Think Ropes & Gray earned its own thread (3 day work week) Forum

[Anonymous User]

R&G midlevel here.

First of all, even before the pandemic, Ropes had an informal, flexible WFH policy. There were no "required" amount of days people had to be in the office. It was seen as a privilege that most were trusted to use their judgment on, in their discretion. People figure out quickly that as a junior, it helps to get facetime in the office to build relationships, while the more senior you get, the less essential it is. Likewise, it also meant that offices outside of the Boston HQ would WFH quite liberally, and while Boston is a bit more facetime centric, people certainly WFH'd liberally there as well (with the caveat that in any office, there are always some partners where it's easier to work with them face-to-face than over phone or e-mail). I work in a transactional group, was working remotely at least 50% of the time before the pandemic (if not more), and never received any complaints or criticism about that. As long as you got your work done, people didn't care where you're located. It amazes me that there are some white shoe firms in NY that had formal WFH policies before the pandemic, and it amazes me even more that some white shoe firms didn't even give their associates laptops before the pandemic.

Anecdotally, I have heard that junior associates have been clamoring to get back into the office, since the lack of in-person interactions makes it more challenging to develop relationships with partners and midlevel/senior associates, while many midlevel and senior associates would prefer to stay put. At least for me and other midlevels I have spoken to, we are taking the 3-day requirement as merely a suggestion without any teeth or consequences. I work with lots of teams outside of my home office, so I have zero interest in coming back to the office on a regular basis, I have made this message clear to folks I work with, and I have received no criticism in return. If anything, a few partners have told me that they agree, for the personal reasons they're dealing with (e.g., they have young kids and having the ability to work from home is critical for them).

There will always be sub-cultures within particular practice groups or partners (whether at Ropes or other firms) where face-time may be valued, but at least from a firm-wide perspective, the 3-day work week, at least for me and for my immediate circle of peers, is not being viewed as more than a suggestion, and I'm happy about that.

[Anonymous User]

All colleagues who are able to do so are encouraged to start spending time in the office this summer. Our in-office presence in many locations has been steadily increasing as more colleagues take advantage of the opportunity to reconnect in person, and we look forward to building on this momentum throughout the summer.

It is our general expectation that by mid-September, all Latham colleagues will live within commuting distance of their assigned office and will have re-established their regular routine of working from the office.

Ropes is #woke, Latham is #broke

[Anonymous User]

did latham announce a policy??

[Anonymous User]

did latham announce a policy??

Not explicitly, but that email strongly implies by September things will be "back to normal" and your ass better be in the office.

[Anonymous User]

Was Latham lax before Covid?

Why don’t associates just push back. They can’t really force you to go in every single day.

[Anonymous User]

Was Latham lax before Covid?

Why don’t associates just push back. They can’t really force you to go in every single day.

It’s definitely group dependent (e.g. M&A is big on face time) but otherwise Latham NY has generally been pretty lax with WFH before covid but many have been worried that the move to the new office will increase face time requirements since now we will be sitting with our practice groups unlike the old office.

[Anonymous User]

Was Latham lax before Covid?

Why don’t associates just push back. They can’t really force you to go in every single day.

It’s definitely group dependent (e.g. M&A is big on face time) but otherwise Latham NY has generally been pretty lax with WFH before covid but many have been worried that the move to the new office will increase face time requirements since now we will be sitting with our practice groups unlike the old office.

Just wanted to add that I would be extremely surprised if at the very least the NY office does not receive follow up emails on the WFH policy. The email that we received was firm wide (including Europe, Asia, and Middle East offices) and not remotely tailored to any office. Given the pace in our corporate practices, we can’t afford to begin bleeding associates which will inevitably happen if associates were expected to return in full force to the office five days a week. We already have everyone completely underwater in Capital Markets in particular, and I know of a handful of “star” associates who have indicated they have zero interest or intent of returning to the office and in some cases have moved to geographic locations where we don’t have an office.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Hastings announced 5 days a week back in office starting September 7.

Unrelated news, I'm giving my notice today.

[Anonymous User]

Paul Hastings announced 5 days a week back in office starting September 7.

Unrelated news, I'm giving my notice today.

This is interesting because a recruiter told me that their Houston office is willing to be flexible with WFH.

