The less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it.
Mark Twain
More and more law firms are opting to require lawyers and certainly associates to be in the office at least four days a week. At some point, this may convert to five-days in the office. Most of the time, management declares that those lawyers (read associates) who don’t comply could see their compensation reduced. (A pretty strong suggestion is that five days is better than 4 for advancement).
Usually, management sanctimoniously emphasizes that a return to the office is necessary to preserve the vaunted firm culture. Sometimes explicitly, the return to the office policies are also justified by the belief that they will somehow increase productivity. Even if this is not said directly, tying compensation to compliance with the policies indicates an implicit assumption that those in the office will have higher productivity. And hence are worth more.
Most lawyers, on the other hand, oppose such requirements. They believe the real motive is the desire of older lawyers to control the workforce and return things to the way they were pre-COVID.
What is the real motive for harsher return to work policies?
So who is right: what is the real motive for harsher return to work policies? Until recently, it was a debate without much data to support either side. But in January of this year, two researchers from the University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business, Mark Ma and Yuye Ding, issued a Report that examined employers’ goals in demanding a return to the office. It also looked at the effectiveness of those policies. While not directed at law firms in specific, the results nevertheless fuel the feeling that strict return to work policies are
