Avoiding RTO Forum

[Anonymous User]

Are associates actually making excuses when they're TOLD to come in?

I was told to come in, and I need my damn job, so I couldn't bring myself to say "no." NYC sucks.

Attorneys do what they want. Most don’t want RTO. Firms should start hoteling offices and reducing their footprint by 40%.

[Wild Card]

Are associates actually making excuses when they're TOLD to come in?

I was told to come in, and I need my damn job, so I couldn't bring myself to say "no." NYC sucks.

Attorneys do what they want. Most don’t want RTO. Firms should start hoteling offices and reducing their footprint by 40%.

I would gladly sleep on the floor of my office year-round if it meant not having to pay $2,400+ per month in rent.

These raises were supposedly sparked by Cravath's desire to help its associates deal with rising cost of living expenses, but I don't know how anyone can justify paying that much for a rathole shoebox.

[Anonymous User]

If your in big law and just worried about a general RTO policy (as opposed to group specific policies) you're probably fine assuming you just want to collect a pay check for a few more years. Basically everyone is ignoring the formal policies right now and no one is going to push folks our until the law firm business slows down which is probably ~2 years away.

If you're goal is like partner you should definitely be going in because at least at my firm the soft socializing/network building is already ramping up.

Realistically, I don't think things will change much until October when a new batch of first years come in who probably won't have the backbone to buck official in office policy.

[Moneytrees]

Now all/most firms have ended 100% WFH, are there any that are bucking the trend and refusing to go in at all? How are you faring and what is your strategy?

Asking as I've been holding out on returning so far. From what I can gather, the majority in my office isn't really coming in as often as they are supposed to, but I'm not going in at all. I've considered going in a couple days, but I know if that happens I will create a precedent and I just absolutely hate being in the office. Main reason though is that my SO and I moved about 90 minutes away from the office to be closer to her family who was having some medical issues. I told the firm I wouldn't be back in any time soon because of some medical issues in my family and my hesitancy being in a busy office, and they responded amicably, but I'm wondering how much longer until they'll be like "This is over. Get in. Now." For example when the SA class comes in and they want to them how much of a happy family we are.

So curious how others are dealing with this and what reasons they are giving (if asked) why they aren't coming in yet or how much longer we'll have until the gig is up.

most firms did incredibly well last year, and i would definitely bring that up if anyone tries to "demand" that you come back into the office, especially given the medical issues going on.

quite frankly, firms cannot afford to lose anyone right now. assuming you don't give a shit about partnership (and it sounds like you dont), then i would keep doing your thing. if anyone tells you to start coming into the office, tell them there is a medical issue. if they press, tell them to bring it up with HR (in other words, you should tell them to politely fuck off).

ignore this advice if you have partnership aspirations.

As a midlevel who needs junior associates to get integrated and up to speed, I hope more juniors start coming back to the office. I'm at a V50 in NYC and, despite a mandate to return, our office is largely a ghost town. I don't think juniors realize how much they are hurting themselves by not coming into the office and building relationships/learning from their peers.

Even if you were correct that they are "hurting themselves", they don't give a shit. Everyone usually leaves in ~3 years anyway. Biglaw is far more tolerable during that time with WFH.

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

[Anonymous User]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

[Moneytrees]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

For me, it is far easier to train, guide, and integrate juniors who are in the office. All I can give you is my perspective, which is one data point, but I suspect many people feel this way.

We are talking about 1st years and 2nd years, to a large degree, BTW. If you know what you are doing and don't need much oversight, then it doesn't really matter where you work.

[Anonymous User]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

I don't wanna RTO but I gotta grudgingly admit that in person training is far superior. Forget the CLE stuff. While you're working with a senior or partner, you learn from their feedback. In person you can go over it together and learn more in 5 minutes than an hour parsing through redlines.

[Anonymous User]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

For me, it is far easier to train, guide, and integrate juniors who are in the office. All I can give you is my perspective, which is one data point, but I suspect many people feel this way.

