RTO (Not going to go in) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Are there any firms still not requiring RTO (think Quinn, Goodwin, KE)?

I can’t tell if you’re using these firms as examples of firms that haven’t required it or if you’re asking if they haven’t, but in case it’s the latter, Quinn announced that they’re never going to make people come back (subject to court appearances and other stuff that may have to happen in person, obviously).

[mwells_56]

Honestly, it really depends. Lawyers are notoriously risk averse, which means this is an uphill battle. Ideally, and this would happen in many other industries, employees would recognize it is stupid, band together, and not go in. In law, people recognize it is stupid, then go in anyway because they're afraid/think this is their shot to get to the top.

Hot take: If you actually want to have a career at the firm and/or care about your long-term development there, I don't think coming in a few days a week is stupid at all. Sitting in our houses on Zoom all day, in our pajamas, talking to our cats, isn't normal. If you view your time at the firm as a 12-24 month stopping off point before you jump in-house, then I could see the other perspective (basically, who gives a shit) but know you're just delaying the inevitable because industry is pushing for RTO too. This fantasy that we're all going to just work from home in our pajamas with video cameras forever is just that, a fantasy; it ain't healthy for employers or employees. All that said, I do think the 5-day in-office work week died during COVID for most white collar setups.

The fact that people are still saying this stupid shit almost three years into WFH blows my wig back. Dude, COVID hasn't even been the primary reason for WFH since May 2020. The majority of people clearly do not want to RTO (probably because it sucks), and most managers lack either the stupidity, the leverage, or the balls to try mandating it.

Also, just LOL at (1) a "healthy" lifestyle being the motivation for big law RTO. You have to be trolling. and (2) the dichotomy between being a desk monkey and not giving a shit about your career. You've had fucking three years. Think up better arguments.

I'm not that anon and I don't think any firm should require RTO but for me at least, getting back to the office has been a huge boost to my mental health. My ADHD-riddled brain needs the structure/routine of waking up, going to the gym, heading to the office, and then going home. When I was full-time WFH my ability to get myself together and get started on something was pitifully low.

Of course, I don't have kids and live a 20min bike commute to my office in the suburbs of a secondary market, so getting to the office is not a burden on me at all. And most lawyers don't require routine to the degree I do to stay efficient. Would I like it if there were more people coming to the office so I could actually have someone to talk to during the day that isn't over Zoom? Yeah, of course. But whatever reason people have for not coming in is none of my business. People need to do what works for them.

[Anonymous User]

I really just cannot afford a 3 day return to office. I would love to keep my job, but honestly feel priced out of the city. Prior to losing my lease I had no money at the end of the month with my SLD payments. been doing this job for about 3 years and I only had about $4,000 saved.

Ok, let me ask you a question: You're 270,000 in debt. You take home about $10,000 a month. Rent in a safe commutable distance to work is conservatively, for one person, between $3,000-$5,000 a month. Ok, so let's go with the middle say I'm paying somewhere around $4000-4,500 just on a place to live. That's about 45% of my income. Then let's tack on $4,000 a month in student loan payments because remember, these jobs aren't forever, and who knows when they'll start the loans back and if I don't keep aggressively paying I'll be back in a situation with interest compounding at 7%! Thank god I managed to stop paying interest...four months ago! So, where are we, around $8,000 in budget? And how much does it cost to eat in NYC? Say $300-700 a month? Would you do this job and return to office if you only took home about $1000 a month or less? (obviously I regret going to law school, but here I am.)

Fair point, but I am someone who also graduated with over $300k in debt. I knew what I was signing up for and that I would have to stick it out longer in order to pay down my debt (if I wanted to have some lifestyle benefits, which for me has been worth it).

So it's not fair to say firms aren't paying us enough to live near the city (though I'm happy to make that argument and continue getting raises, I just can't say that with a straight face), it's a choice to pay $4k a month to pay down loans quickly (and I admit it's a smart choice), but there are other options.

Edit: As a reference point, when I was a first year, I only took home about $8k per month and paid $3500 for my housing.

I'm still not sure how the math works out that you've been paying loans off for 3 years and saved only 4k. It starts with the "you take home $10k per month"--what about bonuses? As a fourth year, you will make like $370k this year. Is it really not going to be possible to save any cash? I started with a comparable debt load and paid it off in my fourth year (in a major, non-NYC, non-Texas market). There are annoying things about biglaw, but "I'm financially unstable" is not the main one.

