RTO (Not going to go in) Forum

[nixy]

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.

Fair enough; I’m mostly quibbling with your date. I think Covid was a big reason for WFH through at least the widespread availability of vaccines, especially vaccines for under-12s.

I agree that the persistent attachment to wfh isn’t about avoiding Covid, for a lot of people (though it absolutely is for people with significant risk factors primarily the immunocompromised). Covid was the circumstance that destroyed the fiction that you have to be in the office to do this job. But I’m not convinced it will be a permanent paradigm shift *in law,* even though I think it will end up way more common overall than it was before. I don’t think the attachment to in-office work has been eliminated by the fact that white collar employers ended up mostly fine through lockdown (the reasons employers didn’t like it before haven’t really gone away, so the question will be if employees have the clout to demand it and get it).

But I definitely don’t have a crystal ball or anything, just spitballing here.

[Anonymous User]

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?

Not a popular TLS opinion, but I cautiously agree with this take.

I don't think it's impossible to learn as well WFH, but I think most people don't. I also 100% think it enables slacking and allows people to hide from responsibility.

Also I think people are inclined to work harder for/with people they have some kind of actual personals relationship with. I'm always surprised at the degree to which TLS posters (could be a selection bias issue) seem to have total disdain for their coworkers. My anecdotal experience is juniors seem way more inclined to hang midlevels/seniors out to dry when they can't actually see how much more work doing so makes for them personally.

Also more senior folks are for sure more willing/able to provide help/advice to people they actually see/know.

Now, all that being said, I do absolutely understand how people have legitimate reasons to prefer WFH and separately, the people who treat big law as a zero sum game involving doing the least work for the most money might be the ones actually winning the game.

Either way, there are a bunch of associates who have primarily worked from home about to become midlevels, so I guess either way we're about to find out how effective WFH training is.

Edit: Accidental Anon - this is existentialcrisis

[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.

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

Yep. Training is simply terrible for juniors in Biglaw. Anecdotally, big firms basically just throw juniors to the wolves and expect them to either sink or swim. The situation is made worse if juniors don't even come into the office and attempt to learn in a hands-on way. It's a total fantasy to think that juniors can be effectively integrated and trained from home in the current Biglaw environment. To be clear, training is STILL bad if you RTO - but it is better than what you would get remotely.

[nixy]

Re ability and training: I do think new attorneys *can* learn by distance (phone calls/DMs/walking through stuff on zoom). But I do think those things have a higher barrier to entry, especially when you’re dealing with experienced attorneys who 1) are bad at training anyway and 2) didn’t themselves learn via distance. So I think succeeding in that context requires newbies to take much more initiative than is required if you’re actually in the office working with other people. Some people will do that and can succeed, but I think others who won’t take that initiative will absorb less training than they would have if they were in the office and had more sort of organic encounters with others.

My caveats here are 1) I’m only familiar with lit and the circumstances in which you learn stuff in lit (you learn a surprising amount just talking to people like when you’re waiting for a court hearing or the like. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen on Zoom hearings), and 2) if no one else is in the office anymore, it eliminates a lot of the learning opportunities and so it doesn’t make sense to make newbies come in if no one else is. But the latter is a different consideration from how people learn how to do the job.

[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

Yep. Training is simply terrible for juniors in Biglaw. Anecdotally, big firms basically just throw juniors to the wolves and expect them to either sink or swim. The situation is made worse if juniors don't even come into the office and attempt to learn in a hands-on way. It's a total fantasy to think that juniors can be effectively integrated and trained from home in the current Biglaw environment. To be clear, training is STILL bad if you RTO - but it is better than what you would get remotely.

The last sentence is such a cop out. lol As long as humans have existed, the older generation has complained about the younger generation not being as good for whatever reason was at-hand at the time. This narrative for millennials and Gen-Z existed long before the pandemic. If older people weren't saying this tired shit about WFH, they'd be saying it about something else (The phones are rotting their brains).

Here's the truth: (1) Most juniors have always sucked; (2) Some juniors have always been good; and (3) the miniscule amount of time you spend chatting in-person with them makes a *very* negligible difference in which category a given junior falls into. Everyone understands this. Indeed, the entire pyramid structure of big law fucking DEPENDS on it.

