depends on water cooler conversations, it’s not a training program. It’s an excuse to force people to work in the office.
Does Convenience Justify in Office Demands?
But is the convenience factor a justification for in office work demands?
At first blush, it’s easy to dismiss the notion that partner convenience is a good reason to expect younger lawyers and legal professionals to be in the office, at the partners’ beck and call.
But the fact is that it is the partners, particularly those with significant books of business, that make the enterprise profitable. As owners of the business, they believe they should be able to set the terms of employment, even if those terms are misguided and injurious to the business.
The Fundamental Issue
Which brings me to the fundamental issue lurking behind the remote work debate. Lawyers, in general, and partners with significant books of business are independent to a fault. They expect to clap their hands and get what they want when they want it.
The problem with demanding younger lawyers be in the office every day is that it damages morale. Morale affects productivity and job satisfaction. It results in turnover. Diminished productivity and turnover hurt the law firm as a business and as a whole.
Institution loyalty-loyalty to the business as a whole—doesn’t exist as it once did.
But all too often, powerful partners aren’t concerned with the business as a whole but merely their own interests. The robust lateral market exacerbates the problem: partners with big books of business can pack up and leave if they aren’t getting what they want. Institution loyalty–loyalty to the business as a whole–doesn’t exist as it once did.
The law firm’s business model exacerbates the problem. Most law firms are on a cash base: profits are paid out at the end of the year to partners with little to no investment in the firm’s long-term business goals. The model creates a “get everything you can” expectation among partners. The good of the business as a whole is secondary.
It’s In the Genes
So even though the data shows that a hybrid model and remote flexibility make a business healthier, law firm leadership will likely continue to push for more days in the office either directly or indirectly.
It’s in the law firm’s genes.
Photo by May Gauthier on Unsplash