We are talking about 1st years and 2nd years, to a large degree, BTW. If you know what you are doing and don't need much oversight, then it doesn't really matter where you work.

I'm a 5th year that's been going in maybe 1 day a week instead of 3 as my firm requires, so keep that in mind. I generally agree that juniors get something out of being in the office, but I disagree that it comes from formal training or hobnobbing with partners. As others have said, virtual training is just as effective. Plus, my firm is so busy people get staffed on stuff regardless of who they know. Instead, I think the benefit comes from having a midlevel two doors down that you can consult with.

Not everyone had this experience, but as a junior I had a cohort of 4-5 more senior attorneys that I could run to with pretty much any question I had even if they weren't on my matter. What would this partner want in this situation? Could you give me a crash course in this legal principle? Should I be worried about X? How would you approach this huge assignment that I've never done? I learned a lot very quickly and now attribute my success as a midlevel in large part to the advice/perspectives these colleagues gave me.

The 1st/2nd years I work with haven't had those opportunities, and it shows. I've tried to make myself available remotely, but only 2 or so of the junior attorneys I work with have taken advantage of that. Problem is, I think the culture of "go knock on a midlevel's door" is largely gone now. Even when I'm in the office, fewer than 60% of my junior colleagues aren't there, and the ones who are just haven't started the habit of asking for help. Given that, I'm not sure there's much benefit to anyone coming into the office now (aside from facetime for partnership prospects).

[Sad248]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

I don't wanna RTO but I gotta grudgingly admit that in person training is far superior. Forget the CLE stuff. While you're working with a senior or partner, you learn from their feedback. In person you can go over it together and learn more in 5 minutes than an hour parsing through redlines.

I agree with this, but this is more of an indictment on how poor law firms have handled the pandemic. It's been two years and nothing has really been done in terms of training for those working remotely. Lovers of RTO cannot figure out what they want. Either everyone did an amazing job these past two years and WFH works or everyone did terribly, these two years have been a waste for juniors, and law firms did nothing to combat it and RTO needs to happen ASAP. So if it's the latter, why has nobody done anything to improve the training? If it's the former, stop forcing people in.

I agree in-person training is better, but why? There should literally be no difference, unless you need the teacher to touch you, which is true for sports and stuff, but not for law. So why can't it be done? In my opinion, it's because senior associates and partners have done a terrible job making themselves available. It shouldn't be on the juniors to feverishly ask for assistance, as everybody knows how hard it can be to figure out how busy a senior is. Even in the office it's hard to ascertain if they have a minute or if they're about to go off on an important call. S

[Moneytrees]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

For me, it is far easier to train, guide, and integrate juniors who are in the office. All I can give you is my perspective, which is one data point, but I suspect many people feel this way.

We are talking about 1st years and 2nd years, to a large degree, BTW. If you know what you are doing and don't need much oversight, then it doesn't really matter where you work.

I'm a 5th year that's been going in maybe 1 day a week instead of 3 as my firm requires, so keep that in mind. I generally agree that juniors get something out of being in the office, but I disagree that it comes from formal training or hobnobbing with partners. As others have said, virtual training is just as effective. Plus, my firm is so busy people get staffed on stuff regardless of who they know. Instead, I think the benefit comes from having a midlevel two doors down that you can consult with.

Not everyone had this experience, but as a junior I had a cohort of 4-5 more senior attorneys that I could run to with pretty much any question I had even if they weren't on my matter. What would this partner want in this situation? Could you give me a crash course in this legal principle? Should I be worried about X? How would you approach this huge assignment that I've never done? I learned a lot very quickly and now attribute my success as a midlevel in large part to the advice/perspectives these colleagues gave me.

The 1st/2nd years I work with haven't had those opportunities, and it shows. I've tried to make myself available remotely, but only 2 or so of the junior attorneys I work with have taken advantage of that. Problem is, I think the culture of "go knock on a midlevel's door" is largely gone now. Even when I'm in the office, fewer than 60% of my junior colleagues aren't there, and the ones who are just haven't started the habit of asking for help. Given that, I'm not sure there's much benefit to anyone coming into the office now (aside from facetime for partnership prospects).