There is zero concrete evidence otherwise. In fact, law firm profits and client satisfaction are at all-time highs. Would you have us believe that's because mid-levels and seniors are working harder than ever before? Ridiculous.

Again, you can feel how you feel about it. But, from my perspective, bullshit ad hoc anecdotes can no longer serve as the basis for forcing people to take such a HUGE quality of life hit as compelling RTO.

[Anonymous User]

Senior, did not RTO when mandated but show up for client biz dev. Doing all other parts of the job. Good reviews. But we’ll see when heads start to roll if I’ve chosen wrong.

[Anonymous User]

On a personal level, I am very pro-telecommuting and totally love the concept. I like being left alone to get my shit done, and I like being able to videoconference with my colleagues in other states who I was not getting to know much in the pre-Zoom era.

But if you are brand new to an organization, you are seriously handicapping yourself if you're telecommuting more than maybe 1 day a week. There's no getting around it. You're not forming friendships or alliances, you're not learning who you can trust and who you can't trust, and you're missing out on a huge amount of intangible non-academic learning material that isn't in the books anywhere.

After you're settled in to a place with a really firm grip on how things work, by all means, WFH 4 days a week. If you do this too early, though, you're just pre-writing the final chapter of your relationship with the organization, which will be a boring, unfulfilling, and unproductive chapter with no decent references that could boost the rest of your career.

[Anonymous User]

The last sentence is such a cop out. lol As long as humans have existed, the older generation has complained about the younger generation not being as good for whatever reason was at-hand at the time. This narrative for millennials and Gen-Z existed long before the pandemic. If older people weren't saying this tired shit about WFH, they'd be saying it about something else (The phones are rotting their brains).

Here's the truth: (1) Most juniors have always sucked; (2) Some juniors have always been good; and (3) the miniscule amount of time you spend chatting in-person with them makes a *very* negligible difference in which category a given junior falls into. Everyone understands this. Indeed, the entire pyramid structure of big law fucking DEPENDS on it.

There is zero concrete evidence otherwise. In fact, law firm profits and client satisfaction are at all-time highs. Would you have us believe that's because mid-levels and seniors are working harder than ever before? Ridiculous.

Again, you can feel how you feel about it. But, from my perspective, bullshit ad hoc anecdotes can no longer serve as the basis for forcing people to take such a HUGE quality of life hit as compelling RTO.

And we're back to WFH fetishists dismissing actual anecdotes as not "concrete evidence" (whatever TF that is?) followed by an unsupported argument that their "perspective" is the only possible answer and everything else is "bullshit." This is exactly where that other RTO thread landed. I don't know why you think you have to prove all of this in response to literally every RTO supporter over the last two pages admitting that reasonable minds can differ on whether it's worth it.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has become a hot mess. Without wading into the debate about the merits / non-merits of RTO, I’ll just offer a few reasonably informed predictions:

1) If you’re at a V50, RTO is going to happen (for real, not just a policy they announce but then do nothing about).

2) The base case is probably going to land on 3 days in; meaning there will definitely be increased long-term tolerance for *some* WFH and a 5-day-in requirement is a thing of the past.

3) Your firm is likely already compiling how often you are in the office using either building security or IT data. If they aren’t already, they’re going to start soon.

4) Some shirking around the edges will be tolerated if your performance is otherwise good. E.g., an otherwise good performer at a 3-day-in firm who only comes in twice a week will do fine. This is just like it was pre-COVID (e.g., plenty of attorneys already “WFH”d on Fridays).

5) If you egregiously ignore the policy in #1, based on #3, you are going to have a bad time and that bad time is going to start soon given both trend and economy. “Egregious” will vary depending on the firm but obvious examples include never coming in or coming in only once per week.

6) The “bad time” in #5 will be a ramp if you’re a good performer, meaning you’ll first be directed to adhere to policy but then counseled out if you continue to ignore it. If you’re already on thin ice then the non-adherence will be the push that gets you counseled out.

