Are biglaw offices in Bay area WFH now? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I will have an interview with one of biglaw offices in SV (Palo Alto/Menlo Park). Wondering if they are WFH now and, if so, how long it will last. Any inputs would be appreciated.

[Anonymous User]

I will have an interview with one of biglaw offices in SV (Palo Alto/Menlo Park). Wondering if they are WFH now and, if so, how long it will last. Any inputs would be appreciated.

Currently WFH and other firms are also to the best of my knowledge. I've heard a partner say they don't expect for us to go back until mid to late next year (though people may be able to start coming in to do one-off things like print and pick-up mail).

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

[Anonymous User]

You'd have to look at the articles and posts people have had on this topic to compile that list. I've heard Cooley is a good example of more lenient WFH.

[burritotaco]

I have several friends at big law firms in the Bay and all of them have worked remotely since March with no end in sight. The Bay is taking quarantine very seriously.

[Whatislaw]

I'd be curious myself to know which firms in the Bay are generally WFH friendly. I think OP is wondering which firms would likely force people back to the office at the first sight of COVID decreasing as opposed to when its safe?

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

[Whatislaw]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

That's pretty good. How is the work-life balance (assuming you're in a Bay Area office)? Any thoughts on firm job security, culture, and whether laterals should consider Goodwin given earlier stealth layoffs? (all without tipping your identity that is)

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

Same at Orrick. No timeline for returning to the office, even "optionally", and I think that's intentional. Think about it. No law firm wants to be the firm that returns before the rest of the pack and then has someone pass away from Covid. Just no upside to rushing back. I think there has to be a vaccine that starts to be distributed before firms even start thinking about returning in serious numbers.

[attorney589753]

I'd be curious myself to know which firms in the Bay are generally WFH friendly. I think OP is wondering which firms would likely force people back to the office at the first sight of COVID decreasing as opposed to when its safe?

At one of the larger Northern CA ones, and I would speculate it's basically all. No one that I know is going into offices here. When I speak to lawyers at other firms here, it sounds like the same thing. Bay area is generally WFH friendly plus super serious about COVID as mentioned.

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

That's pretty good. How is the work-life balance (assuming you're in a Bay Area office)? Any thoughts on firm job security, culture, and whether laterals should consider Goodwin given earlier stealth layoffs? (all without tipping your identity that is)

Goodwin anon from above. I'm in EC/VC, so my group has been slammed for the past few months. They're hiring like mad now to try to remedy that but there's still an enormous amount of work to go around.

re: the layoffs, impression is that the firm pushed out a number of associates who otherwise might have been able to skate for an additional year or two before being asked to leave and it was an overreaction to an expected downturn that was going to be inflicted by the pandemic. When that didn't happen, everyone remaining was left to hold the bag.

That being said, the group here is fantastic to work with and that does help take the edge off the sheer number of hours that folks are putting in. Partners/senior associates are uniformly supportive/helpful/understanding, the amount of work notwithstanding, and the culture was a big selling point in selecting the firm in lieu of a number of its peers in the area. Given that it appears that COVID is probably not going to result in a huge economic downturn, second/third waves aside (and even there, the Bay Area's seriousness in dealing with COVID as detailed in the thread helps to ameliorate some of that), I'd feel comfortable recommending that laterals come in -- certainly no shortage of work to go around.

Happy to PM to discuss more.

[Whatislaw]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

That's pretty good. How is the work-life balance (assuming you're in a Bay Area office)? Any thoughts on firm job security, culture, and whether laterals should consider Goodwin given earlier stealth layoffs? (all without tipping your identity that is)

Goodwin anon from above. I'm in EC/VC, so my group has been slammed for the past few months. They're hiring like mad now to try to remedy that but there's still an enormous amount of work to go around.

re: the layoffs, impression is that the firm pushed out a number of associates who otherwise might have been able to skate for an additional year or two before being asked to leave and it was an overreaction to an expected downturn that was going to be inflicted by the pandemic. When that didn't happen, everyone remaining was left to hold the bag.

That being said, the group here is fantastic to work with and that does help take the edge off the sheer number of hours that folks are putting in. Partners/senior associates are uniformly supportive/helpful/understanding, the amount of work notwithstanding, and the culture was a big selling point in selecting the firm in lieu of a number of its peers in the area. Given that it appears that COVID is probably not going to result in a huge economic downturn, second/third waves aside (and even there, the Bay Area's seriousness in dealing with COVID as detailed in the thread helps to ameliorate some of that), I'd feel comfortable recommending that laterals come in -- certainly no shortage of work to go around.