When I mentioned "training" in my earlier posts, I was not referring to formal training (i.e. as in watching a PLI video and discussing it with some people in your group). The best way to learn this job is to learn informally from your peers, as you mention.

I'm pretty much on board with everything you said, except that you seem resigned to the idea that he "knock on the midlevel's/partner's door" culture is dead, whereas my point is that I wish it weren't. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Moneytrees]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

I don't wanna RTO but I gotta grudgingly admit that in person training is far superior. Forget the CLE stuff. While you're working with a senior or partner, you learn from their feedback. In person you can go over it together and learn more in 5 minutes than an hour parsing through redlines.

I agree with this, but this is more of an indictment on how poor law firms have handled the pandemic. It's been two years and nothing has really been done in terms of training for those working remotely. Lovers of RTO cannot figure out what they want. Either everyone did an amazing job these past two years and WFH works or everyone did terribly, these two years have been a waste for juniors, and law firms did nothing to combat it and RTO needs to happen ASAP. So if it's the latter, why has nobody done anything to improve the training? If it's the former, stop forcing people in.

I agree in-person training is better, but why? There should literally be no difference, unless you need the teacher to touch you, which is true for sports and stuff, but not for law. So why can't it be done? In my opinion, it's because senior associates and partners have done a terrible job making themselves available. It shouldn't be on the juniors to feverishly ask for assistance, as everybody knows how hard it can be to figure out how busy a senior is. Even in the office it's hard to ascertain if they have a minute or if they're about to go off on an important call. S

What class year are you?

[Anonymous User]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

I don't wanna RTO but I gotta grudgingly admit that in person training is far superior. Forget the CLE stuff. While you're working with a senior or partner, you learn from their feedback. In person you can go over it together and learn more in 5 minutes than an hour parsing through redlines.

I agree with this, but this is more of an indictment on how poor law firms have handled the pandemic. It's been two years and nothing has really been done in terms of training for those working remotely. Lovers of RTO cannot figure out what they want. Either everyone did an amazing job these past two years and WFH works or everyone did terribly, these two years have been a waste for juniors, and law firms did nothing to combat it and RTO needs to happen ASAP. So if it's the latter, why has nobody done anything to improve the training? If it's the former, stop forcing people in.

I agree in-person training is better, but why? There should literally be no difference, unless you need the teacher to touch you, which is true for sports and stuff, but not for law. So why can't it be done? In my opinion, it's because senior associates and partners have done a terrible job making themselves available. It shouldn't be on the juniors to feverishly ask for assistance, as everybody knows how hard it can be to figure out how busy a senior is. Even in the office it's hard to ascertain if they have a minute or if they're about to go off on an important call. S

I'm kind of at a loss how to answer this. Why is it easier to communicate in person? Why are humans social beings? Why does "pop by my office" (or the reverse) work while "give me a call if you have questions" just doesn't? Why is printing something out and reviewing it sometimes better than reading a screen? Why is video calls no replacements for in person meetings? Why does bumping into someone the hallway or coffee room create a level of comfort that makes it easier to talk to them later about work?

I'm not going to try and explain any of this, if you've experienced it you know. I hope.

[Anonymous User]

I don't wanna RTO but I gotta grudgingly admit that in person training is far superior. Forget the CLE stuff. While you're working with a senior or partner, you learn from their feedback. In person you can go over it together and learn more in 5 minutes than an hour parsing through redlines.

Why can't you go over a redline or do a quick Q&A w/ a partner/senior via zoom? It's infinitely more efficient and effective when both the partner and the associate can access documents, emails or whatever else related to the topic of discussion.

