How much do you want WFH? Forum

[BankruptcyJesus]

I'm actually surprised by the stats. This shows a majority of people want to return to the office in some form or another (either a few days a week or every day). I thought most people would now want to return (except by choice on occasion). Well - to all of you who said you want to go back, trust me you'll regret it. You don't know what you've got till it's gone, and when you inevitably want to start a family (which most will inevitably want at some point in their lives), you'll really really regret it. When I went into the office every day I'd leave home at 8 a.m. and wouldn't get back some days until 1 a.m. Most days I didn't return home until after 8 p.m. If you have a life outside of the office (which hopefully you do), you really should not want to ever return to that lifestyle. For those of you who said you need it for social interactions or friends because you live alone - I think it's healthier to establish relationships with people outside of your work. Go meet people. I myself want to never be required to go back into the office again. Sorry people, that's the truth. I have a life and people I enjoy seeing on a daily basis who are not my colleagues.

I agree with this. I’m pretty surprised too. I mean at least give me the option to WFH whenever I want. It’ll result in better productivity across the board. Happy associates are more productive associates and more loyal to the firm they work for. On the bright side, this thread reveals that 89% of people who voted want to WFH post pandemic at least 2 times a week and most more than that.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

I'm actually surprised by the stats. This shows a majority of people want to return to the office in some form or another (either a few days a week or every day). I thought most people would now want to return (except by choice on occasion). Well - to all of you who said you want to go back, trust me you'll regret it. You don't know what you've got till it's gone, and when you inevitably want to start a family (which most will inevitably want at some point in their lives), you'll really really regret it. When I went into the office every day I'd leave home at 8 a.m. and wouldn't get back some days until 1 a.m. Most days I didn't return home until after 8 p.m. If you have a life outside of the office (which hopefully you do), you really should not want to ever return to that lifestyle. For those of you who said you need it for social interactions or friends because you live alone - I think it's healthier to establish relationships with people outside of your work. Go meet people. I myself want to never be required to go back into the office again. Sorry people, that's the truth. I have a life and people I enjoy seeing on a daily basis who are not my colleagues.

I agree with this. I’m pretty surprised too. I mean at least give me the option to WFH whenever I want. It’ll result in better productivity across the board. Happy associates are more productive associates and more loyal to the firm they work for. On the bright side, this thread reveals that 89% of people who voted want to WFH post pandemic at least 2 times a week and most more than that.

Yeah, I don't think that "shows a majority of people want to return" is the correct takeaway here.

Here's the breakdown:

65% want to WFH majority of the week
27% want to WFH less than half of the week
8% do not want WFH

92% want moar WFH, as compared to pre-covid.

[Anonymous User]

I think the big divide is with single people who like city life and people with families who want room to stretch.

Some of you mentioned wanting large houses. I grew up in a fairly large house (around 4K sq. ft.), and I hate that life. My last apartment was 430 sq. ft. and I still thought it was too large. I lived in a 180 sq. ft. place before and that was slightly too small.

Suburbia is terrible. You need a car, everything closes early, and there’s less to do.

As a (relatively) young person seems to have the opposite preferences, could you get more specific? Like what do you actually do in the city that you could not do in the suburbs? I also realize that I have experienced the best of both worlds to some extent by living in a city that is not dense at all (i.e. has tons of houses in the city itself).

A bit off topic, but I’ll bite. I’m young and prefer city life. Here are a few reasons.

While I like driving, cars and parking are generally a hassle. Walking more is also way healthier, and for me better mentally. Walking to stores, coffee shops, church, bars, etc. Americans generally don’t move throughout the day anywhere close to enough. Sure, you can go for walks in the suburbs but then that’s extra time and not part of your “existing”.

Dense cities have places that stay open late like coffee, bars, restaurants, random shops. If you like socializing after 8pm, you can’t really get that in suburban places outside of a few basic bars, top golf, or whatever. And it’ll be the same ones over and over. BUT I grant that things are improving and places all over are building their own hip walkable places. It’s just that there’s only one as opposed to dozens of neighborhoods in a city.

Dense city life attracts more artists and musician types. They play live music in parks or bars. Some people like that. A city will also have “shows” like plays, ballet, opera, symphony. I like that stuff. You don’t really get that to any meaningful degree outside of a handful of cities. Also museums, rotating exhibits, big city events like taste of Chicago, restaurant weeks, parades.