This math makes no sense to me. 3rd years make 307k with bonus. 10k take home is 120k a year. I am not aware of any taxing jurisdiction where people pay a 64ish% effective tax rate on 307k in the US. I think you are not including things in “take home” which you should and agree this is a bit hyperbolic.

wow I've never been mansplained my own bank account. I literally look at the deposit every two weeks as A SECOND YEAR ASSOCIATE but sure, you know more than I do about what I'm paid.

Apparently I do unless you can explain how you are the only person in America paying north of 60% effective tax rate on 307k. Perhaps you should look into that a bit closer.

[Anonymous User]

I go in 3-4 times a week, but I get in after 11 most days.

I live alone, and work is my only real social interaction most days, so I don’t mind it.

The partners really want everyone in at least 3 days and it’s obvious who is/isn’t coming in (the partner I work under comments on this).

I’m assuming RTO will be used to determine bonuses (firm is black box, but has historically been market at 1950 and above market beyond). People will probably leave after that.

The whole requirement to come in is dumb.

Just thoughts from my office.

It's always funny when these people out themselves.

[nixy]

I go in 3-4 times a week, but I get in after 11 most days.

I live alone, and work is my only real social interaction most days, so I don’t mind it.

The partners really want everyone in at least 3 days and it’s obvious who is/isn’t coming in (the partner I work under comments on this).

I’m assuming RTO will be used to determine bonuses (firm is black box, but has historically been market at 1950 and above market beyond). People will probably leave after that.

The whole requirement to come in is dumb.

Just thoughts from my office.

It's always funny when these people out themselves.

I mean if you’re going to snark like this you could at least have the balls to do it under your fake online identity. Plenty of people live alone and don’t go out every night without having any kind of social issues like you’re implying.

Re: not being able to afford to RTO - it sounds like the OP of that thread has legit reasons not to want to go to the office, but they’re not really that the job doesn’t pay enough. It’s reasonable that the chronic health condition makes roommates unadvisable (as well as a reason not to come into the office), and that they want to pay down loans quickly, but the latter is really a choice and there’s a balance to strike between paying off debt and saving/investing.

Anyway, OP, have you raised your health issues with your workplace as a reason not to come in? Maybe mention the magic words “ADA accommodations?”

[Anonymous User]

Today technically is an anchor day. I woke up to go in but missed the train (actually) from Boston, so I guess my "disobedience" takes this lame form today, but I hope it helps. I have a feeling people will comply until covid comes back through the city. The question is, do you, as an individual, have enough leverage not to comply, including enough work to bill over the next few months? I think going in a few times between now and December is probably the best policy, just to literally show your face. I have no intention to comply with multiple days, however. I let go of my lease in New York and have been aggressively saving every penny for a few months. Goal is to go enough not to be fired at this December review (which would be unlikely based on my practice) and to reassess after the winter if I want to keep the job for another year or if I've saved enough to maybe move on to my next job (if I do want to work through to 2024, then maybe I'll go in more).

As to the poster above, I think I'm #4. The pandemic has really changed me and I am definitely less social -- but, can you blame me? I think society has become unappealing and little is compelling about it, people are meaner, everything is more expensive and dangerous, etc. I personally don't feel connected to anyone or anything and don't feel like going to the office is where I will derive that meaning for me. I guess that means I need a new job. But, how was I supposed to know how I would react to simultaneous global crisis that ripped through my 20s and took society away? I feel that people keep speaking about those of us in the #4 category like we're just the equivalent of legal industry serial killers who never wanted to come in because it cuts into our backwoods murdering time, and therefore we deserve to have our livelihoods threatened for what was, only months ago, complying with the constantly changing mandates. At a certain point, it's just too much stress for little return.

I don't mind and often genuinely enjoy my job, even from home, and I want to do good work for the firm. But, my life (including financially with how expensive the city is now and the never ending uncertainty with student loan debt -- I have 200k+) I really just cannot afford a 3 day return to office. I would love to keep my job, but honestly feel priced out of the city. Prior to losing my lease I had no money at the end of the month with my SLD payments. been doing this job for about 3 years and I only had about $4,000 saved. It just is less profitable for me to do what they're asking than it is to move to regional mid law. Not that this is anybody's problem but my own. I couldn't have known graduating in 2020 what would happen to me these last two years. It's not spiteful, I'm just trying to fucking make it. But, firm management (the whole industry over) is just wildly disconnected with reality for some of us. It makes me depressed to feel like I've failed at even this simple thing and yet it is literally so untenable for my life right now that I don't know what else I can do but fail.