I'm a 5th year that's been going in maybe 1 day a week instead of 3 as my firm requires, so keep that in mind. I generally agree that juniors get something out of being in the office, but I disagree that it comes from formal training or hobnobbing with partners. As others have said, virtual training is just as effective. Plus, my firm is so busy people get staffed on stuff regardless of who they know. Instead, I think the benefit comes from having a midlevel two doors down that you can consult with.

Not everyone had this experience, but as a junior I had a cohort of 4-5 more senior attorneys that I could run to with pretty much any question I had even if they weren't on my matter. What would this partner want in this situation? Could you give me a crash course in this legal principle? Should I be worried about X? How would you approach this huge assignment that I've never done? I learned a lot very quickly and now attribute my success as a midlevel in large part to the advice/perspectives these colleagues gave me.

The 1st/2nd years I work with haven't had those opportunities, and it shows. I've tried to make myself available remotely, but only 2 or so of the junior attorneys I work with have taken advantage of that. Problem is, I think the culture of "go knock on a midlevel's door" is largely gone now. Even when I'm in the office, fewer than 60% of my junior colleagues aren't there, and the ones who are just haven't started the habit of asking for help. Given that, I'm not sure there's much benefit to anyone coming into the office now (aside from facetime for partnership prospects).

This sounds like more of a personality thing than a RTO v. WFH issue. As a junior, I rarely ever stopped by a midlevel's office to ask questions or bounce ideas off of them. I wish I had, but I'm introverted and probably had irrational fears as to why I didn't. But the point is that the juniors that are the type to stop by a midlevel's office to ask a question, are probably also the type to hit up a midlevel on zoom or teams to ask the same question. The juniors that aren't as social/extroverted or whatever probably wouldn't have asked the question anyway. I just don't see how being in person actually changes this dynamic in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous User]

Also it doesn't have to be a binary -- WFH was and is great for some things. In person is better for other things. Going back 5 days a week is not happening. But WFH all week is also not going to fly. So there's a balance. Is it 1 day a week, 2, or 3, and should they set days or flex -- these are the details each firm/office has to figure out. My current main peeve is I think we should normalize non 9-5 schedule. Come to the office at noon. or leave at 2.

[Anonymous User]

This sounds like more of a personality thing than a RTO v. WFH issue. As a junior, I rarely ever stopped by a midlevel's office to ask questions or bounce ideas off of them. I wish I had, but I'm introverted and probably had irrational fears as to why I didn't. But the point is that the juniors that are the type to stop by a midlevel's office to ask a question, are probably also the type to hit up a midlevel on zoom or teams to ask the same question. The juniors that aren't as social/extroverted or whatever probably wouldn't have asked the question anyway. I just don't see how being in person actually changes this dynamic in any meaningful way.

I'm the 5th year. I'm about as extroverted as they come, and even I probably wouldn't hit someone up on a zoom/call unless it was really important. The bar is much lower for walking by someone's office to see if they have time to chat, and I find people are less likely to be trying to move onto their next task when someone is physically in the room with them. Plus, I saw my colleagues doing this all the time, so I felt comfortable doing it myself. That's what I mean by the culture is gone.

[Sad248]

Also it doesn't have to be a binary -- WFH was and is great for some things. In person is better for other things. Going back 5 days a week is not happening. But WFH all week is also not going to fly. So there's a balance. Is it 1 day a week, 2, or 3, and should they set days or flex -- these are the details each firm/office has to figure out. My current main peeve is I think we should normalize non 9-5 schedule. Come to the office at noon. or leave at 2.

This is the balancing act I never quite understood. Either it worked and it works or it didn't and doesn't. I understand the desire to combine the two worlds, compromising is natural, but I don't think it's logical. Either you need in-person contact with your colleagues and thus your presence in the office is often required, or it isn't and it's not required.

[Sad248]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

I don't wanna RTO but I gotta grudgingly admit that in person training is far superior. Forget the CLE stuff. While you're working with a senior or partner, you learn from their feedback. In person you can go over it together and learn more in 5 minutes than an hour parsing through redlines.