Again, I’m not trying to weigh in pro or con about the desirability of this, but offering an informed prediction about where the puck is heading.

One corollary to this: There are people in this thread who are obviously very pro-WFH. If you’re in that camp, I’d encourage you to seriously think through the points I’ve outlined above to at least have a game plan about how you’re going to react so that this doesn’t catch you by surprise.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has become a hot mess. Without wading into the debate about the merits / non-merits of RTO, I’ll just offer a few reasonably informed predictions:

1) If you’re at a V50, RTO is going to happen (for real, not just a policy they announce but then do nothing about).

2) The base case is probably going to land on 3 days in; meaning there will definitely be increased long-term tolerance for *some* WFH and a 5-day-in requirement is a thing of the past.

3) Your firm is likely already compiling how often you are in the office using either building security or IT data. If they aren’t already, they’re going to start soon.

4) Some shirking around the edges will be tolerated if your performance is otherwise good. E.g., an otherwise good performer at a 3-day-in firm who only comes in twice a week will do fine. This is just like it was pre-COVID (e.g., plenty of attorneys already “WFH”d on Fridays).

5) If you egregiously ignore the policy in #1, based on #3, you are going to have a bad time and that bad time is going to start soon given both trend and economy. “Egregious” will vary depending on the firm but obvious examples include never coming in or coming in only once per week.

6) The “bad time” in #5 will be a ramp if you’re a good performer, meaning you’ll first be directed to adhere to policy but then counseled out if you continue to ignore it. If you’re already on thin ice then the non-adherence will be the push that gets you counseled out.

Again, I’m not trying to weigh in pro or con about the desirability of this, but offering an informed prediction about where the puck is heading.

One corollary to this: There are people in this thread who are obviously very pro-WFH. If you’re in that camp, I’d encourage you to seriously think through the points I’ve outlined above to at least have a game plan about how you’re going to react so that this doesn’t catch you by surprise.

I'm one of the RTO defenders, but I'm not so sure about this. I agree firms will probably ramp up enforcement. And I also agree that for poor performers (or during a stealth RIF), in-office time might be relevant or even dispositive. It's certainly worth considering that when making your own decision whether to comply.

But I disagree that firms across the board will fire solid performers solely based on refusal to comply with RTO (#6). I say this because at my V25 there are a significant number of PARTNERS who refuse to comply with our mandatory 3 days in. It's true that partners are no strangers to hypocrisy/double standards, but I just don't see that changing for us. Despite believing in the benefits of RTO, I actually don't go in very much (1x/week if at all) because it's not worth showing up to a ghost town. I'm open about that with almost all the partners I work with and I haven't caught wind of any hint of a problem. YMMV at different firms/offices/groups, of course.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has become a hot mess. Without wading into the debate about the merits / non-merits of RTO, I’ll just offer a few reasonably informed predictions:

1) If you’re at a V50, RTO is going to happen (for real, not just a policy they announce but then do nothing about).

2) The base case is probably going to land on 3 days in; meaning there will definitely be increased long-term tolerance for *some* WFH and a 5-day-in requirement is a thing of the past.

3) Your firm is likely already compiling how often you are in the office using either building security or IT data. If they aren’t already, they’re going to start soon.

4) Some shirking around the edges will be tolerated if your performance is otherwise good. E.g., an otherwise good performer at a 3-day-in firm who only comes in twice a week will do fine. This is just like it was pre-COVID (e.g., plenty of attorneys already “WFH”d on Fridays).

5) If you egregiously ignore the policy in #1, based on #3, you are going to have a bad time and that bad time is going to start soon given both trend and economy. “Egregious” will vary depending on the firm but obvious examples include never coming in or coming in only once per week.

6) The “bad time” in #5 will be a ramp if you’re a good performer, meaning you’ll first be directed to adhere to policy but then counseled out if you continue to ignore it. If you’re already on thin ice then the non-adherence will be the push that gets you counseled out.

Again, I’m not trying to weigh in pro or con about the desirability of this, but offering an informed prediction about where the puck is heading.

