Avoiding RTO Forum

[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

That perspective is so crazy to me. Of course it's up to the juniors to ask for help. Seniors provide the amount of guidance they think the junior needs, and if it turns out the junior needs more, of course the junior needs to ask. Do you want your colleagues to hold office hours for you? You are an adult and it is 100% on you to seek out the help you need.

[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.

This. When I was a junior and I needed to pick a midlevel's brain, I would walk down the hall and poke my head in on someone who (1) had their door open, (2) didn't look too stressed, and (3) had given off a welcoming vibe when we'd had incidental interactions. But if you just call someone out of the blue, you don't know if they are in the middle of something. And unless you've worked with them, you wouldn't know how approachable they are. I can't see myself as a first year just cold calling people in my department off the website. I also learned a lot just by sitting around while more senior associates were talking at lunch or dinner about what they were working on, or sitting in on a call with opposing counsel or the client. substantive stuff and the norms of my jurisdiction and the big players in our area of practice, but definitely useful. I built up relationships with those midlevel and senior associates too.

I try to let juniors know they can give me a call if they want advice on something, but my impression is that they tend to be more siloed from what their colleagues are doing and it can create some blind spots.

[Anonymous User]

Hear me out. Could we do some sort of collective bargaining thing? It seems like the vast majority of associates (and even partners) are against mandatory RTO.

[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?

Are you honestly looking to lateral or join? I'd rather not out my firm if possible.

[Anonymous User]

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

That perspective is so crazy to me. Of course it's up to the juniors to ask for help. Seniors provide the amount of guidance they think the junior needs, and if it turns out the junior needs more, of course the junior needs to ask. Do you want your colleagues to hold office hours for you? You are an adult and it is 100% on you to seek out the help you need.

All a junior needs is a good redline. Prove me wrong.
(Obviously trolling to get redline psycho to come out of the woodwork again)

[Trogdor]

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?

Are you honestly looking to lateral or join? I'd rather not out my firm if possible.

Understandable. But, yes, I'm looking to make a move. Feel free to pm me.

[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?

Are you honestly looking to lateral or join? I'd rather not out my firm if possible.

Understandable. But, yes, I'm looking to make a move. Feel free to pm me.

Is this a lit or corporate practice? Looking to join too.

[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?

Are you honestly looking to lateral or join? I'd rather not out my firm if possible.

Understandable. But, yes, I'm looking to make a move. Feel free to pm me.

Is this a lit or corporate practice? Looking to join too.

Lit, but my understanding is corporate is similar. And I think both are hiring midlevels. I can PM if you post non-anon or you can PM Trogdor who has my username.

To be clear, my firm's official policy is really 3 in 2 home. I just haven't seen it enforced yet.

[GFox345]

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.

Totally agree. I have never understood this argument, as if partners are coming in your office and standing over your shoulder when giving you feedback or advice (as if they even do that frequently). The absolute bullshit rationales I keep hearing make me think that the real reason for RTO has nothing to do with actual performance.

Also, stopping in a partner's office to chit chat? Is that a thing?

[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).

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.

Exactly. Seems we get so caught up in whether RTO has any benefit at all, we forget that isn't really the question. The question is whether RTO is so beneficial that it outweighs the enormous benefits of WFH. I can't imagine a good faith argument that RTO is that important.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Seems we get so caught up in whether RTO has any benefit at all, we forget that isn't really the question. The question is whether RTO is so beneficial that it outweighs the enormous benefits of WFH. I can't imagine a good faith argument that RTO is that important.

I think the argument is training. But the half-assed compromise RTO that firms are implementing now doesn't help for that, especially since a maximum of ~60% of the workforce is there at any given point. If there were particular mandatory days, incentives for juniors and midlevels to work together more closely, etc. to bring the culture back to what it used to be then I think the benefits would outweigh what we all get from WFH.

But for now I 100% agree that as is RTO does not outweigh the benefit of WFH.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Seems we get so caught up in whether RTO has any benefit at all, we forget that isn't really the question. The question is whether RTO is so beneficial that it outweighs the enormous benefits of WFH. I can't imagine a good faith argument that RTO is that important.

