RTO (Not going to go in) Forum

[Excellent117]

Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you.

This is what it boils down to. People in favor of WFH just want to be able to choose for themselves, while the pro-RTO crowd wants mandated and enforced minimum weekly attendance. Now, why they want that requirement probably varies from person to person, but regardless of the reason, only one side of the debate is trying to push their preferred post-COVID office dynamics onto the other.

It's not. You're relying on a cute semantic trick that lets you obfuscate all of the actual points of contention. If your premise that nothing in your job description requires working in the office is correct, then of course this is only an imposition on you. No shit. But focusing on the second part is leading with your conclusion, rather than engaging in the actual debate.

There are some who believe that parts of the job require in-person interaction. I won't reiterate what those parts are because they have been stated repeatedly ITT and you clearly don't want to discuss them. But the point is, by asking to work from home, you are indeed imposing your preferences on the rest of the office because it doesn't function properly without everyone there at least some of the time, including you (so special).

You might think you can do these things from home or even that they aren't your responsibility, but that doesn't have anything to do with who is inconveniencing whom - it's disagreeing about what the job entails. It would be silly for a car mechanic would say an "in-shop" requirement is imposing the boss's preferences on her/him. I get that lawyering is different from fixing cars, but if you actually want to convince someone on here then why don't you talk about how and how much.

I would love for you to reiterate those parts or even include your own, because at least from a corporate perspective, nothing anyone has listed so far ITT actually requires one to be physically present.

And what does a "properly functioning" office mean to you? Because going into a pre-COVID office to me means just wasting time and money on a commute to try and work in a place with a bunch of extra distractions.

[Anonymous User]

Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you.

This is what it boils down to. People in favor of WFH just want to be able to choose for themselves, while the pro-RTO crowd wants mandated and enforced minimum weekly attendance. Now, why they want that requirement probably varies from person to person, but regardless of the reason, only one side of the debate is trying to push their preferred post-COVID office dynamics onto the other.

It's not. You're relying on a cute semantic trick that lets you obfuscate all of the actual points of contention. If your premise that nothing in your job description requires working in the office is correct, then of course this is only an imposition on you. No shit. But focusing on the second part is leading with your conclusion, rather than engaging in the actual debate.

There are some who believe that parts of the job require in-person interaction. I won't reiterate what those parts are because they have been stated repeatedly ITT and you clearly don't want to discuss them. But the point is, by asking to work from home, you are indeed imposing your preferences on the rest of the office because it doesn't function properly without everyone there at least some of the time, including you (so special).

You might think you can do these things from home or even that they aren't your responsibility, but that doesn't have anything to do with who is inconveniencing whom - it's disagreeing about what the job entails. It would be silly for a car mechanic would say an "in-shop" requirement is imposing the boss's preferences on her/him. I get that lawyering is different from fixing cars, but if you actually want to convince someone on here then why don't you talk about how and how much.

I would love for you to reiterate those parts or even include your own, because at least from a corporate perspective, nothing anyone has listed so far ITT actually requires one to be physically present.

And what does a "properly functioning" office mean to you? Because going into a pre-COVID office to me means just wasting time and money on a commute to try and work in a place with a bunch of extra distractions.

Read the thread dude and respond accordingly. It's not my job to summarize for you corporate folks and laziness isn't an excuse for bad arguments.

[Auxilio]

I think there's a lot more overlap between "strong performer" and "pro-WFH" than people on this thread have acknowledged. The type of people who feel chained to their computer, always available, solid and quick repsonses etc. are also (in my experience) the ones who are most pro-WFH. The people who have slow response times after 6pm and generally less available tend to be more pro-RTO (probably because they like that divide between work and non-work hours that many strong performers just don't have).

[GFox345]

Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you.

This is what it boils down to. People in favor of WFH just want to be able to choose for themselves, while the pro-RTO crowd wants mandated and enforced minimum weekly attendance. Now, why they want that requirement probably varies from person to person, but regardless of the reason, only one side of the debate is trying to push their preferred post-COVID office dynamics onto the other.

It's not. You're relying on a cute semantic trick that lets you obfuscate all of the actual points of contention. If your premise that nothing in your job description requires working in the office is correct, then of course this is only an imposition on you. No shit. But focusing on the second part is leading with your conclusion, rather than engaging in the actual debate.