Happy to PM to discuss more.

Would love to get some insight when you have time!

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

That's pretty good. How is the work-life balance (assuming you're in a Bay Area office)? Any thoughts on firm job security, culture, and whether laterals should consider Goodwin given earlier stealth layoffs? (all without tipping your identity that is)

Goodwin anon from above. I'm in EC/VC, so my group has been slammed for the past few months. They're hiring like mad now to try to remedy that but there's still an enormous amount of work to go around.

re: the layoffs, impression is that the firm pushed out a number of associates who otherwise might have been able to skate for an additional year or two before being asked to leave and it was an overreaction to an expected downturn that was going to be inflicted by the pandemic. When that didn't happen, everyone remaining was left to hold the bag.

That being said, the group here is fantastic to work with and that does help take the edge off the sheer number of hours that folks are putting in. Partners/senior associates are uniformly supportive/helpful/understanding, the amount of work notwithstanding, and the culture was a big selling point in selecting the firm in lieu of a number of its peers in the area. Given that it appears that COVID is probably not going to result in a huge economic downturn, second/third waves aside (and even there, the Bay Area's seriousness in dealing with COVID as detailed in the thread helps to ameliorate some of that), I'd feel comfortable recommending that laterals come in -- certainly no shortage of work to go around.

Happy to PM to discuss more.

Would love to get some insight when you have time!

Sent a PM your way.

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

That's pretty good. How is the work-life balance (assuming you're in a Bay Area office)? Any thoughts on firm job security, culture, and whether laterals should consider Goodwin given earlier stealth layoffs? (all without tipping your identity that is)

Goodwin anon from above. I'm in EC/VC, so my group has been slammed for the past few months. They're hiring like mad now to try to remedy that but there's still an enormous amount of work to go around.

re: the layoffs, impression is that the firm pushed out a number of associates who otherwise might have been able to skate for an additional year or two before being asked to leave and it was an overreaction to an expected downturn that was going to be inflicted by the pandemic. When that didn't happen, everyone remaining was left to hold the bag.

That being said, the group here is fantastic to work with and that does help take the edge off the sheer number of hours that folks are putting in. Partners/senior associates are uniformly supportive/helpful/understanding, the amount of work notwithstanding, and the culture was a big selling point in selecting the firm in lieu of a number of its peers in the area. Given that it appears that COVID is probably not going to result in a huge economic downturn, second/third waves aside (and even there, the Bay Area's seriousness in dealing with COVID as detailed in the thread helps to ameliorate some of that), I'd feel comfortable recommending that laterals come in -- certainly no shortage of work to go around.

Happy to PM to discuss more.

Not trying to derail the thread for those looking for Bay Area firms but as another Goodwin corporate midlevel/senior I feel the need to correct the record on the layoffs the firm conducted in March and April of this year. It is demeaning to the many associates affected that includes a group of former associates I know personally to state that these were people that were "just skating by" or that were unqualified. It dismisses the many first hand accounts posted on this board and on Above the Law. These were not at all justified layoffs. From those I am personally familiar with this is a misleading way to characterize it and downplaying what actually occurred. Also it is absurd to characterize it that those who were not fired were left "holding the bag." What this poster is saying is that the partners that decided to fire dozens of associates at the first sign of a downturn were left "holding the bag" when the work rebounded quickly and there were not enough associates. Perhaps the firm could have avoided this self-inflicted issue by not firing what was reported on this board to be 50-100 associates?

To the opposite of this poster and as another person with comparable first hand experience, I'd strongly recommend that you really consider if this is the right choice and personally I would avoid. Six months ago the firm did not blink in firing several dozen associates when it appeared that there may be a temporary dip in profitability due to low associate utilization. Now they are scaling up again as if nothing ever happened and continuing to deny the layoffs happened. If this is something you are seriously considering I recommend that you search for other Goodwin related posts to get all the info and I would be cautious about accepting optimistic takes at face value. Especially when that person has self-interest in offering that optimism.

[RedGiant]

One thing that has not been mentioned here, but it is a thing for those of us doing return-to-office planning--in CA, Gov Newsom signed into law a pretty heavy-handed law that long-short--if you catch COVID and have been working at a workplace outside the home, your employer is presumptively liable. This is why most white-collar employers are not rushing large numbers of Californians (Bay Area or otherwise) back to work. Also, SF (city) only recently permitted higher office occupancy. So there's some teeth behind the "let's take this slow" beyond just wanting to quarantine.