[Anonymous User]

LOL will never apply there. I mean even Skadden is essentially doing a 3-day work week. Why even bother with PH

[Anonymous User]

Weil back in the office sept 7, with mention of a “more flexible work from home policy for attorneys and staff.” No additional details at the moment.

[Lesion of Doom]

Paul Hastings announced 5 days a week back in office starting September 7.

Unrelated news, I'm giving my notice today.

That's insane to me. They are going to mortally wound themselves in recruiting -- especially for laterals -- if they maintain that policy.

Also, assuming you are leaving on your own terms, congrats.

[Anonymous User]

R&G midlevel here.

First of all, even before the pandemic, Ropes had an informal, flexible WFH policy. There were no "required" amount of days people had to be in the office. It was seen as a privilege that most were trusted to use their judgment on, in their discretion. People figure out quickly that as a junior, it helps to get facetime in the office to build relationships, while the more senior you get, the less essential it is. Likewise, it also meant that offices outside of the Boston HQ would WFH quite liberally, and while Boston is a bit more facetime centric, people certainly WFH'd liberally there as well (with the caveat that in any office, there are always some partners where it's easier to work with them face-to-face than over phone or e-mail). I work in a transactional group, was working remotely at least 50% of the time before the pandemic (if not more), and never received any complaints or criticism about that. As long as you got your work done, people didn't care where you're located. It amazes me that there are some white shoe firms in NY that had formal WFH policies before the pandemic, and it amazes me even more that some white shoe firms didn't even give their associates laptops before the pandemic.

Anecdotally, I have heard that junior associates have been clamoring to get back into the office, since the lack of in-person interactions makes it more challenging to develop relationships with partners and midlevel/senior associates, while many midlevel and senior associates would prefer to stay put. At least for me and other midlevels I have spoken to, we are taking the 3-day requirement as merely a suggestion without any teeth or consequences. I work with lots of teams outside of my home office, so I have zero interest in coming back to the office on a regular basis, I have made this message clear to folks I work with, and I have received no criticism in return. If anything, a few partners have told me that they agree, for the personal reasons they're dealing with (e.g., they have young kids and having the ability to work from home is critical for them).

There will always be sub-cultures within particular practice groups or partners (whether at Ropes or other firms) where face-time may be valued, but at least from a firm-wide perspective, the 3-day work week, at least for me and for my immediate circle of peers, is not being viewed as more than a suggestion, and I'm happy about that.

I'm also a Ropes midlevel and this is not my experience. Pre-COVID, WFH on Fridays was fairly normal unless you were working for certain partners, who would schedule in-person meetings on Fridays or late at night and even occasionally on a weekend and informally pressure you to come in. Now, they're putting on that same pressure to come back in regularly. In fact, the firm takes attendance of who is coming in these days and circulates that attendance record to the partners. No "formal" pressure, but there is a lot of whispering about who is coming in vs. who is not, and I don't appreciate it.

[LittleRedCorvette]

R&G midlevel here.

First of all, even before the pandemic, Ropes had an informal, flexible WFH policy. There were no "required" amount of days people had to be in the office. It was seen as a privilege that most were trusted to use their judgment on, in their discretion. People figure out quickly that as a junior, it helps to get facetime in the office to build relationships, while the more senior you get, the less essential it is. Likewise, it also meant that offices outside of the Boston HQ would WFH quite liberally, and while Boston is a bit more facetime centric, people certainly WFH'd liberally there as well (with the caveat that in any office, there are always some partners where it's easier to work with them face-to-face than over phone or e-mail). I work in a transactional group, was working remotely at least 50% of the time before the pandemic (if not more), and never received any complaints or criticism about that. As long as you got your work done, people didn't care where you're located. It amazes me that there are some white shoe firms in NY that had formal WFH policies before the pandemic, and it amazes me even more that some white shoe firms didn't even give their associates laptops before the pandemic.