I agree with this, but this is more of an indictment on how poor law firms have handled the pandemic. It's been two years and nothing has really been done in terms of training for those working remotely. Lovers of RTO cannot figure out what they want. Either everyone did an amazing job these past two years and WFH works or everyone did terribly, these two years have been a waste for juniors, and law firms did nothing to combat it and RTO needs to happen ASAP. So if it's the latter, why has nobody done anything to improve the training? If it's the former, stop forcing people in.

I agree in-person training is better, but why? There should literally be no difference, unless you need the teacher to touch you, which is true for sports and stuff, but not for law. So why can't it be done? In my opinion, it's because senior associates and partners have done a terrible job making themselves available. It shouldn't be on the juniors to feverishly ask for assistance, as everybody knows how hard it can be to figure out how busy a senior is. Even in the office it's hard to ascertain if they have a minute or if they're about to go off on an important call. S

I'm kind of at a loss how to answer this. Why is it easier to communicate in person? Why are humans social beings? Why does "pop by my office" (or the reverse) work while "give me a call if you have questions" just doesn't? Why is printing something out and reviewing it sometimes better than reading a screen? Why is video calls no replacements for in person meetings? Why does bumping into someone the hallway or coffee room create a level of comfort that makes it easier to talk to them later about work?

I'm not going to try and explain any of this, if you've experienced it you know. I hope.

Don't know why the desperate/pitiful "I hope" needed to be there, like I'm some antisocial psychopath who doesn't understand human interactions, but whatever. My point just stands: yeah, you're right, in-person works better, but it's also very unimaginative not think why remote can work just as well or even better. Not everyone needs to be able to touch another person to feel connected, nor do I think "connection" is the point to strive towards when we are talking about a bunch of lawyers. I come to work, to work, not to create levels of comfort. If I want to see someone in person, that will be my friends, who I'll have more time for when not being in the office acting like I have a good time to make people feel comfortable.

[Anonymous User]

Also it doesn't have to be a binary -- WFH was and is great for some things. In person is better for other things. Going back 5 days a week is not happening. But WFH all week is also not going to fly. So there's a balance. Is it 1 day a week, 2, or 3, and should they set days or flex -- these are the details each firm/office has to figure out. My current main peeve is I think we should normalize non 9-5 schedule. Come to the office at noon. or leave at 2.

This is the balancing act I never quite understood. Either it worked and it works or it didn't and doesn't. I understand the desire to combine the two worlds, compromising is natural, but I don't think it's logical. Either you need in-person contact with your colleagues and thus your presence in the office is often required, or it isn't and it's not required.

Exactly. And the numbers show that it worked. So if it worked, why do we need to force people to come into the office and be unhappy? It should be completely optional. A lot of people say things like "one or two days per week isn't that bad". But if I'm the type of person that doesn't need to be in the office or actually performs better working from home, the one or two days per week approach makes it much harder for me to travel and/or live farther away from my home office--two huge benefits of being able to go full remote.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

IMO meetings are way better remote than in a conference room. In a conference room I only have my laptop display and maybe a notepad to write things down. Remote I can share my screen/view a screen if needed and still have two other displays for viewing and/or to take notes. I'm also a visual learner so I usually don't get much out of listening to others and trying to absorb it in real time, I need something to look at.

The only thing the office is better for (for me at least) is getting to know people on a personal level via getting lunch or quick chats, etc. I'm at a small firm so I've gotten to know most the partners decently well now (been going in 2 times/week for a about a year, been at the firm about 2 years), so the office is pretty unnecessary at this point IMO.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

Also it doesn't have to be a binary -- WFH was and is great for some things. In person is better for other things. Going back 5 days a week is not happening. But WFH all week is also not going to fly. So there's a balance. Is it 1 day a week, 2, or 3, and should they set days or flex -- these are the details each firm/office has to figure out. My current main peeve is I think we should normalize non 9-5 schedule. Come to the office at noon. or leave at 2.