One corollary to this: There are people in this thread who are obviously very pro-WFH. If you’re in that camp, I’d encourage you to seriously think through the points I’ve outlined above to at least have a game plan about how you’re going to react so that this doesn’t catch you by surprise.

I'm one of the RTO defenders, but I'm not so sure about this. I agree firms will probably ramp up enforcement. And I also agree that for poor performers (or during a stealth RIF), in-office time might be relevant or even dispositive. It's certainly worth considering that when making your own decision whether to comply.

But I disagree that firms across the board will fire solid performers solely based on refusal to comply with RTO (#6). I say this because at my V25 there are a significant number of PARTNERS who refuse to comply with our mandatory 3 days in. It's true that partners are no strangers to hypocrisy/double standards, but I just don't see that changing for us. Despite believing in the benefits of RTO, I actually don't go in very much (1x/week if at all) because it's not worth showing up to a ghost town. I'm open about that with almost all the partners I work with and I haven't caught wind of any hint of a problem. YMMV at different firms/offices/groups, of course.

If you're an EQUITY partner the rules of ordinary mortals don't apply; that's been true forever across any number of issues. That's a different kettle of fish than what this is saying though (which, to be fair to your point, seems most applicable to associates anyway).

[Anonymous User]

RTO will definitely become a thing. My firm came out with a lot of fanfare that we could all work at home 50% of the time. Then they stealth updated it to three days a week and that they indicated they were going to keep tabs on you to ensure you were coming in. All the nonsense about that firms like employees WFH is nonsense and if they could afford to demand everybody back 5 days a week if they could (people would obviously jump ship).

That being said, it obviously is in the hands of the associates. If nobody comes in, what are they going to do? Fire everybody? Thing is, we lawyers are notoriously risk averse (so any sniff of layoffs will cause people to come jumping back to the office) and eager to get ahead (you know the gunners who will do anything to get ahead). These two factors will cause people to not come in to slowly be seen as outsiders and indeed to be the first on the chopping block, unless they make up for it. Obviously, profits matter more than any kind of physical presence. Partners might get hard from the sight of associates working for them and sucking up to them, but money trumps all.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has become a hot mess. Without wading into the debate about the merits / non-merits of RTO, I’ll just offer a few reasonably informed predictions:

1) If you’re at a V50, RTO is going to happen (for real, not just a policy they announce but then do nothing about).

2) The base case is probably going to land on 3 days in; meaning there will definitely be increased long-term tolerance for *some* WFH and a 5-day-in requirement is a thing of the past.

3) Your firm is likely already compiling how often you are in the office using either building security or IT data. If they aren’t already, they’re going to start soon.

4) Some shirking around the edges will be tolerated if your performance is otherwise good. E.g., an otherwise good performer at a 3-day-in firm who only comes in twice a week will do fine. This is just like it was pre-COVID (e.g., plenty of attorneys already “WFH”d on Fridays).

5) If you egregiously ignore the policy in #1, based on #3, you are going to have a bad time and that bad time is going to start soon given both trend and economy. “Egregious” will vary depending on the firm but obvious examples include never coming in or coming in only once per week.

6) The “bad time” in #5 will be a ramp if you’re a good performer, meaning you’ll first be directed to adhere to policy but then counseled out if you continue to ignore it. If you’re already on thin ice then the non-adherence will be the push that gets you counseled out.

Again, I’m not trying to weigh in pro or con about the desirability of this, but offering an informed prediction about where the puck is heading.

One corollary to this: There are people in this thread who are obviously very pro-WFH. If you’re in that camp, I’d encourage you to seriously think through the points I’ve outlined above to at least have a game plan about how you’re going to react so that this doesn’t catch you by surprise.

I'm one of the RTO defenders, but I'm not so sure about this. I agree firms will probably ramp up enforcement. And I also agree that for poor performers (or during a stealth RIF), in-office time might be relevant or even dispositive. It's certainly worth considering that when making your own decision whether to comply.