Dense cities are also generally more diverse. I like being in areas where there are people from all over. This adds to the feel and culture of a city. To me, it’s more vibrant, more perspectives. The food will also be better. There’s more competition and it has to be. I also think it’s just nice to be in crowded city streets with people out and about. Some people hate that and that’s fine too.

Original quoted OP.

Agree with a lot of the above.

I’m talking about a densely populated city (NY/DC/Chicago/Boston/SF) where you can walk or take public transportation almost anywhere even after like 10 pm. I’m not talking about urban sprawls like Atlanta or Austin where you actually still need a car in the city.

One of my favorite restaurants after a night out is open til 4 am. I wouldn’t get that in the burbs. Also, I wouldn’t walk around drunk in the suburbs. And have fun finding an Uber that late (or a restaurant on uber eats to chow down after 10 pm).

There are definite benefits to suburbia. You have neighborhoods and cul de sacs, but that’s really only fun if you either 1) enjoy the “nicer” things in life or 2) have children. I stayed at my parents’ house for a bit during covid and I was going crazy.

Also, some guy mentioned that we should find friends outside of work. That’s nearly impossible in the suburbs. Are you going to hang out at the neighborhood pub and chat up the townies? You’d be that creepy loner.

I think people really underestimate the benefits of having some trashy city things (24/7 7-11, late night Chinese food, hole-in-the-wall bars) around.

To each his own, though.

[nixy]

Also, some guy mentioned that we should find friends outside of work. That’s nearly impossible in the suburbs. Are you going to hang out at the neighborhood pub and chat up the townies? You’d be that creepy loner.

With the caveat that everyone has their own preferences and that's totally cool, this part doesn't really make sense. A suburb isn't a college town; there aren't townies. Or if there are, you, by living there, are a townie. There will be plenty of people just like you and plenty of ways to meet people.

(Which isn't saying that you need to want to live in the suburbs, and I agree that there are generally more diverse people in major cities, as well as just more people, period. But the comment above seems like a weird perspective on suburbs.)

[lolwutpar]

There are plenty of places where you can buy a home that is maybe 15-20 minutes from the poppin' shit in the city.

That's what I did. Yeah, I can't walk to bars or restaurants anymore and that's kind of a bummer. But it's a short Uber ride to all the shit I want to do and can be a degenerate if I desire (COVID putting a crimp on this). And having a house is pretty dope. I can spend time in my yard and don't have to deal with sharing walls. No hobos yelling outside my window. People don't mind coming over because parking is a breeze.

[RaceJudicata]

I want to work from home forever. Genuinely do not feel a need to ever go back to the office (granted, I think my opinion would be different if I was a new associate or a lateral). I’d also like to work remotely from a different state; but firm hasn’t indicated whether it’s going to allow that option (due to tax and unauthorized practice of law issues).

#1 - Taxation is a ridiculous excuse. All big law firms use ADP and can handle state income tax and employment tax for all 50 states. Easy. It might be more expensive the more states you add to ADP, but it's not an issue whatsoever.

#2 - UPL doesn't make sense. The issue is what city is listed on the firm attorney profile. If you work and are barred in California, but want to live in Iowa, and your firm doesn't have an Iowa office, you cannot list Iowa as an office on your attorney profile. You cannot hold yourself out as practicing law in a jurisdiction in which you are not licensed. But there's nothing wrong with being barred in California, only listing California on your attorney profile, and working remotely out of Iowa.

Think about it. Otherwise attorneys could never work on all manner of vacations: on airplanes, on weekend trips, during entire summers, etc. I know plenty of *partners* who live in State 1, are only barred in State 2, the law firm has offices in States 1 and 2, and he or she lists an office and phone number in States 1 and 2.

They aren’t my excuses. Just what the firm has signaled as potential roadblocks to these types of arrangements. Granted, they haven’t made any final decisions as far as I know.

I completely get that they are not your excuses. Sorry if my reply came off too attack-y.

I think this is a mix of two things:

(1) that guy does not know what he is talking about, and the firm should hire someone who does and can correctly answer these "concerns"; and

(2) partners are hanging on to those excuses because they want to return to pre-covid in-office facetime. That's not gunna happen, partners! "You can't fix something that wants to stay broken."

100% agree, particularly on #2

[Anonymous User]

(2) partners are hanging on to those excuses because they want to return to pre-covid in-office facetime. That's not gunna happen, partners! "You can't fix something that wants to stay broken."