Anecdotally, I have heard that junior associates have been clamoring to get back into the office, since the lack of in-person interactions makes it more challenging to develop relationships with partners and midlevel/senior associates, while many midlevel and senior associates would prefer to stay put. At least for me and other midlevels I have spoken to, we are taking the 3-day requirement as merely a suggestion without any teeth or consequences. I work with lots of teams outside of my home office, so I have zero interest in coming back to the office on a regular basis, I have made this message clear to folks I work with, and I have received no criticism in return. If anything, a few partners have told me that they agree, for the personal reasons they're dealing with (e.g., they have young kids and having the ability to work from home is critical for them).

There will always be sub-cultures within particular practice groups or partners (whether at Ropes or other firms) where face-time may be valued, but at least from a firm-wide perspective, the 3-day work week, at least for me and for my immediate circle of peers, is not being viewed as more than a suggestion, and I'm happy about that.

I'm also a Ropes midlevel and this is not my experience. Pre-COVID, WFH on Fridays was fairly normal unless you were working for certain partners, who would schedule in-person meetings on Fridays or late at night and even occasionally on a weekend and informally pressure you to come in. Now, they're putting on that same pressure to come back in regularly. In fact, the firm takes attendance of who is coming in these days and circulates that attendance record to the partners. No "formal" pressure, but there is a lot of whispering about who is coming in vs. who is not, and I don't appreciate it.

This sounds repulsive.

[Anonymous User]

This is so stupid. If you can do the work, who cares WHERE you work from?

[cisscum]

This is so stupid. If you can do the work, who cares WHERE you work from?

But the the the culture!!!

[Anonymous User]

R&G midlevel here.

First of all, even before the pandemic, Ropes had an informal, flexible WFH policy. There were no "required" amount of days people had to be in the office. It was seen as a privilege that most were trusted to use their judgment on, in their discretion. People figure out quickly that as a junior, it helps to get facetime in the office to build relationships, while the more senior you get, the less essential it is. Likewise, it also meant that offices outside of the Boston HQ would WFH quite liberally, and while Boston is a bit more facetime centric, people certainly WFH'd liberally there as well (with the caveat that in any office, there are always some partners where it's easier to work with them face-to-face than over phone or e-mail). I work in a transactional group, was working remotely at least 50% of the time before the pandemic (if not more), and never received any complaints or criticism about that. As long as you got your work done, people didn't care where you're located. It amazes me that there are some white shoe firms in NY that had formal WFH policies before the pandemic, and it amazes me even more that some white shoe firms didn't even give their associates laptops before the pandemic.

Anecdotally, I have heard that junior associates have been clamoring to get back into the office, since the lack of in-person interactions makes it more challenging to develop relationships with partners and midlevel/senior associates, while many midlevel and senior associates would prefer to stay put. At least for me and other midlevels I have spoken to, we are taking the 3-day requirement as merely a suggestion without any teeth or consequences. I work with lots of teams outside of my home office, so I have zero interest in coming back to the office on a regular basis, I have made this message clear to folks I work with, and I have received no criticism in return. If anything, a few partners have told me that they agree, for the personal reasons they're dealing with (e.g., they have young kids and having the ability to work from home is critical for them).

There will always be sub-cultures within particular practice groups or partners (whether at Ropes or other firms) where face-time may be valued, but at least from a firm-wide perspective, the 3-day work week, at least for me and for my immediate circle of peers, is not being viewed as more than a suggestion, and I'm happy about that.

I'm also a Ropes midlevel and this is not my experience. Pre-COVID, WFH on Fridays was fairly normal unless you were working for certain partners, who would schedule in-person meetings on Fridays or late at night and even occasionally on a weekend and informally pressure you to come in. Now, they're putting on that same pressure to come back in regularly. In fact, the firm takes attendance of who is coming in these days and circulates that attendance record to the partners. No "formal" pressure, but there is a lot of whispering about who is coming in vs. who is not, and I don't appreciate it.

Also a Ropes midlevel and I'd echo what the initial poster above said - WFH was very permissive pre-pandemic (not just Fridays), at least for my practice group. And so I don't see much even changing with the announced policy. I've never been pressured to come into the office, pre/post-pandemic. And the "attendance" that the person mentioned above is an email of all the people in the office (lawyers and staff) on a given day, that goes out to everyone in the office that day. It's not an attendance record. I've found it useful to see when a first year that I remember from when they were a summer is in the office so that I can go say hi and take them out for coffee. But nobody gives a shit who is in and who isnt.