But I disagree that firms across the board will fire solid performers solely based on refusal to comply with RTO (#6). I say this because at my V25 there are a significant number of PARTNERS who refuse to comply with our mandatory 3 days in. It's true that partners are no strangers to hypocrisy/double standards, but I just don't see that changing for us. Despite believing in the benefits of RTO, I actually don't go in very much (1x/week if at all) because it's not worth showing up to a ghost town. I'm open about that with almost all the partners I work with and I haven't caught wind of any hint of a problem. YMMV at different firms/offices/groups, of course.

I am VERY pro WFH for *myself* and took a fully remote role for that reason while such roles were available. Also, as someone who very much wanted to be remote, I have followed the trends and what various firms were/are doing pretty closely.

That said I agree with this. I can’t see a very high performer being counseled out for coming in once a week. One thing I’ve learned in biglaw so far is that very strong midlevels and seniors are pretty hard to come by. I just don’t see those people being let go because they come in once a week.

Definitely agree that if you are just average or below average then office attendance matters.

[Anonymous User]

This thread has become a hot mess. Without wading into the debate about the merits / non-merits of RTO, I’ll just offer a few reasonably informed predictions:

1) If you’re at a V50, RTO is going to happen (for real, not just a policy they announce but then do nothing about).

2) The base case is probably going to land on 3 days in; meaning there will definitely be increased long-term tolerance for *some* WFH and a 5-day-in requirement is a thing of the past.

3) Your firm is likely already compiling how often you are in the office using either building security or IT data. If they aren’t already, they’re going to start soon.

4) Some shirking around the edges will be tolerated if your performance is otherwise good. E.g., an otherwise good performer at a 3-day-in firm who only comes in twice a week will do fine. This is just like it was pre-COVID (e.g., plenty of attorneys already “WFH”d on Fridays).

5) If you egregiously ignore the policy in #1, based on #3, you are going to have a bad time and that bad time is going to start soon given both trend and economy. “Egregious” will vary depending on the firm but obvious examples include never coming in or coming in only once per week.

6) The “bad time” in #5 will be a ramp if you’re a good performer, meaning you’ll first be directed to adhere to policy but then counseled out if you continue to ignore it. If you’re already on thin ice then the non-adherence will be the push that gets you counseled out.

Again, I’m not trying to weigh in pro or con about the desirability of this, but offering an informed prediction about where the puck is heading.

One corollary to this: There are people in this thread who are obviously very pro-WFH. If you’re in that camp, I’d encourage you to seriously think through the points I’ve outlined above to at least have a game plan about how you’re going to react so that this doesn’t catch you by surprise.

I'm one of the RTO defenders, but I'm not so sure about this. I agree firms will probably ramp up enforcement. And I also agree that for poor performers (or during a stealth RIF), in-office time might be relevant or even dispositive. It's certainly worth considering that when making your own decision whether to comply.

But I disagree that firms across the board will fire solid performers solely based on refusal to comply with RTO (#6). I say this because at my V25 there are a significant number of PARTNERS who refuse to comply with our mandatory 3 days in. It's true that partners are no strangers to hypocrisy/double standards, but I just don't see that changing for us. Despite believing in the benefits of RTO, I actually don't go in very much (1x/week if at all) because it's not worth showing up to a ghost town. I'm open about that with almost all the partners I work with and I haven't caught wind of any hint of a problem. YMMV at different firms/offices/groups, of course.

I am VERY pro WFH for *myself* and took a fully remote role for that reason while such roles were available. Also, as someone who very much wanted to be remote, I have followed the trends and what various firms were/are doing pretty closely.

That said I agree with this. I can’t see a very high performer being counseled out for coming in once a week. One thing I’ve learned in biglaw so far is that very strong midlevels and seniors are pretty hard to come by. I just don’t see those people being let go because they come in once a week.

Definitely agree that if you are just average or below average then office attendance matters.

I don’t know how much Venn diagram overlap there is between “strong performers” and “guys who insist on only coming in once per week.” I’m sure there are some but I suspect most strong performers also more or less following the company line. It reads like typical TLS fantasy that there is this cadre of super competent fifth years who are also staunchly against RTO and are going to make a big stand.

Also, the hypothetical strong performer senior associate isn’t going to be let go. He’s going to be brought into some firm committee member’s office and told “John, you need to be in at least twice a week.” And because he’s a “strong performer” (grateful shiteater who wants to make partner) he’ll do it.