This is where it lost me. Certainly midlevel salaries don't buy us the nicest penthouse in Manhattan, but I don't think it's realistic to say we can't afford to live anywhere near the office (in any city). Certainly the world has gotten more expensive, but we have also seen salary increases (we can debate in another thread about whether those raises really beat inflation or not, but the point stands that we can afford a decently nice place to sleep and to eat).

This job is tough and you shouldn't have to feel like a failure because it is very hard and requires a lot of sacrifice, which many people decide is ultimately not worth it, and those people still go on to have very rewarding/successful careers.

Ok, let me ask you a question: You're 270,000 in debt. You take home about $10,000 a month. Rent in a safe commutable distance to work is conservatively, for one person, between $3,000-$5,000 a month. Ok, so let's go with the middle say I'm paying somewhere around $4000-4,500 just on a place to live. That's about 45% of my income. Then let's tack on $4,000 a month in student loan payments because remember, these jobs aren't forever, and who knows when they'll start the loans back and if I don't keep aggressively paying I'll be back in a situation with interest compounding at 7%! Thank god I managed to stop paying interest...four months ago! So, where are we, around $8,000 in budget? And how much does it cost to eat in NYC? Say $300-700 a month? Would you do this job and return to office if you only took home about $1000 a month or less? (obviously I regret going to law school, but here I am.)

If you are single and in your 20s, maybe don't pay $4000-4500 for a place to live? Get a roommate or two and split a 2-3 bedroom. Even if you insist on living alone in Manhattan, I have a hard time believing you cannot find a studio for less than 3K. I just searched on Apartments.com and saw a bunch.

I also think you need to change your mindset on what counts as "saved." If you are really overpaying your loans, I would put that in the saved bucket, at least mentally. If you hadn't done that, you would still owe that amount. It's part of why it's more helpful to think in terms of net worth, than just raw savings.

Hi Bosque, I think you're missing the point and I think this is patronizing. I've lived in New York with roommates, flex rooms, craig's list roommates, dorm rooms, sublets, couches, etc...every manner of lifestyle you could think, I've lived in over the last decade in that city. I understand how to bring cost "down." The reality is bringing it down another $1000 a month so that I can eat and save "some" money is not really the kind of lifestyle that makes the misery of returning to the office and doing this 24-7 availability job worth it. I am not the only person who feels this. I did say I'm not suffering the most in the world, I'm aware of that, but like, I don't need to suffer additionally. I really don't think you've thought through your answer after reading my posts. I have a chronic health care condition that can become life threatening AT RANDOM and is a co-morbid condition for bad covid reactions. I do not want to be continuously exposed through my fucking roommates, if you'd been thinking critically before you offered your judgmental 2 cents maybe that would've come to mind. Do you have any idea how stressful it is to live with a virtual stranger to afford your living arrangement and to watch them constantly go clubbing regardless of the fact that they could literally kill you? I was constructively evicted for a month in 2020 when my roommate got covid on halloween and couldn't return until she was better at THANKSGIVING. Three vaccines and I had long covid in the winter while my SO had a cold.

The point is that, unlike many people in the market, I have leverage to go elsewhere from my firm. All of the inconveniences, including living with multiple roommates when I have a long distance significant other, at 28 years old, so that I can spend $3,500 a month instead of $4,500 ($3500 - how much I was spending when I did my lease) makes it not worth it for me or others in positions similar to me to give our all for rto. We exist, we deserve consideration, it is a work place issue if you want us to be coming into the work place, and if you don't then you'll just face big downside deal work with fewer countercyclical associates (again because right now we have the leverage). I am already working with recruiters to leave my group and I have no doubt with my credentials and my work experience I will find a profitable next gig while they are in a hiring freeze like every other big firm on the market. I do not have to spend the average of $4000 a month now to go to work so...why should I return? I went yesterday and surprise surprise an empty anchor day. A waste of fucking time.

Whatever you’re doing, you’re just doing it wrong. I’m the same year as you, not from a privileged background at all, not supported by parents and I’ve saved/invested over 100k (even with this down market). I also have talked to several friends who have saved similar amounts.

You did note that you had other debt to pay down which may be the real hamper hear but acting like associates can only save 4K after a couple years—especially with the loan moratorium—is absolutely ridiculous and reeks of someone needing a reality check.