I think that your concern is spot on but I'm less optimistic that the pro-WFH crowd will win this one. When the "Let's all go back" tidal wave inevitably comes, plenty of people (disproportionately partner gunners) will voluntarily go back. There will at first be an uncomfortable disconnect between the camps. Partners, again disproportionately, will prefer associates go back to the office. This pressure will peel off the least staunch of the WFH team. Then, the in-office crowd will grow, increasing the pressure by a bit, and peeling off the next-least staunch of the WFHers. Rinse and repeat until some time in 2022 the world looks a lot like 2019 with perhaps a small number of holdouts working from home and likely damaging their career prospects to do so.

For many, this career damage won't matter - I always think that biglaw associates are really bad about balancing their own lives against their actual interest in advancement (don't blow up your Saturday night if you're planning to leave in a year anyway) - but it will be apparent enough that the 2022 summers and, later, first years will be vaguely aware of it and will know that the WFH people are unusual. And then it's only a matter of time before the world is back to 2019 again.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

(2) partners are hanging on to those excuses because they want to return to pre-covid in-office facetime. That's not gunna happen, partners! "You can't fix something that wants to stay broken."

I think that your concern is spot on but I'm less optimistic that the pro-WFH crowd will win this one. When the "Let's all go back" tidal wave inevitably comes, plenty of people (disproportionately partner gunners) will voluntarily go back. There will at first be an uncomfortable disconnect between the camps. Partners, again disproportionately, will prefer associates go back to the office. This pressure will peel off the least staunch of the WFH team. Then, the in-office crowd will grow, increasing the pressure by a bit, and peeling off the next-least staunch of the WFHers. Rinse and repeat until some time in 2022 the world looks a lot like 2019 with perhaps a small number of holdouts working from home and likely damaging their career prospects to do so.

For many, this career damage won't matter - I always think that biglaw associates are really bad about balancing their own lives against their actual interest in advancement (don't blow up your Saturday night if you're planning to leave in a year anyway) - but it will be apparent enough that the 2022 summers and, later, first years will be vaguely aware of it and will know that the WFH people are unusual. And then it's only a matter of time before the world is back to 2019 again.

I cannot find fault in your analysis.

My thinking was guided by the prediction that a substantial number of top law firms would offer this flexibility, and the inflexible firms would be forced to compete. Kinda like health insurance for nonstandard relationships, X weeks of paid whatever-ternity leave, etc. It would be in that vein.

I suspect the ultimate reality, much like truth generally, will be somewhere in the middle.

[Dahl]

I think the people wanting 2 days in the office (rather than come in when you want/wfh whenever you want) are looking forward to those 2 days being with other people. And maybe your practice group would arrange it so more of you are in that day? But for the most part you’ll just be going into a smaller office with less people. So why not have the option to wfh all the time?

[Anonymous User]

Interesting dynamic to all of this is that mid, seniors and partners other than senior partners are all more likely to prefer WFH. Seems to make a WFH at 2-3 days a week a bit more realistic IMO.

[Anonymous User]

I was talking to a partner about this, and he said the only way firm leadership would consider more than 1 day of WFH a week would be if attorneys give up their offices and the firm moves to a cheaper/smaller office. He said that may be the way to get senior partners to jump on board with WFH post-covid since the firm would save a lot of money (and increase profits) by paying half for rent.

[jotarokujo]

definitely seems like out of everyone juniors and old partners are the ones who most want to go back to the office. mid levels, seniors, and non boomer partners all want max wfh

i feel like overall, the pro-wfh group has more power, which is a point in favor of long term wfh being a thing

[Anonymous User]

I was talking to a partner about this, and he said the only way firm leadership would consider more than 1 day of WFH a week would be if attorneys give up their offices and the firm moves to a cheaper/smaller office. He said that may be the way to get senior partners to jump on board with WFH post-covid since the firm would save a lot of money (and increase profits) by paying half for rent.

100% would give up my office in Manhattan if I could have and use my own home office (like an actual room with a door) outside of the city, but 100% not giving up Manhattan office for 2 days WFH.

[Anonymous User]

Something lost on this thread is that the only reason we can get away with WFH is because circumstances are not normal. Firms will suffer in recruiting if their formerly “bustling” NY office has 12 people in person, and clients will be bothered by that too. And I am sorry, but I lack sympathy for those who want to be able to live in the country or far in the suburbs. This job didn’t look like this when you signed up for it. If you wanted to live in the country you should have found a job that allows for that. 1-2 days of wfh seems totally reasonable, but I just can’t be convinced that people should be allowed to live 3 hours from the office so they can have bonfires on the weekends. And I’ll be very upset if my market based compensation suffers for these people.