I think the argument is training. But the half-assed compromise RTO that firms are implementing now doesn't help for that, especially since a maximum of ~60% of the workforce is there at any given point. If there were particular mandatory days, incentives for juniors and midlevels to work together more closely, etc. to bring the culture back to what it used to be then I think the benefits would outweigh what we all get from WFH.

But for now I 100% agree that as is RTO does not outweigh the benefit of WFH.

What training specifically do you believe is done so much better in the office than remotely that it outweighs WFH? I guess we're also somewhat eliding the question of WFH's value. For me, it has completely changed my relationship with work and has dramatically improved by day-to-day life. I really can't imagine a serious argument that the 15 minutes a week a first-year might spend in my office seeking advice outweighing that. But I'm all ears if you have something substantive.

[Anonymous User]

I just wanna offer that maybe it's not really about training (a dubious notion, though I agree with prior anon posters that there's value to the "spontaneity" that one can experience when working in the office and that is more difficult to replicate in a remote environment) but rather, employee retention.

Seems contradictory--I know--but, I think a lot of these firms and companies see the "great reshuffle" as a testament to the idea that, without in-person interaction and an opportunity for folks to develop loyalty to their coworkers/specific employer, jobs become increasingly fungible.

"Oh, job 'x' wants to pay me slightly more money? Sure, all else being equal, I'm out."

But the "all else being equal" is less equal when you actually like your coworkers and know them and talk to them about their kids when you see pictures in their office etc. Relatedly, it's a lot harder to build anything resembling a company culture when everyone is WFH, though that's not to say it's impossible. You can argue that's a fancy way of that saying companies want to stop being pressured to raise salaries/treat their employees better. But it doesn't make it any less of a motivator.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Seems we get so caught up in whether RTO has any benefit at all, we forget that isn't really the question. The question is whether RTO is so beneficial that it outweighs the enormous benefits of WFH. I can't imagine a good faith argument that RTO is that important.

I think the argument is training. But the half-assed compromise RTO that firms are implementing now doesn't help for that, especially since a maximum of ~60% of the workforce is there at any given point. If there were particular mandatory days, incentives for juniors and midlevels to work together more closely, etc. to bring the culture back to what it used to be then I think the benefits would outweigh what we all get from WFH.

But for now I 100% agree that as is RTO does not outweigh the benefit of WFH.

What training specifically do you believe is done so much better in the office than remotely that it outweighs WFH? I guess we're also somewhat eliding the question of WFH's value. For me, it has completely changed my relationship with work and has dramatically improved by day-to-day life. I really can't imagine a serious argument that the 15 minutes a week a first-year might spend in my office seeking advice outweighing that. But I'm all ears if you have something substantive.

We've been over this already in the thread, so please just read further back. Basically, juniors need face time with midlevels and a good culture of mentoring in order to grow. That hasn't happened during the pandemic, and many midlevels and above are less than pleased with junior performance ATM. To me, it would be worth some RTO to have better juniors. But as you suggest, that culture may have evaporated over the pandemic, so as is it's hard to see the benefit.

[Anonymous User]

without in-person interaction and an opportunity for folks to develop loyalty to their coworkers/specific employer, jobs become increasingly fungible.

Lol as if forcing employees who don't want to work in the office to come to the office will make them more and not less loyal. I know seniors and mid-levels who left for remote opportunities when their firms forced RTO.

Basically, juniors need face time with midlevels and a good culture of mentoring in order to grow.

Lol as if juniors cannot grow without "face time" and "a good culture of mentoring." I doubt most firms have that culture. And in person mentoring isn't a prerequisite to being mentored, trained and valued by more senior lawyers, which I know from personal experience. I have gotten significantly better during my time at my firm and know star juniors who have done that and more.

[Anonymous User]

without in-person interaction and an opportunity for folks to develop loyalty to their coworkers/specific employer, jobs become increasingly fungible.

Lol as if forcing employees who don't want to work in the office to come to the office will make them more and not less loyal. I know seniors and mid-levels who left for remote opportunities when their firms forced RTO.