Get a roommate. Eat out less. Don’t blow your money on luxury goods. Hell I certainly don’t consider myself frugal and enjoy the finer things in life and I’ve still managed to stash plenty.

A someone that comes from a family that never made much money and legitimately didn’t have the means to save more than nominal savings, hearing these takes from people in their 20s making over 200k really irks me. At the very least acknowledge that you’ve managed to pay down absolutely huge amounts of debt that you otherwise would not have been able to without this job.

do not pass go, do not stop, immediately go fuck yourself. -- OP (of this comment thread)

*edit -- you're so good at money, and you're so smart at investing why post anon? I'm on anon cause I'm easily identifiable and discussing non compliance with work mandates. You're just on anon to shit on me and make yourself better? If you're so good at investing post your real name let's start dm'ing! Not one thing you said is actionable, helpful, identifiable as constructive. That's why you chose anon right? You don't have anything to offer me but bullshit and more critique and can't do it with your real name because you're kind of a weakling aren't you? Do you feel better about yourself?

Get bent dude—sorry that i dont feel like outing myself when talking about my financial situation to make you feel better. I also did include actionable suggestions. Get a roommate, dont eat out at much, dont waste money on luxury goods.

I'm not some financial guru. i have my 401k set up and have automatic deductions for index funds. It's simple for anyone with their head out of their ass.

[Bosque]

Not sure why my encouragement to rethink paying off your loans as part of your savings was seen as hostile, I think it would do a world of good for your mental health. I mentioned it because I felt the same thing at first, and that change in how I processed it mentality helped me immensely. And I still think you can get place where you can live by yourself for less, but that’s your choice on how you want to spend your money.

Regardless, from the tenor of your posts, it sounds like you are in a bit of a doom loop. So doing something drastic to shake things up like changing jobs might be the best for you, return to office or not. Good to hear you are working on it, and hope you find something that makes you happy. All the best.

[Dahl]

OP doesn’t sound like they actually want any advice, but for others in this situation, seek a reasonable accommodation. They’re available for health conditions that include panic and stress disorders caused by anxiety related to COVID. Talk to your doctors, get a note, and submit a request.

[Moneytrees]

OP doesn’t sound like they actually want any advice, but for others in this situation, seek a reasonable accommodation. They’re available for health conditions that include panic and stress disorders caused by anxiety related to COVID. Talk to your doctors, get a note, and submit a request.

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

[Excellent117]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

[Moneytrees]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

[Excellent117]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

RTO is obviously for the benefit of partners, since it provides them a supply of peons to abuse, lecture, intimidate, and (as gross as it is) even provides some eye candy. If any associate think RTO is for their benefit, they are way too far down the rabbit hole and should just drink the Kool Aid now.

[dyemond]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

Most juniors have always been bad, and that would still be the case if Covid and WFH never happened

[uncle_rico]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

Most juniors have always been bad, and that would still be the case if Covid and WFH never happened

Why not just leave big law and head to a company/industry that doesn't place an emphasis on coming in and apprenticeship-like training? The worst part about people like yourself is you just shit on the people that actually like coming in for whatever reason. Just do you and find a place that fits your preferred working style rather than trying to make the world shift to your personal preference.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

Most juniors have always been bad, and that would still be the case if Covid and WFH never happened

Why not just leave big law and head to a company/industry that doesn't place an emphasis on coming in and apprenticeship-like training? The worst part about people like yourself is you just shit on the people that actually like coming in for whatever reason. Just do you and find a place that fits your preferred working style rather than trying to make the world shift to your personal preference.

I’ve got nothing against associates who like coming into the office. But I do believe RTO policies are for the benefit of partners, not associates. And I believe that many associates’ development will not be hindered by working from home. Someone who needs a person over their shoulder showing them how format a Word table is probably not that smart, anyway, if we’re keeping it real.

[Excellent117]

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

Well then you can consider this senior associate with the same mentality as a new anecdote for your data set.

Why not just leave big law and head to a company/industry that doesn't place an emphasis on coming in and apprenticeship-like training? The worst part about people like yourself is you just shit on the people that actually like coming in for whatever reason. Just do you and find a place that fits your preferred working style rather than trying to make the world shift to your personal preference.

The ones trying to make the world shift to their personal preference are those who want some level of mandatory RTO. I have no issue with people who like going into the office, more power to them.