[Anonymous User]

Umm I think the last post is missing something fundamental. Nobody is forcing anyone to work from home. In fact, quite the opposite - it’s an option for people who have different considerations in their life (eg, family outside of commuting distance, child rearing responsibilities, etc.). Regardless of firm policies, offices will be full on an average day. Firms are extremely focused on retaining senior folks these days given the sheer bulk of work and lack of people to do that work - anything that keeps folks happy and more loyal to the institution is gonna be a positive change for all attorneys at the firm. For example, the proliferation of non-equity partnership roles shows that firms are looking for alternative career paths for senior folks to keep people around in the long term.

If anything, the pandemic has shown that the level of commitment we all show is a level that other industries would dream about. That some folks are replacing a 5x commute with an alternative, is a means of continuing the dedication to a craft that takes more dedication than most jobs. Nobody has said I want to work less - this really is just an evolution of work / life balance in a job that requires 100% commitment. That makes big law the ideal hybrid WFH profession IMO.

[beltandsuspanderers]

New here (long-time lurker, but made a new account to join the conversation) and I have a gripe in relation to WFH-- I think it (amongst many other things) sucks that minority lawyers would not take advantage of WFH by moving to a lower cost area because of the lack of diversity. A big house, yard, pool, whatever sounds nice, but I couldn't move to a place long-term that likely has no community of people who look like me/speak my language, no access to culture-specific groceries or restaurants, no house of worship that has majority minority members, etc.
Also I'm sure many with jobs that have demanding hours rely on family for childcare, and so even if I were okay with the lack of culture-specific resources, my elderly immigrant parent could never move with me because those resources are even more crucial for their quality of life.
Purpose of posting this? Not sure, but maybe some other similarly situated people can relate

[cisscum]

Something lost on this thread is that the only reason we can get away with WFH is because circumstances are not normal. Firms will suffer in recruiting if their formerly “bustling” NY office has 12 people in person, and clients will be bothered by that too. And I am sorry, but I lack sympathy for those who want to be able to live in the country or far in the suburbs. This job didn’t look like this when you signed up for it. If you wanted to live in the country you should have found a job that allows for that. 1-2 days of wfh seems totally reasonable, but I just can’t be convinced that people should be allowed to live 3 hours from the office so they can have bonfires on the weekends. And I’ll be very upset if my market based compensation suffers for these people.

(2L/summer associate)

Actual biglaw is hell for most people which is why most only last for a few years at most, regardless of how BUSTLING or VIBRANT the hallways all. You will quickly get tired of water cooler banter and partners dropping by your office, believe me

[Anonymous User]

definitely seems like out of everyone juniors and old partners are the ones who most want to go back to the office. mid levels, seniors, and non boomer partners all want max wfh

i feel like overall, the pro-wfh group has more power, which is a point in favor of long term wfh being a thing

I also think juniors are still starry eyed about their jobs and going into the office every day. I'm a first year and most of the people in my class are all "I can't wait to dress up and go into the office every day!" I'm sure their minds will change once they realize how brutal biglaw can be.

[Anonymous User]

definitely seems like out of everyone juniors and old partners are the ones who most want to go back to the office. mid levels, seniors, and non boomer partners all want max wfh

i feel like overall, the pro-wfh group has more power, which is a point in favor of long term wfh being a thing

I also think juniors are still starry eyed about their jobs and going into the office every day. I'm a first year and most of the people in my class are all "I can't wait to dress up and go into the office every day!" I'm sure their minds will change once they realize how brutal biglaw can be.

I feel like the wasted time associated with going into the office can be hard to fully appreciate in the abstract. If you’re being honest with your billing, you can lose a material amount of time commuting, dealing with office small talk and other non-billable things like lunches or w/e that are easier to get guilted into in person. For people who are more extroverted, I assume those interactions are well worth any loss in billing time, but as someone who doesn’t really get anything out of those things (and usually is even more drained by them), it’s frustrating to unnecessarily have even less free time and generally worse quality of life because “that’s how we’ve always done things.” I don’t want to prevent anyone else from being in the office, and I would be fine giving up my office so that a firm could reduce its total real estate, but I assume we’ll end up defaulting back to the preferences of people who do want to be in the office.

