One of my favorite podcasts is Legal Speak, produced by Charles Garner. The topics are always interesting. The guests consistently offer thought-provoking ideas and positions.
Last week’s episode was entitled Why There Will Never Be a One-Size-Fits-All Solution to the Remote Work Conundrum. The podcast consisted of an interview by Patrick Smith with Ira Coleman, chairman of the large law firm McDermott Will & Emery.
It’s important at the outset to recognize and commend Coleman and his firm on the remote work issue. Many of his opinions recognized and were sensitive to the needs of lawyers. Many of his views were nuanced and recognize the needs of associates for flexibility in their work lives. Much more than many law firms, he and his firm demonstrate forward thinking and a recognition of new work realities.
But somewhat contrary to the title, Coleman’s position seemed to be that data supports the idea that lawyers (mainly associates) who work in an office somehow perform better. Better than those associates who work more at home.
Coleman also opined that it was important for lawyers (associates) to be “in the city,” working in the office. According to Coleman, this presence would enable associates to run into clients and other lawyers while at lunch. And that, Coleman said, was essential to getting business. He finally proclaimed that you learn better how to read a room if you are in the office. Not surprisingly, his conclusions were focused on associates, not partners.
All these conclusions according to Coleman should just be accepted by lawyers (associates). They should “just handle the truth.” So get used to being in the office three days a week. And therein lies the rub. And the danger. No matter how well intended and data driven Coleman’s approach