This is the balancing act I never quite understood. Either it worked and it works or it didn't and doesn't. I understand the desire to combine the two worlds, compromising is natural, but I don't think it's logical. Either you need in-person contact with your colleagues and thus your presence in the office is often required, or it isn't and it's not required.

Exactly. And the numbers show that it worked. So if it worked, why do we need to force people to come into the office and be unhappy? It should be completely optional. A lot of people say things like "one or two days per week isn't that bad". But if I'm the type of person that doesn't need to be in the office or actually performs better working from home, the one or two days per week approach makes it much harder for me to travel and/or live farther away from my home office--two huge benefits of being able to go full remote.

Yep. Taking away the location flexibility takes away a lot of WFH benefits.

[Anonymous User]

I definitely find it easier to ask questions/discuss issues in person because body language is a thing that helps interactions (for me), but just hitting someone up on zoom is absolutely not a thing where I work. I have done maybe 2-3 zoom meetings for that kind of discussion throughout the entire pandemic, and they were always because there were more than 2 people. It’s basically expected to use the phone, and I do, but I kind of hate the phone. Could that change? Sure, technologically it’s easy enough to do. But no one in my office wants to get on zoom for casual questions so that would be a big uphill climb. I mean, *I* don’t want to. (And everyone I know who does do meetings regularly on zoom HATES zoom. There’s a reason there are a millions memes/TikTok about it).

That said, I still think people absolutely should be able to WFH. I just don’t think “just meet on zoom” is a good answer to the collaboration thing. Maybe that’s just my office, though.

(I’m not convinced that location flexibility is a great justification for WFH, but then, I don’t live in NYC so I get wanting there or in similar major metros. I just think it’s a hard sell when you originally signed on for the job in a particular location. That said, it seems there are firms hiring laterals to work remotely, so I think there might end up this split in approaches and people will have to change jobs if their firm is on the wrong side of the split for them.)

[Anonymous User]

Also it doesn't have to be a binary -- WFH was and is great for some things. In person is better for other things. Going back 5 days a week is not happening. But WFH all week is also not going to fly. So there's a balance. Is it 1 day a week, 2, or 3, and should they set days or flex -- these are the details each firm/office has to figure out. My current main peeve is I think we should normalize non 9-5 schedule. Come to the office at noon. or leave at 2.

This is the balancing act I never quite understood. Either it worked and it works or it didn't and doesn't. I understand the desire to combine the two worlds, compromising is natural, but I don't think it's logical. Either you need in-person contact with your colleagues and thus your presence in the office is often required, or it isn't and it's not required.

Exactly. And the numbers show that it worked. So if it worked, why do we need to force people to come into the office and be unhappy? It should be completely optional. A lot of people say things like "one or two days per week isn't that bad". But if I'm the type of person that doesn't need to be in the office or actually performs better working from home, the one or two days per week approach makes it much harder for me to travel and/or live farther away from my home office--two huge benefits of being able to go full remote.

5th year again. I like WFH as much as anybody else, but I also see the point to coming in as I mentioned in my previous post (though it's not really playing out well for the reasons I mentioned). So a few comments.

First, the numbers show that things got busy, not that it "worked." Ask most midlevels and above and they'll say the juniors that came in during the pandemic are rubbish, or at least performing as expected. Quibble with whether or not that's true, but that seems to be a pretty common sentiment so it probably means something. Either the law students got worse (unlikely) or something about WFH made it tough for juniors to grow.

Which brings me to my second point. I don't doubt that you may be the type of person who can learn and perform completely remotely. People like that certainly exist. But I also think more people self identify as that type of a person when, in reality, they are not. I don't think it's wrong for a firm to make something mandatory if either a) it's hard to filter out who needs it from who doesn't or b) the majority of people probably need it. It's not like you can test out of the in person requirement like you might a prereq in college. And besides, even if you are truly one of those people, others who are clearly not may depend on seeing you in the office, even if you don't need to.