[Excellent117]

I don’t know how much Venn diagram overlap there is between “strong performers” and “guys who insist on only coming in once per week.” I’m sure there are some but I suspect most strong performers also more or less following the company line. It reads like typical TLS fantasy that there is this cadre of super competent fifth years who are also staunchly against RTO and are going to make a big stand.

Also, the hypothetical strong performer senior associate isn’t going to be let go. He’s going to be brought into some firm committee member’s office and told “John, you need to be in at least twice a week.” And because he’s a “strong performer” (grateful shiteater who wants to make partner) he’ll do it.

Lots of assumptions based on absolutely nothing in this response. Strong performer just means a high biller who produces quality work product and has a good rapport with clients, none of which requires being in the office or toeing the company line.

It's wild how many people on here can't fathom an associate just saying no to something.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t know how much Venn diagram overlap there is between “strong performers” and “guys who insist on only coming in once per week.” I’m sure there are some but I suspect most strong performers also more or less following the company line. It reads like typical TLS fantasy that there is this cadre of super competent fifth years who are also staunchly against RTO and are going to make a big stand.

Also, the hypothetical strong performer senior associate isn’t going to be let go. He’s going to be brought into some firm committee member’s office and told “John, you need to be in at least twice a week.” And because he’s a “strong performer” (grateful shiteater who wants to make partner) he’ll do it.

I'm the prior anon who suggested top performers won't get cut, and I'm literally the hypothetical person you think doesn't exist. I'm a midlevel. I've been told explicitly that I have strong partnership prospects. I get tippy top reviews. I work ungodly hours. Clients ask for me on their matters. But if a partner tells me to come in more often you bet your ass I'll tell them to fuck off. It's better for the firm's bottom line to keep me around, and they don't want to risk losing me. And the partners in my camp hardly come in anyway, so they'll defend me now and when I'm up for election. I suppose you're right that I would come in more often if the firm made clear that I won't make partner unless I show up more, but my point is that nobody at my V25 wants to do that. I could eat my words in a year, but I've received no indication from the powers that be that I will. YMMV at different firms.

I'm also not alone. There's someone else a few years my senior who is probably the best associate my group has had in a long time. A true star. (S)he doesn't come in unless there is a need (e.g., depos, client meetings, etc.). We talked about that and (s)he said the same thing - (s)he won't come in and that's final. So yes, we exist, and yes firms will cave to us. It's a gamble for sure, but firms don't want to lose their talent for mandatory RTO, even though it would have its benefits.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t know how much Venn diagram overlap there is between “strong performers” and “guys who insist on only coming in once per week.” I’m sure there are some but I suspect most strong performers also more or less following the company line. It reads like typical TLS fantasy that there is this cadre of super competent fifth years who are also staunchly against RTO and are going to make a big stand.

Also, the hypothetical strong performer senior associate isn’t going to be let go. He’s going to be brought into some firm committee member’s office and told “John, you need to be in at least twice a week.” And because he’s a “strong performer” (grateful shiteater who wants to make partner) he’ll do it.

I'm the prior anon who suggested top performers won't get cut, and I'm literally the hypothetical person you think doesn't exist. I'm a midlevel. I've been told explicitly that I have strong partnership prospects. I get tippy top reviews. I work ungodly hours. Clients ask for me on their matters. But if a partner tells me to come in more often you bet your ass I'll tell them to fuck off. It's better for the firm's bottom line to keep me around, and they don't want to risk losing me. And the partners in my camp hardly come in anyway, so they'll defend me now and when I'm up for election. I suppose you're right that I would come in more often if the firm made clear that I won't make partner unless I show up more, but my point is that nobody at my V25 wants to do that. I could eat my words in a year, but I've received no indication from the powers that be that I will. YMMV at different firms.

I'm also not alone. There's someone else a few years my senior who is probably the best associate my group has had in a long time. A true star. (S)he doesn't come in unless there is a need (e.g., depos, client meetings, etc.). We talked about that and (s)he said the same thing - (s)he won't come in and that's final. So yes, we exist, and yes firms will cave to us. It's a gamble for sure, but firms don't want to lose their talent for mandatory RTO, even though it would have its benefits.