[nls336]

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

Most juniors have always been bad, and that would still be the case if Covid and WFH never happened

Why not just leave big law and head to a company/industry that doesn't place an emphasis on coming in and apprenticeship-like training? The worst part about people like yourself is you just shit on the people that actually like coming in for whatever reason. Just do you and find a place that fits your preferred working style rather than trying to make the world shift to your personal preference.

I’ve got nothing against associates who like coming into the office. But I do believe RTO policies are for the benefit of partners, not associates. And I believe that many associates’ development will not be hindered by working from home. Someone who needs a person over their shoulder showing them how format a Word table is probably not that smart, anyway, if we’re keeping it real.

This is why firms should be honest about their partner prospects with their associates and come to terms with the fact that some hires will only *intentionally* be there a few years. Firms should offer a remote second option, at this point, that isn't apparent to the outside world, but doesn't have the same promotion prospects, or is reconsidered every year etc. Some people are smart enough to learn how to format a table correctly on their own. I have received the rare no comment "perfect" compliment to work submitted and nobody has ever helped me learn how to do this job as a virtual junior. There are other virtual juniors who I work with & who are so good it's insane. Some come in, some don't. It's obvious who the partners will be, if these associates choose to stick it out that long. Either way, I just got this email about how there will no longer be any masking or vaccination requirements at my firm during the winter, so I think this problem will take care of itself...

[GFox345]

Honestly, it really depends. Lawyers are notoriously risk averse, which means this is an uphill battle. Ideally, and this would happen in many other industries, employees would recognize it is stupid, band together, and not go in. In law, people recognize it is stupid, then go in anyway because they're afraid/think this is their shot to get to the top.

Hot take: If you actually want to have a career at the firm and/or care about your long-term development there, I don't think coming in a few days a week is stupid at all. Sitting in our houses on Zoom all day, in our pajamas, talking to our cats, isn't normal. If you view your time at the firm as a 12-24 month stopping off point before you jump in-house, then I could see the other perspective (basically, who gives a shit) but know you're just delaying the inevitable because industry is pushing for RTO too. This fantasy that we're all going to just work from home in our pajamas with video cameras forever is just that, a fantasy; it ain't healthy for employers or employees. All that said, I do think the 5-day in-office work week died during COVID for most white collar setups.

The fact that people are still saying this stupid shit almost three years into WFH blows my wig back. Dude, COVID hasn't even been the primary reason for WFH since May 2020. The majority of people clearly do not want to RTO (probably because it sucks), and most managers lack either the stupidity, the leverage, or the balls to try mandating it.

Also, just LOL at (1) a "healthy" lifestyle being the motivation for big law RTO. You have to be trolling. and (2) the dichotomy between being a desk monkey and not giving a shit about your career. You've had fucking three years. Think up better arguments.

I'm not that anon and I don't think any firm should require RTO but for me at least, getting back to the office has been a huge boost to my mental health. My ADHD-riddled brain needs the structure/routine of waking up, going to the gym, heading to the office, and then going home. When I was full-time WFH my ability to get myself together and get started on something was pitifully low.

Of course, I don't have kids and live a 20min bike commute to my office in the suburbs of a secondary market, so getting to the office is not a burden on me at all. And most lawyers don't require routine to the degree I do to stay efficient. Would I like it if there were more people coming to the office so I could actually have someone to talk to during the day that isn't over Zoom? Yeah, of course. But whatever reason people have for not coming in is none of my business. People need to do what works for them.

I do not doubt that many people are happier and healthier going into the office at least part of the time. I was not LOLing at that. I was LOLing at the health and well-being of associates being the motivation for BL upper management requiring RTO. My position has always been that firms should give associates the absolute autonomy to decide whether to WFH or go into the office(obviously unless job duties at the time require being in-person).

[GFox345]

COVID hasn't even been the primary reason for WFH since May 2020.

I agree that lots of people (though not all) don’t want to go back and I don’t think they should have to, but the above isn’t even close to true.

This definitely differs based on where you live. We know all too well by now that COVID is a politicized issue. I live in a red state, where most people essentially stopped giving a shit about COVID after the initial lockdown (many as a point of personal pride). Most offices never closed again, even for the Fall 2020 spike or Omicron, opting instead to allow RTO on a voluntary basis. Outside of Uber rides, I haven't seen widespread mask wearing in nearly two years. On the extreme end, I know lawyers at smaller firms who had mandatory RTO even through the Fall 2020 spike and Omicron.