There are some who believe that parts of the job require in-person interaction. I won't reiterate what those parts are because they have been stated repeatedly ITT and you clearly don't want to discuss them. But the point is, by asking to work from home, you are indeed imposing your preferences on the rest of the office because it doesn't function properly without everyone there at least some of the time, including you (so special).

You might think you can do these things from home or even that they aren't your responsibility, but that doesn't have anything to do with who is inconveniencing whom - it's disagreeing about what the job entails. It would be silly for a car mechanic would say an "in-shop" requirement is imposing the boss's preferences on her/him. I get that lawyering is different from fixing cars, but if you actually want to convince someone on here then why don't you talk about how and how much.

I would love for you to reiterate those parts or even include your own, because at least from a corporate perspective, nothing anyone has listed so far ITT actually requires one to be physically present.

And what does a "properly functioning" office mean to you? Because going into a pre-COVID office to me means just wasting time and money on a commute to try and work in a place with a bunch of extra distractions.

Read the thread dude and respond accordingly. It's not my job to summarize for you corporate folks and laziness isn't an excuse for bad arguments.

Your first criticism is fair to an extent. The real substance of the debate is whether or not there are benefits to mandated RTO, and I admit I was somewhat begging the question.

But the rest of your reply is just straight up trash and far lazier than any shortcut I took. You:
(1) hide behind supposedly convincing RTO points other people made previously; then
(2) refuse to identify those points when asked, even in short form (because none exist).; then you
(3) imply that people who opt out of undesirable work conditions view themselves as "special" because most others just tolerate them; then you
(4) make an obviously in-apt analogy to a job that requires in-person customer service; and finally you
(5) pretend like you're receptive to the opposing viewpoint.

Why do I need to convince you that WFH works? While I'm at it, should I also convince you that the sun comes up every morning? You have YEARS of evidence in front of you at this point. You clearly are not receptive to it, and your arguments are entirely in bad faith.

Tell me, if your employer told you to stand on one leg all the time, and when you asked why, they would gas light you with answers that you both knew were bullshit, would you do it? (See "you have to come in after three years because the juniors just benefit so much from the deep inter-personal office relationships with mid-levels.").

Something tells me you would. Just because you are a spineless desk monkey doesn't mean I have to be.

[BigLawPartner]

Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you.

This is what it boils down to. People in favor of WFH just want to be able to choose for themselves, while the pro-RTO crowd wants mandated and enforced minimum weekly attendance. Now, why they want that requirement probably varies from person to person, but regardless of the reason, only one side of the debate is trying to push their preferred post-COVID office dynamics onto the other.

It's not. You're relying on a cute semantic trick that lets you obfuscate all of the actual points of contention. If your premise that nothing in your job description requires working in the office is correct, then of course this is only an imposition on you. No shit. But focusing on the second part is leading with your conclusion, rather than engaging in the actual debate.

There are some who believe that parts of the job require in-person interaction. I won't reiterate what those parts are because they have been stated repeatedly ITT and you clearly don't want to discuss them. But the point is, by asking to work from home, you are indeed imposing your preferences on the rest of the office because it doesn't function properly without everyone there at least some of the time, including you (so special).

You might think you can do these things from home or even that they aren't your responsibility, but that doesn't have anything to do with who is inconveniencing whom - it's disagreeing about what the job entails. It would be silly for a car mechanic would say an "in-shop" requirement is imposing the boss's preferences on her/him. I get that lawyering is different from fixing cars, but if you actually want to convince someone on here then why don't you talk about how and how much.

I would love for you to reiterate those parts or even include your own, because at least from a corporate perspective, nothing anyone has listed so far ITT actually requires one to be physically present.

And what does a "properly functioning" office mean to you? Because going into a pre-COVID office to me means just wasting time and money on a commute to try and work in a place with a bunch of extra distractions.

Read the thread dude and respond accordingly. It's not my job to summarize for you corporate folks and laziness isn't an excuse for bad arguments.

Your first criticism is fair to an extent. The real substance of the debate is whether or not there are benefits to mandated RTO, and I admit I was somewhat begging the question.

But the rest of your reply is just straight up trash and far lazier than any shortcut I took. You:
(1) hide behind supposedly convincing RTO points other people made previously; then
(2) refuse to identify those points when asked, even in short form (because none exist).; then you
(3) imply that people who opt out of undesirable work conditions view themselves as "special" because most others just tolerate them; then you
(4) make an obviously in-apt analogy to a job that requires in-person customer service; and finally you
(5) pretend like you're receptive to the opposing viewpoint.