Reading comp. I don't think people like you / your pal don't exist, but I think you're outliers. I also think that this thread is drawing people w/ very strong anti-RTO views like moths to the flame. Finally, and I couldn't pass this up, lmfao at you thinking as a midlevel that your being told you have "strong partnership prospects" means anything more than a shout into the wind. Hope all of that helps.

[Anonymous User]

Reading comp. I don't think people like you / your pal don't exist, but I think you're outliers. I also think that this thread is drawing people w/ very strong anti-RTO views like moths to the flame. Finally, and I couldn't pass this up, lmfao at you thinking as a midlevel that your being told you have "strong partnership prospects" means anything more than a shout into the wind. Hope all of that helps.

Bro, if you'd just chill you'd see we sort of agree on a lot of this. The anti-RTO folks are trying to prove too much - 100%. But so were you on point 6, so just take the L and meet us in the middle.

Anyway, let's talk in a few years when I get shares and you're still a hopeless cynic. I'll take you out to a nice dinner and you can invite all the other strong performers that got fired for staying home.

[Anonymous User]

Reading comp. I don't think people like you / your pal don't exist, but I think you're outliers. I also think that this thread is drawing people w/ very strong anti-RTO views like moths to the flame. Finally, and I couldn't pass this up, lmfao at you thinking as a midlevel that your being told you have "strong partnership prospects" means anything more than a shout into the wind. Hope all of that helps.

Bro, if you'd just chill you'd see we sort of agree on a lot of this. The anti-RTO folks are trying to prove too much - 100%. But so were you on point 6, so just take the L and meet us in the middle.

Anyway, let's talk in a few years when I get shares and you're still a hopeless cynic. I'll take you out to a nice dinner and you can invite all the other strong performers that got fired for staying home.

I don't know what you're talking about about "point 6." Also who's not "chill" here, me stating facts that you don't like (you misread the prior post; you being told about your stellar performance as a midlevel is totally irrelevant to your path; there's likely selection effect going on w/ people coming into this thread who are strongly anti-RTO) or you turning it into some blowhard personal attack about how you're going to get shares and I'm a cynic and you'll take me to dinner. Cope.

[Anonymous User]

Reading comp. I don't think people like you / your pal don't exist, but I think you're outliers. I also think that this thread is drawing people w/ very strong anti-RTO views like moths to the flame. Finally, and I couldn't pass this up, lmfao at you thinking as a midlevel that your being told you have "strong partnership prospects" means anything more than a shout into the wind. Hope all of that helps.

Bro, if you'd just chill you'd see we sort of agree on a lot of this. The anti-RTO folks are trying to prove too much - 100%. But so were you on point 6, so just take the L and meet us in the middle.

Anyway, let's talk in a few years when I get shares and you're still a hopeless cynic. I'll take you out to a nice dinner and you can invite all the other strong performers that got fired for staying home.

I don't know what you're talking about about "point 6." Also who's not "chill" here, me stating facts that you don't like (you misread the prior post; you being told about your stellar performance as a midlevel is totally irrelevant to your path; there's likely selection effect going on w/ people coming into this thread who are strongly anti-RTO) or you turning it into some blowhard personal attack about how you're going to get shares and I'm a cynic and you'll take me to dinner. Cope.

Do you not understand how dumb the bolded sounds? LR, bud - just because something isn't sufficient doesn't mean it's irrelevant. In my group you can predict most people who will get shares by about Y5 or 6, with maybe a few exceptions. Sorry it's not as clear for you.

Anyway, your original point (which came without the caveats about outliers you've now added) that all the "strong performers" are going to (1) be told to shape up and then (2) cave because they are all "shiteatears" (your word) has been disproven with anecdotes as to both aspects, so I guess we can agree to disagree about who is or isn't an outlier. But the strongest performers in my office (me and that other associate) certainly call your view into question, and I haven't heard any anecdotes from you or others about strong performers getting cut because they didn't comply or complying because they fear for their job.