Basically, juniors need face time with midlevels and a good culture of mentoring in order to grow.

Lol as if juniors cannot grow without "face time" and "a good culture of mentoring." I doubt most firms have that culture. And in person mentoring isn't a prerequisite to being mentored, trained and valued by more senior lawyers, which I know from personal experience. I have gotten significantly better during my time at my firm and know star juniors who have done that and more.

Need to include some discussion of how massive attrition and boatloads of mid level laterals have also eroded whatever culture existed preCovid. Feel like we’re already on the next wave of attrition that happened last year. Year on year massive attrition is creating bad outcomes for juniors.

[dyemond]

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.

Totally agree. I have never understood this argument, as if partners are coming in your office and standing over your shoulder when giving you feedback or advice (as if they even do that frequently). The absolute bullshit rationales I keep hearing make me think that the real reason for RTO has nothing to do with actual performance.

Also, stopping in a partner's office to chit chat? Is that a thing?

Convinced that the people who disclaim that RTO has significant and concrete benefits on training, development and workforce cohesion have literally never been invited to a social function ever before, or had any kind of actual mentors in their academic or professional careers (or even had a professional career pre-law).

We should apply the same logic and just have parties and social gatherings over zoom where you drink alone in your computer screen.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a first year associate and I've "chit chatted" with partners in the coffee room. And those partners threw some work my way. Also I got a redline from a partner with "pop by the office if you have questions". So I did, and it led to a very useful conversation. None of this happens remote.

Personally, I think the best way is to designate two days a week when everyone comes in, and flexible rest of the week.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a first year associate and I've "chit chatted" with partners in the coffee room. And those partners threw some work my way. Also I got a redline from a partner with "pop by the office if you have questions". So I did, and it led to a very useful conversation. None of this happens remote.

Personally, I think the best way is to designate two days a week when everyone comes in, and flexible rest of the week.

One day, but in general I agree. I readily admit that there are people who get absolutely nothing from RTO - no extra training, no extra clarity on feedback, nothing. Maybe they "just get it from a redline" or, more cynically, maybe they just want a paycheck and the door in a few years.

But RTO isn't about them. It's about most other people who could use some organic mentoring, even if they don't realize they need it or haven't noticed it when it happens. The 1st/2nd years I've worked with could really use some help, and a Zoom training just won't do the trick.

Listen, I see arguments for appeasing those in the permanent WFH camp. And I think more firms should consider that. All I'm saying, though, is that it's not without merit for firms to prioritize those who need in person interaction (which I personally think is more than half, and includes many of those who probably think they can cut it remotely).

[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.

Totally agree. I have never understood this argument, as if partners are coming in your office and standing over your shoulder when giving you feedback or advice (as if they even do that frequently). The absolute bullshit rationales I keep hearing make me think that the real reason for RTO has nothing to do with actual performance.

Also, stopping in a partner's office to chit chat? Is that a thing?

Convinced that the people who disclaim that RTO has significant and concrete benefits on training, development and workforce cohesion have literally never been invited to a social function ever before, or had any kind of actual mentors in their academic or professional careers (or even had a professional career pre-law).

We should apply the same logic and just have parties and social gatherings over zoom where you drink alone in your computer screen.

Lol the same logic doesn't apply because parties and social gatherings are usually fun. Corporate culture is sterile and lame and doesn't need to be preserved.

[nixy]

Totally agree. I have never understood this argument, as if partners are coming in your office and standing over your shoulder when giving you feedback or advice (as if they even do that frequently). The absolute bullshit rationales I keep hearing make me think that the real reason for RTO has nothing to do with actual performance.

Also, stopping in a partner's office to chit chat? Is that a thing?

Convinced that the people who disclaim that RTO has significant and concrete benefits on training, development and workforce cohesion have literally never been invited to a social function ever before, or had any kind of actual mentors in their academic or professional careers (or even had a professional career pre-law).

We should apply the same logic and just have parties and social gatherings over zoom where you drink alone in your computer screen.

Lol the same logic doesn't apply because parties and social gatherings are usually fun. Corporate culture is sterile and lame and doesn't need to be preserved.