[Anonymous User]

My optimistic prediction - NYC is dead. The office life is dead. The future is in South Beach working from an ocean view balcony with 0% state tax

[Anonymous User]

I'm actually surprised by the stats. This shows a majority of people want to return to the office in some form or another (either a few days a week or every day). I thought most people would now want to return (except by choice on occasion). Well - to all of you who said you want to go back, trust me you'll regret it. You don't know what you've got till it's gone, and when you inevitably want to start a family (which most will inevitably want at some point in their lives), you'll really really regret it. When I went into the office every day I'd leave home at 8 a.m. and wouldn't get back some days until 1 a.m. Most days I didn't return home until after 8 p.m. If you have a life outside of the office (which hopefully you do), you really should not want to ever return to that lifestyle. For those of you who said you need it for social interactions or friends because you live alone - I think it's healthier to establish relationships with people outside of your work. Go meet people. I myself want to never be required to go back into the office again. Sorry people, that's the truth. I have a life and people I enjoy seeing on a daily basis who are not my colleagues.

I agree with this. I’m pretty surprised too. I mean at least give me the option to WFH whenever I want. It’ll result in better productivity across the board. Happy associates are more productive associates and more loyal to the firm they work for. On the bright side, this thread reveals that 89% of people who voted want to WFH post pandemic at least 2 times a week and most more than that.

Yeah, I don't think that "shows a majority of people want to return" is the correct takeaway here.

Here's the breakdown:

65% want to WFH majority of the week
27% want to WFH less than half of the week
8% do not want WFH

92% want moar WFH, as compared to pre-covid.

It seems to me that as things get back to normal in society, more people will prefer WFH. Over the last year, it has seemed like being in the office at least a few days a week would be nice, but IMO that is just because we had little else to do. As other experiences open up, there will be less of that desire to get into the office and socialize, since we will be happy to get our socialization elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone forgets that firms are offering WFH positions (some). Once the talent drain begins on those other firms, they will have to play catch up to compensate. Remember, most attorneys are introverts anyways.

[feminist.supporter]

My optimistic prediction - NYC is dead. The office life is dead. The future is in South Beach working from an ocean view balcony with 0% state tax

How high are you right now?

[Anonymous User]

definitely seems like out of everyone juniors and old partners are the ones who most want to go back to the office. mid levels, seniors, and non boomer partners all want max wfh

i feel like overall, the pro-wfh group has more power, which is a point in favor of long term wfh being a thing

I also think juniors are still starry eyed about their jobs and going into the office every day. I'm a first year and most of the people in my class are all "I can't wait to dress up and go into the office every day!" I'm sure their minds will change once they realize how brutal biglaw can be.

I feel like the wasted time associated with going into the office can be hard to fully appreciate in the abstract. If you’re being honest with your billing, you can lose a material amount of time commuting, dealing with office small talk and other non-billable things like lunches or w/e that are easier to get guilted into in person. For people who are more extroverted, I assume those interactions are well worth any loss in billing time, but as someone who doesn’t really get anything out of those things (and usually is even more drained by them), it’s frustrating to unnecessarily have even less free time and generally worse quality of life because “that’s how we’ve always done things.” I don’t want to prevent anyone else from being in the office, and I would be fine giving up my office so that a firm could reduce its total real estate, but I assume we’ll end up defaulting back to the preferences of people who do want to be in the office.

I agree. I also think it's difficult to comprehend just how much it fucking sucks to be working in a suit in a stuffy office until midnight every day the week of a closing, barely sleeping, subsisting on junk food, and not seeing your family. I had a big closing a couple of weeks ago and worked until midnight for three days straight. It honestly was not that terrible doing it from my apartment, in pajamas with my dog on my lap. I would've been beyond miserable if I had had to go into the office.

[goldenflash19]

Something lost on this thread is that the only reason we can get away with WFH is because circumstances are not normal. Firms will suffer in recruiting if their formerly “bustling” NY office has 12 people in person, and clients will be bothered by that too. And I am sorry, but I lack sympathy for those who want to be able to live in the country or far in the suburbs. This job didn’t look like this when you signed up for it. If you wanted to live in the country you should have found a job that allows for that. 1-2 days of wfh seems totally reasonable, but I just can’t be convinced that people should be allowed to live 3 hours from the office so they can have bonfires on the weekends. And I’ll be very upset if my market based compensation suffers for these people.

Now don’t you sound like a city slicker

I knew the circumstances when I signed up for this, but this thread is about what we’d prefer. And circumstances clearly can and have changed. If law firms decide based off WFH having actually worked and, lower rent, that full time remote work is an option, moving to the country would be appealing to me. All I meant.

And I highly doubt your market compensation would suffer for “ these people” who — for more reasons than just bonfires — like the idea of getting away from the city. Proximity to nature is one — maybe getting out there would do you some good!