[GFox345]

The last sentence is such a cop out. lol As long as humans have existed, the older generation has complained about the younger generation not being as good for whatever reason was at-hand at the time. This narrative for millennials and Gen-Z existed long before the pandemic. If older people weren't saying this tired shit about WFH, they'd be saying it about something else (The phones are rotting their brains).

Here's the truth: (1) Most juniors have always sucked; (2) Some juniors have always been good; and (3) the miniscule amount of time you spend chatting in-person with them makes a *very* negligible difference in which category a given junior falls into. Everyone understands this. Indeed, the entire pyramid structure of big law fucking DEPENDS on it.

There is zero concrete evidence otherwise. In fact, law firm profits and client satisfaction are at all-time highs. Would you have us believe that's because mid-levels and seniors are working harder than ever before? Ridiculous.

Again, you can feel how you feel about it. But, from my perspective, bullshit ad hoc anecdotes can no longer serve as the basis for forcing people to take such a HUGE quality of life hit as compelling RTO.

And we're back to WFH fetishists dismissing actual anecdotes as not "concrete evidence" (whatever TF that is?) followed by an unsupported argument that their "perspective" is the only possible answer and everything else is "bullshit." This is exactly where that other RTO thread landed. I don't know why you think you have to prove all of this in response to literally every RTO supporter over the last two pages admitting that reasonable minds can differ on whether it's worth it.

First, SUPER brave anon. Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you. It's absurd to call me a "fetishist" when you're the one obsessed with where my ass happens to be located at any given time.

I'm not trying to invalidate your perspective. Feel however you want to feel. But, again, you're the one who wants to severely disrupt my lifestyle. Forgive me if I demand a little more than your ipse dixit that such a disruption is necessary.

Also, you're seriously asking what "concrete evidence" is? I don't know. Something other than your self-serving opinion that juniors are "just worse now." Higher junior associate firing rates? Lower billables? More client work fuckups? Higher midlevel dissatisfaction? Anything even somewhat measurable/objective?

[Anonymous User]

Is it okay if I'm against RTO because I love going to the office a couple times a week and taking massive dumps in the pristine bathrooms? Anon for obvious reasons.

[Excellent117]

Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you.

This is what it boils down to. People in favor of WFH just want to be able to choose for themselves, while the pro-RTO crowd wants mandated and enforced minimum weekly attendance. Now, why they want that requirement probably varies from person to person, but regardless of the reason, only one side of the debate is trying to push their preferred post-COVID office dynamics onto the other.

[gettingtokinda]

Is it okay if I'm against RTO because I love going to the office a couple times a week and taking massive dumps in the pristine bathrooms? Anon for obvious reasons.

the only acceptable reason to want to be in the office

[Anonymous User]

Second, I could not give less of a fuck whether you go into the office or not. All I'm asking for is the same courtesy from you.

This is what it boils down to. People in favor of WFH just want to be able to choose for themselves, while the pro-RTO crowd wants mandated and enforced minimum weekly attendance. Now, why they want that requirement probably varies from person to person, but regardless of the reason, only one side of the debate is trying to push their preferred post-COVID office dynamics onto the other.

It's not. You're relying on a cute semantic trick that lets you obfuscate all of the actual points of contention. If your premise that nothing in your job description requires working in the office is correct, then of course this is only an imposition on you. No shit. But focusing on the second part is leading with your conclusion, rather than engaging in the actual debate.

There are some who believe that parts of the job require in-person interaction. I won't reiterate what those parts are because they have been stated repeatedly ITT and you clearly don't want to discuss them. But the point is, by asking to work from home, you are indeed imposing your preferences on the rest of the office because it doesn't function properly without everyone there at least some of the time, including you (so special).

You might think you can do these things from home or even that they aren't your responsibility, but that doesn't have anything to do with who is inconveniencing whom - it's disagreeing about what the job entails. It would be silly for a car mechanic would say an "in-shop" requirement is imposing the boss's preferences on her/him. I get that lawyering is different from fixing cars, but if you actually want to convince someone on here then why don't you talk about how and how much.