WFH until July 2021 Forum

[sparty99]

My guess is that a large number of NYC firms will begin "voluntary" re-openings after Labor Day. I expect less than 5-10% of employees will actually return, and firms probably won't start pushing more people to "voluntarily" return until the beginning of 2021.

I understand several have already re-opened to volunteers. Mine is doing so next week and I'm not expecting to see more than a few people on my floor on any given day.

That's right. My firm has been open to volunteers for three weeks now. I think many other firms are in the same spot. I think the WFH policies will end and normal office requirements for staff will return mid-September.

Nah. Unless you live in a southern state. The virus is still rampant and won't slow down without another lock down.

Lockdown is actually not necessary so long as people wear masks. Just don't understand why so many people are not willing to wear masks.

Not even sure why you are anon...

[Anonymous User]

Related question,

Do we think COVID will make firms more amenable to working from home longer-term? I’m an incoming first year who will likely be doing long-distance with my SO during at least part of my time in biglaw. Being able to work remotely for a week out of the month would be a massive help.

[Anonymous User]

Related question,

Do we think COVID will make firms more amenable to working from home longer-term? I’m an incoming first year who will likely be doing long-distance with my SO during at least part of my time in biglaw. Being able to work remotely for a week out of the month would be a massive help.

It's going to be practice group-specific (or even partner-specific) but I think so. I'm not sure if it will be on a week-by-week basis, but I can see more people doign WFH on Monday/Friday and only coming in 3-4 days a week.

[objctnyrhnr]

My perhaps overly optimistic take is this. Right now at a number of firms, there’s a presumption you’ll be in the office unless you have a decent reason not to be.

My hope is that this will switch. It’ll be presumed you’re available via WFH unless there’s a meeting or deadline or whatever that would benefit from having you in the office.

[4LTsPointingNorth]

My perhaps overly optimistic take is this. Right now at a number of firms, there’s a presumption you’ll be in the office unless you have a decent reason not to be.

My hope is that this will switch. It’ll be presumed you’re available via WFH unless there’s a meeting or deadline or whatever that would benefit from having you in the office.

I hope so too, and I think that's possible for more senior people who have built up credibility by grinding for years.

Remote availability and responsiveness is going to be a total crap shoot with this incoming class of junior associates though. Some first years will obsessively stick by their computers even when zero work is coming their way and others will routinely respond many hours late on highly active matters because they aren't experienced enough to realize the expected timing on these matters. Rightly or wrongly, a large portion of the inevitable lack of responsiveness (as well as a large portion of the routine hassle of training a new class of first years) will be attributed to WFH. Based on that, the integration process of this year's class of new associates may have a huge effect on firms' attitudes toward remote work going forward.

I could easily see a firm's position being that "remote work is detrimental to their talent development pipeline", so they need to impose formal facetime requirements (perhaps tiered by seniority) in order to address that concern.

Post-COVID, it's hard to see firms cracking down on an established non-equity counsel who decides to WFH three days a week from now on, but it is extremely easy to see firms sending repeated email blasts to all associates communicating that "the expectation is that lawyers will be working from the office during business hours absent specific prior clearance from the partners on their case/deal teams".

[Skool]

Senior people will pressure junior gunners by calling snap in person meetings. Junior gunners will obviously respond by making sure they’re available to meet in person. Calling snap meetings has always been a way of passive aggressively checking WFH. Firm leadership will continue to claim in office is “voluntary,” and bad behavior by the senior people people will go unreported, as it always does.

Before stay at home orders, I started working from home at the first sign of community spread in USA. Had plenty of awkward conversations about why I wasn’t available to meet in person. I was totally able to do the job remotely, and they still wanted me in the office. I fully expect the same dynamic post Covid, because it’s just how big law is. Individuals will have to navigate the dynamics by themselves.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

[parkslope]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Is anyone really not being responsive at this point in time? We are all at home and there is nowhere to go.

[Anonymous User]

Why wouldn't an incoming associate be, if anything, more responsive? As a summer I've been incredibly responsive b/c I'm so paranoid and scared for my job. I'd expect a new associate to feel the same way.

[cisscum]

Why wouldn't an incoming associate be, if anything, more responsive? As a summer I've been incredibly responsive b/c I'm so paranoid and scared for my job. I'd expect a new associate to feel the same way.