The point isn't that corporate culture is fun, the point is that in-person social interaction is different from social interaction over a screen, which has implications for training and working with people as well as for purely social events. (Because god knows zoom parties are tedious AF.) As noted, if you want to just do 2-3 years and bail, you do you, but generally, interacting with your co-workers is important for advancing in a job, and in-person is different than entirely phone/video.

I support WFH and think people should be able to WFH pretty regularly, but still think that given where legal culture stands now there are benefits to RTO, even if there don't need to be in an ideal world.

[Anonymous User]

The point isn't that corporate culture is fun, the point is that in-person social interaction is different from social interaction over a screen, which has implications for training and working with people as well as for purely social events. (Because god knows zoom parties are tedious AF.) As noted, if you want to just do 2-3 years and bail, you do you, but generally, interacting with your co-workers is important for advancing in a job, and in-person is different than entirely phone/video.

I support WFH and think people should be able to WFH pretty regularly, but still think that given where legal culture stands now there are benefits to RTO, even if there don't need to be in an ideal world.

How do you square this with the fact that many white-collar industries have full time WFH employees? Are they just conceding the benefits of in-person interaction with colleagues? Is there something meaningfully different about software design or data crunching that requires less in-person communication than the practice of law?

Or is it (as I think) that biglaw firms and the law industry generally are extremely conservative and risk-averse when compared to much of the rest of the white-collar economy, and the partners do not want to do something different that might not work out?

If there was just one top firm willing to take a calculated risk, they would have a massive recruiting advantage with a pretty significant chunk of 2Ls and laterals, and it could totally shake up how biglaw firms try to attract and retain talent. So far nobody is doing it outside of like Quinn though.

[Anonymous User]

The point isn't that corporate culture is fun, the point is that in-person social interaction is different from social interaction over a screen, which has implications for training and working with people as well as for purely social events. (Because god knows zoom parties are tedious AF.) As noted, if you want to just do 2-3 years and bail, you do you, but generally, interacting with your co-workers is important for advancing in a job, and in-person is different than entirely phone/video.

I support WFH and think people should be able to WFH pretty regularly, but still think that given where legal culture stands now there are benefits to RTO, even if there don't need to be in an ideal world.

How do you square this with the fact that many white-collar industries have full time WFH employees? Are they just conceding the benefits of in-person interaction with colleagues? Is there something meaningfully different about software design or data crunching that requires less in-person communication than the practice of law?

Or is it (as I think) that biglaw firms and the law industry generally are extremely conservative and risk-averse when compared to much of the rest of the white-collar economy, and the partners do not want to do something different that might not work out?

If there was just one top firm willing to take a calculated risk, they would have a massive recruiting advantage with a pretty significant chunk of 2Ls and laterals, and it could totally shake up how biglaw firms try to attract and retain talent. So far nobody is doing it outside of like Quinn though.

Yes.

[nixy]

The point isn't that corporate culture is fun, the point is that in-person social interaction is different from social interaction over a screen, which has implications for training and working with people as well as for purely social events. (Because god knows zoom parties are tedious AF.) As noted, if you want to just do 2-3 years and bail, you do you, but generally, interacting with your co-workers is important for advancing in a job, and in-person is different than entirely phone/video.

I support WFH and think people should be able to WFH pretty regularly, but still think that given where legal culture stands now there are benefits to RTO, even if there don't need to be in an ideal world.

How do you square this with the fact that many white-collar industries have full time WFH employees? Are they just conceding the benefits of in-person interaction with colleagues? Is there something meaningfully different about software design or data crunching that requires less in-person communication than the practice of law?

Or is it (as I think) that biglaw firms and the law industry generally are extremely conservative and risk-averse when compared to much of the rest of the white-collar economy, and the partners do not want to do something different that might not work out?

If there was just one top firm willing to take a calculated risk, they would have a massive recruiting advantage with a pretty significant chunk of 2Ls and laterals, and it could totally shake up how biglaw firms try to attract and retain talent. So far nobody is doing it outside of like Quinn though.