Why do I need to convince you that WFH works? While I'm at it, should I also convince you that the sun comes up every morning? You have YEARS of evidence in front of you at this point. You clearly are not receptive to it, and your arguments are entirely in bad faith.

Tell me, if your employer told you to stand on one leg all the time, and when you asked why, they would gas light you with answers that you both knew were bullshit, would you do it? (See "you have to come in after three years because the juniors just benefit so much from the deep inter-personal office relationships with mid-levels.").

Something tells me you would. Just because you are a spineless desk monkey doesn't mean I have to be.

Wasn't he calling Excellent117 lazy? Why did that fire you up so much? In any event, the only reason for RTO that matters is what the partners say. If they think the job is done better in the office, you're just going to have to suck it up or move to Quinn or one of the handful of firms that are fully remote. It's quite simple, actually. They are not going to engage in any meaningful debate with you (just like there are dozens of other things they do without consulting you). I am not saying this is right or wrong. It's just reality. And while a few folks may leave as a result, it will not be meaningful enough to make a difference to most firms. It just won't.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you.

This is what it boils down to. People in favor of WFH just want to be able to choose for themselves, while the pro-RTO crowd wants mandated and enforced minimum weekly attendance. Now, why they want that requirement probably varies from person to person, but regardless of the reason, only one side of the debate is trying to push their preferred post-COVID office dynamics onto the other.

It's not. You're relying on a cute semantic trick that lets you obfuscate all of the actual points of contention. If your premise that nothing in your job description requires working in the office is correct, then of course this is only an imposition on you. No shit. But focusing on the second part is leading with your conclusion, rather than engaging in the actual debate.

There are some who believe that parts of the job require in-person interaction. I won't reiterate what those parts are because they have been stated repeatedly ITT and you clearly don't want to discuss them. But the point is, by asking to work from home, you are indeed imposing your preferences on the rest of the office because it doesn't function properly without everyone there at least some of the time, including you (so special).

You might think you can do these things from home or even that they aren't your responsibility, but that doesn't have anything to do with who is inconveniencing whom - it's disagreeing about what the job entails. It would be silly for a car mechanic would say an "in-shop" requirement is imposing the boss's preferences on her/him. I get that lawyering is different from fixing cars, but if you actually want to convince someone on here then why don't you talk about how and how much.

I would love for you to reiterate those parts or even include your own, because at least from a corporate perspective, nothing anyone has listed so far ITT actually requires one to be physically present.

And what does a "properly functioning" office mean to you? Because going into a pre-COVID office to me means just wasting time and money on a commute to try and work in a place with a bunch of extra distractions.

Read the thread dude and respond accordingly. It's not my job to summarize for you corporate folks and laziness isn't an excuse for bad arguments.

Your first criticism is fair to an extent. The real substance of the debate is whether or not there are benefits to mandated RTO, and I admit I was somewhat begging the question.

But the rest of your reply is just straight up trash and far lazier than any shortcut I took. You:
(1) hide behind supposedly convincing RTO points other people made previously; then
(2) refuse to identify those points when asked, even in short form (because none exist).; then you
(3) imply that people who opt out of undesirable work conditions view themselves as "special" because most others just tolerate them; then you
(4) make an obviously in-apt analogy to a job that requires in-person customer service; and finally you
(5) pretend like you're receptive to the opposing viewpoint.

Why do I need to convince you that WFH works? While I'm at it, should I also convince you that the sun comes up every morning? You have YEARS of evidence in front of you at this point. You clearly are not receptive to it, and your arguments are entirely in bad faith.

Tell me, if your employer told you to stand on one leg all the time, and when you asked why, they would gas light you with answers that you both knew were bullshit, would you do it? (See "you have to come in after three years because the juniors just benefit so much from the deep inter-personal office relationships with mid-levels.").

Something tells me you would. Just because you are a spineless desk monkey doesn't mean I have to be.

Wasn't he calling Excellent117 lazy? Why did that fire you up so much? In any event, the only reason for RTO that matters is what the partners say. If they think the job is done better in the office, you're just going to have to suck it up or move to Quinn or one of the handful of firms that are fully remote. It's quite simple, actually. They are not going to engage in any meaningful debate with you (just like there are dozens of other things they do without consulting you). I am not saying this is right or wrong. It's just reality. And while a few folks may leave as a result, it will not be meaningful enough to make a difference to most firms. It just won't.