Yeah, as a senior, my own observation is that junior associates are even more responsive than normal

[Anonymous User]

I could see my firm doing this. I don’t think we’ll announce that we are not going back until July 2021 like Google but I think it’s unlikely that we all back in the office by January and our managing partner seems to be suggesting recently that won’t be until there is a vaccine.

[Yea All Right]

I think that for the vast majority of biglaw firms, it's highly unlikely that people will be required to be in the office before there's a vaccine; just too much of a liability and a PR hit. Assuming that being in the office is not mandatory, I'm sure some team leaders will try to pressure others into coming in, but an email raising administration's or HR's attention to the issue would likely result in the firm reiterating the WFH policy.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I think that for the vast majority of biglaw firms, it's highly unlikely that people will be required to be in the office before there's a vaccine; just too much of a liability and a PR hit. Assuming that being in the office is not mandatory, I'm sure some team leaders will try to pressure others into coming in, but an email raising administration's or HR's attention to the issue would likely result in the firm reiterating the WFH policy.

This makes sense for NYC. In a lot of secondary markets (especially in the South) I don't think partners are worried about liability or PR with this.

[blair.waldorf]

I honestly can’t see firms that allow WFH through mid-2021 ever returning to the traditional “be in the office from 8-6 every single day” model. It’s hard to imagine everyone rushing back to the office after a year of working from home, especially if productivity is the same. As someone mentioned upthread, those who have moved outside of the city for the time being are probably not eager to return.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

[Anonymous User]

I think that for the vast majority of biglaw firms, it's highly unlikely that people will be required to be in the office before there's a vaccine; just too much of a liability and a PR hit. Assuming that being in the office is not mandatory, I'm sure some team leaders will try to pressure others into coming in, but an email raising administration's or HR's attention to the issue would likely result in the firm reiterating the WFH policy.

This makes sense for NYC. In a lot of secondary markets (especially in the South) I don't think partners are worried about liability or PR with this.

Look, the norms are still getting established, so I could be wrong.

Im in NYC and my firm has a target of x% voluntarily in the office with a sliding scale up over time. Could easily imagine a partner saying, “if you’re [voluntarily] in the office today, come down to the conference room for a snap socially distanced meeting. Everyone else dial in.” But when the work gets distributed at the meeting, in person gunner gets a plum assignment. For “phone line guy, we aren’t sure about his availability these days, give him the shittier assignment.” Or maybe it’s because in person gunner is chatting up the partner before and after the meeting, which has always been how the game is played. Phone line guy and in person gunner will be incentivized without anyone insisting on anything.

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

The partners who grew up with in person meetings and have had them for the last 10-30 years are probably going to want to get back to them. With a colleague like anon above, we will be back to in person in no time.

[Anonymous User]

I think that for the vast majority of biglaw firms, it's highly unlikely that people will be required to be in the office before there's a vaccine; just too much of a liability and a PR hit. Assuming that being in the office is not mandatory, I'm sure some team leaders will try to pressure others into coming in, but an email raising administration's or HR's attention to the issue would likely result in the firm reiterating the WFH policy.

This makes sense for NYC. In a lot of secondary markets (especially in the South) I don't think partners are worried about liability or PR with this.

Look, the norms are still getting established, so I could be wrong.

Im in NYC and my firm has a target of x% voluntarily in the office with a sliding scale up over time. Could easily imagine a partner saying, “if you’re [voluntarily] in the office today, come down to the conference room for a snap socially distanced meeting. Everyone else dial in.” But when the work gets distributed at the meeting, in person gunner gets a plum assignment. For “phone line guy, we aren’t sure about his availability these days, give him the shittier assignment.” Or maybe it’s because in person gunner is chatting up the partner before and after the meeting, which has always been how the game is played. Phone line guy and in person gunner will be incentivized without anyone insisting on anything.

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

The partners who grew up with in person meetings and have had them for the last 10-30 years are probably going to want to get back to them. With a colleague like anon above, we will be back to in person in no time.

"Snap socially distanced meeting" lol

If the meetings have to be socially distanced we might as well not have them. I'm loling at the mental image of a five biglawyers in masks 6 feet apart in a conference room for 20. Only a boomer asshole partner would call a meeting like that. I don't deny those partners exist, but I think most partners wouldn't bother. Ymmv obviously always firm and group and partner dependent.