I do think it’s largely a difference in culture rather than nature of the industry. I’m going to stereotype wildly, but I think that while collaboration is absolutely needed in tech (and everyone I know who teaches computer science is always fighting to get their students to believe that you NEED TO WORK IN GROUPS DAMMIT) there’s a different culture about how to accomplish that and unsurprisingly the more technical options are a better cultural fit. I also think there could be more jobs in those fields than in law where grinding away on your own is more important than working with people, but that’s based more on my assumptions about tech and data crunching than any actual data. And of course it may also be that the top people in those fields have more in-demand skills and thus more leverage than lawyers do.

But law is also very different in the way that firms hire and promote people. It’s a service industry, ideally you’re developing a book of business, and while you don’t necessarily have to spend time in the office with your co-workers to do that, partners are going to be evaluating your ability on those things and voting on whether to promote you to their ranks in a way that I think is pretty different from most other industries. I think that it’s easier to develop the relationships necessary to succeed with at least some in-person interaction. I’m sure it’s not impossible if you’re fully remote, but I think it’s harder.

This gets back to the idea that you’re not trying for partner and just want to work a few years and bail - that makes sense, but it’s also not surprising that partners don’t want to organize the workplace around those people, even at the same time that they require those people since their model depends on attrition.

I’m not saying it makes sense or is efficient, just describing what I think is actually the case. Just because it’s “culture” and not some law of physics doesn’t mean it’s going to be easier to change (though there is certainly more potential for change).

Also, I don’t think it helps to overstate the frequency of remote work - pre-pandemic, only 16% of companies hired remote-only workers, so the ability to WFH *in another location entirely or while traveling around* has never been the cultural norm. I think the issue here is that biglaw firms don’t see any need to shake up how they attract and retain talent - it worked before, why wouldn’t it work now? There won’t be any incentive until/unless they can’t hire/retain who they want.

Like, I’m absolutely not faulting anyone who wants to WFH, either most of the time or entirely remotely. I’m just not convinced the pandemic is going to be enough to transform the legal industry on this issue, so think people need to choose their battles.

[Anonymous User]

The point isn't that corporate culture is fun, the point is that in-person social interaction is different from social interaction over a screen, which has implications for training and working with people as well as for purely social events. (Because god knows zoom parties are tedious AF.) As noted, if you want to just do 2-3 years and bail, you do you, but generally, interacting with your co-workers is important for advancing in a job, and in-person is different than entirely phone/video.

I support WFH and think people should be able to WFH pretty regularly, but still think that given where legal culture stands now there are benefits to RTO, even if there don't need to be in an ideal world.

How do you square this with the fact that many white-collar industries have full time WFH employees? Are they just conceding the benefits of in-person interaction with colleagues? Is there something meaningfully different about software design or data crunching that requires less in-person communication than the practice of law?

Or is it (as I think) that biglaw firms and the law industry generally are extremely conservative and risk-averse when compared to much of the rest of the white-collar economy, and the partners do not want to do something different that might not work out?

If there was just one top firm willing to take a calculated risk, they would have a massive recruiting advantage with a pretty significant chunk of 2Ls and laterals, and it could totally shake up how biglaw firms try to attract and retain talent. So far nobody is doing it outside of like Quinn though.

Yes.

I also think there are meaningful distinctions.

Lots of fully remote industries are in the software space. There are debates on this forum about what it takes to land one of these jobs, but in general those capable of doing so come out of undergrad with the skills they need to code properly. The job, to them, is not that hard. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard much grumbling from the tech industry (or any others that are seriously considering permanent WFH) about poor performance for new hires.

Contrast that with the law, where everyone openly admits that fresh grads are thoroughly unprepared for the real practice of law. Of late, there's even more concern that pandemic-era juniors are lagging behind their pre-pandemic peers. You come to a law firm to get a skillset, not to exercise one you already have.

Anecdotally, I was part of an intercollegiate research team in college that did mostly computer simulation work, and I saw no issue working remotely from pretty much all of my colleagues. I learned the code on my own, and contributed where I needed to based on what I heard from team calls. But when I joined my law firm I was constantly asking colleagues questions about strategy, partner preferences, etc. that I wouldn't have asked without an open door around the corner.