Talking to many of my law school friends who work in bigger cities in blue states, I know that COVID was taken (and to some extent still is taken) much more seriously. I'm not commenting on which approach is right, just acknowledging the differences.

The fact that WFH has persisted where I live long after COVID concerns have waned makes me think that this WFH paradigm shift is based on deeper factors, and is likely to be permanent.

[GFox345]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

This is such a horrible take. lol

[dyemond]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

This is such a horrible take. lol

oh, ok, “lol”.

it’s an apprenticeship-based profession and as someone who mentors a lot of people, the people who come in frequently for calls pick up on things noticeably quicker.

[GFox345]

This take is only tangentially related to OP's RTO issues, but I've been thinking about how working from home is essentially completely incompatible with how juniors learn how to be functional Biglaw attorneys. Biglaw simply doesn't formally train junior associates. There may be some half-assed official seminars and training offered, but the vast majority of Biglaw training occurs by learning on the job, which in practice means working alongside more senior lawyers who know what they are doing. Unless Biglaw completely overhauls its training methods (which it absolutely should), juniors who choose to not go into the office are going to be at a disadvantage.

Absolutely none of the knowledge or skills a junior corporate associate needs to learn require being available in person or physically working "alongside" more senior lawyers.

Completely disagree. Maybe you are at the one Biglaw firm that actually formally trains its juniors in a meaningful way, perhaps.

On a call with the client or opposing counsel? You can DM with the more senior associate throughout the call as questions arise and have a back-and-forth. You can even have a follow-up call to talk through any issues.

Working through a markup or drafting a document? You can easily walk through any questions, drafting notes, etc. on a Zoom while sharing the agreement on screen.

Things like a handling a diligence process/preparing a memo, drafting and running a checklist, compiling signature page packets, and managing closing deliverables can all easily be taught remotely as well.

None of this involves a formal training process or in-person guidance from another lawyer.

anecdotally the only people I know who express this mentality are juniors who happen to be terrible

This is such a horrible take. lol

oh, ok, “lol”.

it’s an apprenticeship-based profession and as someone who mentors a lot of people, the people who come in frequently for calls pick up on things noticeably quicker.

The self-serving unfalsifiable anecdote thing is great. As someone who also mentors a lot of people, the fast learners pick things up quick, and the slow ones don't. Zero correlation with coming into the office. How's that?

[Anonymous User]

I haven't followed the entire thread, but I'm just chiming in to share what I have heard from partners/management at my firm re: RTO. I think this was debated on another thread that I don't have time to find.

While there are many juniors (the percentage is up for debate) who can excel remotely, there are at least some (percentage debated) who are much slower on the uptake than those who joined pre-pandemic. The partners attribute this to the fact that they aren't getting the informal training that comes from being in the office. Based on my own experiences, I tend to agree with that sentiment. A lot of what I learned early on came from random watercooler conversations with colleagues or stopping in to ask a question of a colleague with an open door that I definitely would NOT have asked over teams or the phone. And I also saw mids/seniors working their butts off being paranoid about messing up any tiny little thing, which instilled the same sense of responsibility in me. A lot of the juniors I work with appear to have missed out on these learning opportunities, and I think their work product suffers for it. So I believe there is at least some benefit to at least some juniors from mandatory RTO for everyone (you need mids/seniors to provide advice).

Now, let me be clear on a few caveats. First, firms could probably care less if RTO benefits the juniors. But it just so happens that the partners' self interest lines up with something that could help juniors: Partners think mandatory RTO will improve low quality work product by helping juniors learn faster. Second, a lot of this could just be the age old "the newest generation is lazy" line that has persisted for the last 70+ years. I think it's a little bit of both, but the relative ratio is important for what firms should choose to do. Third, there are certainly ways to try to remedy these issues (at least in part) without mandating RTO. But those are hard to come up with and even harder to implement, and I can't think of anything that would have been a substitute for me personally. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether less intrusive alternatives would be sufficient to improve quality. Fourth, as I already mentioned, not everybody needs in-person interaction, so firms also have to decide whether it's worth inconveniencing those who don't need it to help those who do.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that (1) the argument for RTO isn't purely based on a few partners wanting to be able to stop by someone's office and chat in person rather than call them up on the phone and (2) there are at least some tangible benefits to RTO for juniors, even if that's not what's driving the push.