This was pretty good. You almost sounded like a real partner in this one.

[Anonymous User]

Wasn't he calling Excellent117 lazy? Why did that fire you up so much? In any event, the only reason for RTO that matters is what the partners say. If they think the job is done better in the office, you're just going to have to suck it up or move to Quinn or one of the handful of firms that are fully remote. It's quite simple, actually. They are not going to engage in any meaningful debate with you (just like there are dozens of other things they do without consulting you). I am not saying this is right or wrong. It's just reality. And while a few folks may leave as a result, it will not be meaningful enough to make a difference to most firms. It just won't.

Right and this is why WFH folks need to advocate and engage rather than just obfuscate by calling RTO an imposition. Any firm that says come back to the office knows that it's an imposition, they aren't dumb. What matters is whether it's worth it. Some of the partners at my V25 are totally on board with soft RTO policies, but it sounds like other firms are not convinced.

If some of the pro-WFH folks think they're winning by lodging some pithy remarks and ad hominin attacks on a freaking forum then they are more naïve than I thought...

[objctnyrhnr]

Yeah I mean anybody who thinks that in a macro/aggregate sense, WFH is exactly as good as RTO is kidding themselves. Obviously a bunch of intangibles get lost when nobody goes into work (and for that matter if only half the people go in only sometimes). Many examples have been mentioned here, including training juniors, forming relationships, one off chats about whatever, etc. that shit matters, undoubtedly.

In my view, that’s not the real question though. the real question is exactly how valuable those intangibles when weighed against the lost nonbillable TIME spent commuting to the office getting ready whatever. That really adds up.

In my view, on an individual level, the difference in opinion (to the extent it’s valid and not intellectually disingenuous and self serving) between the two camps comes down to how much people really value their own waking hours.

If you value them a ton, then not having to commute is more important than all of those very valid intangibles that stem from RTO and whatever detriment it is to the team caused by some people not going in and whatever detriment it is to your long term career outlook.

If you value them less, then on balance all of those other considerations warrant going into the office for you. It’s that simple.

And from my perspective as somebody with kids, those otherwise lost hours spent commuting are massively important. So I am anti RTO (selfishly, perhaps).

But to deny the benefits of RTO on the whole is just wrong.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

Yeah I mean anybody who thinks that in a macro/aggregate sense, WFH is exactly as good as RTO is kidding themselves. Obviously a bunch of intangibles get lost when nobody goes into work (and for that matter if only half the people go in only sometimes). Many examples have been mentioned here, including training juniors, forming relationships, one off chats about whatever, etc. that shit matters, undoubtedly.

In my view, that’s not the real question though. the real question is exactly how valuable those intangibles when weighed against the lost nonbillable TIME spent commuting to the office getting ready whatever. That really adds up.

In my view, on an individual level, the difference in opinion (to the extent it’s valid and not intellectually disingenuous and self serving) between the two camps comes down to how much people really value their own waking hours.

If you value them a ton, then not having to commute is more important than all of those very valid intangibles that stem from RTO and whatever detriment it is to the team caused by some people not going in and whatever detriment it is to your long term career outlook.

If you value them less, then on balance all of those other considerations warrant going into the office for you. It’s that simple.

And from my perspective as somebody with kids, those otherwise lost hours spent commuting are massively important. So I am anti RTO (selfishly, perhaps).

But to deny the benefits of RTO on the whole is just wrong.

Good post, I completely agree.

[nixy]

Yeah I mean anybody who thinks that in a macro/aggregate sense, WFH is exactly as good as RTO is kidding themselves. Obviously a bunch of intangibles get lost when nobody goes into work (and for that matter if only half the people go in only sometimes). Many examples have been mentioned here, including training juniors, forming relationships, one off chats about whatever, etc. that shit matters, undoubtedly.

In my view, that’s not the real question though. the real question is exactly how valuable those intangibles when weighed against the lost nonbillable TIME spent commuting to the office getting ready whatever. That really adds up.

In my view, on an individual level, the difference in opinion (to the extent it’s valid and not intellectually disingenuous and self serving) between the two camps comes down to how much people really value their own waking hours.

If you value them a ton, then not having to commute is more important than all of those very valid intangibles that stem from RTO and whatever detriment it is to the team caused by some people not going in and whatever detriment it is to your long term career outlook.