Third, there's absolutely no basis to say that just because some in-person contact is useful, that it must follow that such contact is required often. We all may disagree on how much contact is needed (if it all) or whether it's worth finding a sweet spot, but don't pretend like we have to land on one extreme or the other. Let's skip the straw men/false dilemmas/slippery slope arguments, please.

[blair.waldorf]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

For me, it is far easier to train, guide, and integrate juniors who are in the office. All I can give you is my perspective, which is one data point, but I suspect many people feel this way.

We are talking about 1st years and 2nd years, to a large degree, BTW. If you know what you are doing and don't need much oversight, then it doesn't really matter where you work.

I'm a 5th year that's been going in maybe 1 day a week instead of 3 as my firm requires, so keep that in mind. I generally agree that juniors get something out of being in the office, but I disagree that it comes from formal training or hobnobbing with partners. As others have said, virtual training is just as effective. Plus, my firm is so busy people get staffed on stuff regardless of who they know. Instead, I think the benefit comes from having a midlevel two doors down that you can consult with.

Not everyone had this experience, but as a junior I had a cohort of 4-5 more senior attorneys that I could run to with pretty much any question I had even if they weren't on my matter. What would this partner want in this situation? Could you give me a crash course in this legal principle? Should I be worried about X? How would you approach this huge assignment that I've never done? I learned a lot very quickly and now attribute my success as a midlevel in large part to the advice/perspectives these colleagues gave me.

The 1st/2nd years I work with haven't had those opportunities, and it shows. I've tried to make myself available remotely, but only 2 or so of the junior attorneys I work with have taken advantage of that. Problem is, I think the culture of "go knock on a midlevel's door" is largely gone now. Even when I'm in the office, fewer than 60% of my junior colleagues aren't there, and the ones who are just haven't started the habit of asking for help. Given that, I'm not sure there's much benefit to anyone coming into the office now (aside from facetime for partnership prospects).

I agree with this. I think the main issue is that after two years of WFH, everyone is used to emailing/calling and the culture of stopping by someone’s office is gone. My old firm had us all come back pretty much full time in June 2021 (which is one reason I lateraled), and one reason I hated being in the office all of the time was that it was pointless. Everyone emailed or called me. I’d occasionally do a lap around the floor, and people had their doors closed or were on a call and looked unapproachable to me - so if I had a question, I’d email and ask for a time to chat, and usually they’d just call me at that time. I can count on one hand the number of times I spoke with someone in the office who wasn’t my peer, unless it was bumping into each other in the hallway and whatnot (which yeah, has value, but it wasn’t valuable enough to me to justify sitting in my office by myself for 8 hours a day doing exactly what I would be doing at home). Everyone’s behavior seemingly changed during the two years of WFH and I’m not sure people will ever act the way they did in the before times.

[Anonymous User]

5th year coming back for one other point that hasn't been covered (and I recognize this thread is about AVOIDING RTO). I think I would get much more out of a single specified mandatory in-office day each week rather than the flexible 3/2 split my firm currently has. As I said before, I'm really only coming in one day a week anyway, and when I do show it feels like a ghost town. That's part of why I can get away with 1 day a week, too. And that's part of why I see no reason to come back for more. But if everyone were there on the same day I could get so much more out of it. FWIW I also couldn't get away with skipping it, but I'd be willing to make that sacrifice.

TL;DR: If you want to avoid RTO, pick a firm like mine with no mandatory day(s).

[Anonymous User]

5th year coming back for one other point that hasn't been covered (and I recognize this thread is about AVOIDING RTO). I think I would get much more out of a single specified mandatory in-office day each week rather than the flexible 3/2 split my firm currently has. As I said before, I'm really only coming in one day a week anyway, and when I do show it feels like a ghost town. That's part of why I can get away with 1 day a week, too. And that's part of why I see no reason to come back for more. But if everyone were there on the same day I could get so much more out of it. FWIW I also couldn't get away with skipping it, but I'd be willing to make that sacrifice.

TL;DR: If you want to avoid RTO, pick a firm like mine with no mandatory day(s).

What firm do you work for?