If covid ever truly becomes a non factor I agree that the new normal will return at some point.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

An attitude like this is why associates are used and abused throughout biglaw. People treat you like crap if you allow them to treat you like crap. COVID is no joke. I'm not risking my health for any job.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

An attitude like this is why associates are used and abused throughout biglaw. People treat you like crap if you allow them to treat you like crap. COVID is no joke. I'm not risking my health for any job.

And that’s your choice. I’m with the other anon that said they’ll be at in person meetings. In this economy I’m going to be doing everything within my power to make sure I have the best chance of keeping my job.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

An attitude like this is why associates are used and abused throughout biglaw. People treat you like crap if you allow them to treat you like crap. COVID is no joke. I'm not risking my health for any job.

And that’s your choice. I’m with the other anon that said they’ll be at in person meetings. In this economy I’m going to be doing everything within my power to make sure I have the best chance of keeping my job.

Being in the office won't affect whether you keep your job as long as you're billing enough. The firm just cares about $$. If you're making the firm $$ they'll keep you around forever (trust me. I work in a V20 and see literal zombies that don't give a shit about their job but keep billing to keep the paycheck.). You might not make partner, but showing up to every meeting won't guarantee that anyway. I'm with the anon who is for WFH. It makes a difference when you have kids and a spouse.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

An attitude like this is why associates are used and abused throughout biglaw. People treat you like crap if you allow them to treat you like crap. COVID is no joke. I'm not risking my health for any job.

And that’s your choice. I’m with the other anon that said they’ll be at in person meetings. In this economy I’m going to be doing everything within my power to make sure I have the best chance of keeping my job.

Being in the office won't affect whether you keep your job as long as you're billing enough. The firm just cares about $$. If you're making the firm $$ they'll keep you around forever (trust me. I work in a V20 and see literal zombies that don't give a shit about their job but keep billing to keep the paycheck.). You might not make partner, but showing up to every meeting won't guarantee that anyway. I'm with the anon who is for WFH. It makes a difference when you have kids and a spouse.

[Anonymous User]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

An attitude like this is why associates are used and abused throughout biglaw. People treat you like crap if you allow them to treat you like crap. COVID is no joke. I'm not risking my health for any job.

And that’s your choice. I’m with the other anon that said they’ll be at in person meetings. In this economy I’m going to be doing everything within my power to make sure I have the best chance of keeping my job.

Being in the office won't affect whether you keep your job as long as you're billing enough. The firm just cares about $$. If you're making the firm $$ they'll keep you around forever (trust me. I work in a V20 and see literal zombies that don't give a shit about their job but keep billing to keep the paycheck.). You might not make partner, but showing up to every meeting won't guarantee that anyway. I'm with the anon who is for WFH. It makes a difference when you have kids and a spouse.

I mean, I'm not necessarily pro-WFH because I like it (although I do prefer WFH, at least as an option). I'm pro WFH right now because I'm genuinely scared of COVID, and I'm not going to risk getting sick to impress a partner. No job is worth my health.

[4LTsPointingNorth]

The spirit of this thread seems geared toward speculation about what a post-COVID Biglaw culture might look like.

To that end, has anyone heard anything from their firms indicating that WFH could be here to stay? Either in the form of it being acceptable to WFH a couple days a week or something else?

[Skool]

Fellow incoming associates, be responsive! Don’t ruin this!

My live-in SO has an autoimmune disorder. Any partner calling a snap meeting can eff right off.

Sorry but if my partners call snap meetings I’ll be there. Particularly in this economy, I’m just not comfortable being unavailable for in person meetings if the powers that be insist on it.

An attitude like this is why associates are used and abused throughout biglaw. People treat you like crap if you allow them to treat you like crap. COVID is no joke. I'm not risking my health for any job.

And that’s your choice. I’m with the other anon that said they’ll be at in person meetings. In this economy I’m going to be doing everything within my power to make sure I have the best chance of keeping my job.

The lone wolf dies, but the pack survives.

[Frutsie]

The spirit of this thread seems geared toward speculation about what a post-COVID Biglaw culture might look like.

To that end, has anyone heard anything from their firms indicating that WFH could be here to stay? Either in the form of it being acceptable to WFH a couple days a week or something else?

I believe Freshfields is doing a post-COVID WFH policy and allowing associates to relinquish office space. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020 ... m_term=tal
But I didn't read the article closely, so . . .