If you value them less, then on balance all of those other considerations warrant going into the office for you. It’s that simple.

And from my perspective as somebody with kids, those otherwise lost hours spent commuting are massively important. So I am anti RTO (selfishly, perhaps).

But to deny the benefits of RTO on the whole is just wrong.

Yeah, this is all fair. I’m a little reluctant to pin it all on time commuting, literally, when not everyone has a long commute, and my concern is that then you start getting people parsing what is an “acceptable” distance for coming in vs. staying home, which is just going to pit people against each other.

The other issue is how much you personally value your waking hours is probably irrelevant to employers. (I realize you weren’t necessarily pitching it as an argument that would convince employers, of course.)

[Anonymous User]

I think there is a host of reasons to WFH. On a personal level, it gives the individual freedom. They don't have to spend time commuting, nor spend money on it. Instead, they can stay at home, or hell, work from a vacation address. No, "voluntary" social events with work colleagues. Instead, if you really want to spend time working next to somebody, you can meet up at a cafe and work together with friends or a partner (this is one thing I never understand about people who get their social fix from their workplace: you can easily get this outside of the workplace, and then without any office politics or worries about your professional persona).

Then, on a company level: reduced costs for office space, electricity, heating, water, etc. You can even start letting go of the assistants who will be collecting dust when everybody is WFH. It sounds like a dream come true on an economic level.

Then, on a societal and global level: less need for offices, so more room for housing/other smaller shops, creating more room for people to live and work. Less stress on the environment, because of no commuting and reduced energy expenditure.

Indeed, the only viable reasons I can come up with are training of juniors (which I honestly have never noticed, and regardless, this can be done online) and bigwigs who want to see their bees working and be sucked up to (yeah, you need RTO for this). So despite all the above, I think at some point everybody will be forced in again for 4 days a week.

[Anonymous User]

TBF to people getting social interaction at work, I don’t think they’re saying that they don’t get social interaction anywhere else, just that it’s where they get social interaction *during standard work hours.* A lot of lawyers’ friends also work business hours and aren’t available to hang and work at a coffeeshop during the day. Some would be if we were in a universe where everyone could WFH, but we’re not and even then not everyone would be free.

Let me emphasize I’m *not* saying this means we should all RTO, just that I don’t think “you can go work with friends in a cafe” is a great justification for WFH. (Although I really miss working from cafes.)

[Anonymous User]

We've fired somebody already for refusing to RTO even a few times per month (we have a 3-day a week mandate). We were willing to be flexible and have it be just once per week but this person said they wouldn't commit to even that, so we let them go.

[Excellent117]

We've fired somebody already for refusing to RTO even a few times per month (we have a 3-day a week mandate). We were willing to be flexible and have it be just once per week but this person said they wouldn't commit to even that, so we let them go.

Assuming that person was performing the rest of their job responsibilities at or above expectations, enjoy the cost (both time and money) of replacing that individual's productivity. Plus, you have to deal with the uncertainty of whether their replacement is going to be as capable of an attorney based on a handful of 20-30 minute conversations. But hey, at least that person will be going into the office!

Or maybe you think they don't need replacing and can just distribute portions of their workload across the remaining associates, in which case enjoy even more cost and expense as those associates burn out and leave for other opportunities.

Decisions like these are going to look incredibly dumb and short-sighted in 3-5 years, especially as an increasingly large percentage of the workforce is made up of younger generations who expect WFH to be the norm. Adapt or die.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

I think that as firms compete for talent, it’s totally fair to expect 3 days a week in the office. BUT (and this is the biggest issue right now) the firms should also compete to make their office experience less miserable.

Some firms have made the investments in nice offices with legit amenities. Others have been super cheap. Being forced to RTO is easier when your firm has done the former rather than the latter.

[Anonymous User]

Am law needs to clearly and concisely present RTO requirements per firm to incoming law students. Other than paying market I cannot imagine a more important metric

[Anonymous User]

We've fired somebody already for refusing to RTO even a few times per month (we have a 3-day a week mandate). We were willing to be flexible and have it be just once per week but this person said they wouldn't commit to even that, so we let them go.

Assuming that person was performing the rest of their job responsibilities at or above expectations, enjoy the cost (both time and money) of replacing that individual's productivity. Plus, you have to deal with the uncertainty of whether their replacement is going to be as capable of an attorney based on a handful of 20-30 minute conversations. But hey, at least that person will be going into the office!