[Anonymous User]

R&G midlevel here.

First of all, even before the pandemic, Ropes had an informal, flexible WFH policy. There were no "required" amount of days people had to be in the office. It was seen as a privilege that most were trusted to use their judgment on, in their discretion. People figure out quickly that as a junior, it helps to get facetime in the office to build relationships, while the more senior you get, the less essential it is. Likewise, it also meant that offices outside of the Boston HQ would WFH quite liberally, and while Boston is a bit more facetime centric, people certainly WFH'd liberally there as well (with the caveat that in any office, there are always some partners where it's easier to work with them face-to-face than over phone or e-mail). I work in a transactional group, was working remotely at least 50% of the time before the pandemic (if not more), and never received any complaints or criticism about that. As long as you got your work done, people didn't care where you're located. It amazes me that there are some white shoe firms in NY that had formal WFH policies before the pandemic, and it amazes me even more that some white shoe firms didn't even give their associates laptops before the pandemic.

Anecdotally, I have heard that junior associates have been clamoring to get back into the office, since the lack of in-person interactions makes it more challenging to develop relationships with partners and midlevel/senior associates, while many midlevel and senior associates would prefer to stay put. At least for me and other midlevels I have spoken to, we are taking the 3-day requirement as merely a suggestion without any teeth or consequences. I work with lots of teams outside of my home office, so I have zero interest in coming back to the office on a regular basis, I have made this message clear to folks I work with, and I have received no criticism in return. If anything, a few partners have told me that they agree, for the personal reasons they're dealing with (e.g., they have young kids and having the ability to work from home is critical for them).

There will always be sub-cultures within particular practice groups or partners (whether at Ropes or other firms) where face-time may be valued, but at least from a firm-wide perspective, the 3-day work week, at least for me and for my immediate circle of peers, is not being viewed as more than a suggestion, and I'm happy about that.

I'm also a Ropes midlevel and this is not my experience. Pre-COVID, WFH on Fridays was fairly normal unless you were working for certain partners, who would schedule in-person meetings on Fridays or late at night and even occasionally on a weekend and informally pressure you to come in. Now, they're putting on that same pressure to come back in regularly. In fact, the firm takes attendance of who is coming in these days and circulates that attendance record to the partners. No "formal" pressure, but there is a lot of whispering about who is coming in vs. who is not, and I don't appreciate it.

Also a Ropes midlevel and I'd echo what the initial poster above said - WFH was very permissive pre-pandemic (not just Fridays), at least for my practice group. And so I don't see much even changing with the announced policy. I've never been pressured to come into the office, pre/post-pandemic. And the "attendance" that the person mentioned above is an email of all the people in the office (lawyers and staff) on a given day, that goes out to everyone in the office that day. It's not an attendance record. I've found it useful to see when a first year that I remember from when they were a summer is in the office so that I can go say hi and take them out for coffee. But nobody gives a shit who is in and who isnt.

I interviewed at a Ropes office last year pre-pandemic and there were a lot of people from the office that were working from home and nobody seemed to have a problem with that at all. It seemed pretty accepted by the partners in the office

[Anonymous User]

Milbank is doing 3 days in office minimum for c/o 2018 and up, with 4 days minimum for c/o 2019 and 2020

[Anonymous User]

In a shocking display of decisionmaking before the market settled, Covington formally declared that attorneys only need to be in the office physically for 3 days a week. First-years are encouraged, but not required, to be in the office more often than that.

[Anonymous User]

By the way - why have they not formally matched the salary increase yet (or did I miss the memo)? It was mentioned at the town hall but nothing since. We must be the last firm in the V50 not to have done this yet.

[Anonymous User]

By the way - why have they not formally matched the salary increase yet (or did I miss the memo)? It was mentioned at the town hall but nothing since. We must be the last firm in the V50 not to have done this yet.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/06/covington-raises/

[Anonymous User]

Any feedback on DPW wfh policy?

[Anonymous User]

I don't see it in this thread so thought I'd update - Cleary (NY) is doing 2 days in office/week from September to end of 2021 (as the firm is undergoing renovations), then 3 days in office after.

[Anonymous User]

Any feedback on DPW wfh policy?

Not thrilled with it; seems slightly off market. (See Cleary above.)