Or maybe you think they don't need replacing and can just distribute portions of their workload across the remaining associates, in which case enjoy even more cost and expense as those associates burn out and leave for other opportunities.

Decisions like these are going to look incredibly dumb and short-sighted in 3-5 years, especially as an increasingly large percentage of the workforce is made up of younger generations who expect WFH to be the norm. Adapt or die.

I never understand how people on this site have become so convinced that interviews provide no way to realistically evaluate someone’s ability as a lawyer. I’m not claiming they’re infallible by any means, but clearly the firm is comfortable enough with their track record in hiring to be willing to hire someone new rather than let this person WFH. Or they’re happy to let them go because as everyone keeps pointing out, the market/hours have slowed down so now’s not the best time to rock the boat, so they didn’t really need this person. Plus biglaw is based on the model of associates burning out and leaving, so I don’t think this will have the negative consequences you imagine it will.

I agree that it’s not a good look to fire someone over this and I also agree that firms should let people WFH, but I don’t think the revolution you describe is going to materialize. In an ideal world, sure, but we don’t live in one. Most people will cave for the 1 day a week offer.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Senior associate, generally well-liked (I think?) but not particularly hard-working.

My default is to come into the office because I live five minutes away, but my SO lives far away, so I'm elsewhere when it suits me.

My office has an annoying hybrid policy. I'd say more than half of associates are not in compliance with it. I don't know anyone who's ever been chastised about it, but they are absolutely doing walkthroughs and tracking swipes.

I would not ever come in purely because I was told to and would either ignore it or lie about it rather than openly object or quit over it. I'm not that far away from quitting anyway and I don't care if I get fired because I've built a nest egg.

My first two years, I would've shit myself at any insinuation that my job was in jeopardy and would've done anything to be in management's good graces.

Add that to your data set.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Senior associate, generally well-liked (I think?) but not particularly hard-working.

My default is to come into the office because I live five minutes away, but my SO lives far away, so I'm elsewhere when it suits me.

My office has an annoying hybrid policy. I'd say more than half of associates are not in compliance with it. I don't know anyone who's ever been chastised about it, but they are absolutely doing walkthroughs and tracking swipes.

I would not ever come in purely because I was told to and would either ignore it or lie about it rather than openly object or quit over it. I'm not that far away from quitting anyway and I don't care if I get fired because I've built a nest egg.

My first two years, I would've shit myself at any insinuation that my job was in jeopardy and would've done anything to be in management's good graces.

Add that to your data set.

Are you just saying that juniors are easy for management to convince to do anything? Or that if you were a junior today, you’d actually come in everyday out of fear?

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate, generally well-liked (I think?) but not particularly hard-working.

My default is to come into the office because I live five minutes away, but my SO lives far away, so I'm elsewhere when it suits me.

My office has an annoying hybrid policy. I'd say more than half of associates are not in compliance with it. I don't know anyone who's ever been chastised about it, but they are absolutely doing walkthroughs and tracking swipes.

I would not ever come in purely because I was told to and would either ignore it or lie about it rather than openly object or quit over it. I'm not that far away from quitting anyway and I don't care if I get fired because I've built a nest egg.

My first two years, I would've shit myself at any insinuation that my job was in jeopardy and would've done anything to be in management's good graces.

Add that to your data set.

A bit off topic but what are you planning to do post biglaw? Inhouse?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Senior associate, generally well-liked (I think?) but not particularly hard-working.

My default is to come into the office because I live five minutes away, but my SO lives far away, so I'm elsewhere when it suits me.

My office has an annoying hybrid policy. I'd say more than half of associates are not in compliance with it. I don't know anyone who's ever been chastised about it, but they are absolutely doing walkthroughs and tracking swipes.

I would not ever come in purely because I was told to and would either ignore it or lie about it rather than openly object or quit over it. I'm not that far away from quitting anyway and I don't care if I get fired because I've built a nest egg.

My first two years, I would've shit myself at any insinuation that my job was in jeopardy and would've done anything to be in management's good graces.

Add that to your data set.

Are you just saying that juniors are easy for management to convince to do anything? Or that if you were a junior today, you’d actually come in everyday out of fear?

Yeah, probably.

[dyemond]

Am law needs to clearly and concisely present RTO requirements per firm to incoming law students. Other than paying market I cannot imagine a more important metric

you could just go work for quinn but I suspect you would prefer not to so there are clearly more important metrics