I am in-house, but we use a variety of top-tier Valley firms, and trust, me--all of the partners and associates on my calls are at home for our zooms.

[Whatislaw]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

At Goodwin and don't think I ever felt particularly compelled to be physically in the office even pre-COVID. Firm's also shown zero indication that you'd be induced to going back into the office even when they open up (and firm leadership has indicated that even that opening up process would be on a limited basis, you'd need to fill out a waiver, wear a mask outside of your office, reserve your office ahead of time since there's only a certain number of folks allowed per floor, etc.).

That's pretty good. How is the work-life balance (assuming you're in a Bay Area office)? Any thoughts on firm job security, culture, and whether laterals should consider Goodwin given earlier stealth layoffs? (all without tipping your identity that is)

Goodwin anon from above. I'm in EC/VC, so my group has been slammed for the past few months. They're hiring like mad now to try to remedy that but there's still an enormous amount of work to go around.

re: the layoffs, impression is that the firm pushed out a number of associates who otherwise might have been able to skate for an additional year or two before being asked to leave and it was an overreaction to an expected downturn that was going to be inflicted by the pandemic. When that didn't happen, everyone remaining was left to hold the bag.

That being said, the group here is fantastic to work with and that does help take the edge off the sheer number of hours that folks are putting in. Partners/senior associates are uniformly supportive/helpful/understanding, the amount of work notwithstanding, and the culture was a big selling point in selecting the firm in lieu of a number of its peers in the area. Given that it appears that COVID is probably not going to result in a huge economic downturn, second/third waves aside (and even there, the Bay Area's seriousness in dealing with COVID as detailed in the thread helps to ameliorate some of that), I'd feel comfortable recommending that laterals come in -- certainly no shortage of work to go around.

Happy to PM to discuss more.

Not trying to derail the thread for those looking for Bay Area firms but as another Goodwin corporate midlevel/senior I feel the need to correct the record on the layoffs the firm conducted in March and April of this year. It is demeaning to the many associates affected that includes a group of former associates I know personally to state that these were people that were "just skating by" or that were unqualified. It dismisses the many first hand accounts posted on this board and on Above the Law. These were not at all justified layoffs. From those I am personally familiar with this is a misleading way to characterize it and downplaying what actually occurred. Also it is absurd to characterize it that those who were not fired were left "holding the bag." What this poster is saying is that the partners that decided to fire dozens of associates at the first sign of a downturn were left "holding the bag" when the work rebounded quickly and there were not enough associates. Perhaps the firm could have avoided this self-inflicted issue by not firing what was reported on this board to be 50-100 associates?

To the opposite of this poster and as another person with comparable first hand experience, I'd strongly recommend that you really consider if this is the right choice and personally I would avoid. Six months ago the firm did not blink in firing several dozen associates when it appeared that there may be a temporary dip in profitability due to low associate utilization. Now they are scaling up again as if nothing ever happened and continuing to deny the layoffs happened. If this is something you are seriously considering I recommend that you search for other Goodwin related posts to get all the info and I would be cautious about accepting optimistic takes at face value. Especially when that person has self-interest in offering that optimism.

Really appreciate you taking the time to share another perspective on the layoffs!

[Anonymous User]

You'd have to look at the articles and posts people have had on this topic to compile that list. I've heard Cooley is a good example of more lenient WFH.

Anonymous for hopefully obvious reasons. Agree Cooley is pretty lenient, though varies by practice group and who you're working with. The more senior you are, the more lenient. I mostly went into work because I was more productive there, but it was nice to know I had the option most days to just plug in and get my work done at home if needed. I've heard pretty similar things from lots of associates in the Bay Area, particularly SV satellite offices. (I interviewed a lateral once who said she wanted to go to a firm where more people actually came into work because it was lonely.)

[Mch99]

WSGR is working from home until Feb 2021, but the return seems like will be gradual with “groups” of people that want to go back first. Depending on the group, but the overall message from the top is that those uncomfortable with returning by that time don’t have to do so just yet.

[cisscum]

Any insight on gunderson?

[Anonymous User]

Work from home for most firms. The only thing I'd consider is which firms had a lenient work from home policy prior to COVID as that may be an indicator of whether they will be more amenable to a permanent or long-term work from home while COVID continues its rampage. I think returning to the offices mid-year is asking to get contaminated, but that's just me.

Which firms had a lenient policy?

I'm at Kirkland. Before COVID, most of the my group only came into the office 2-3 days of the week. Kirkland generally doesn't care where you do your work, just that you get it done.

[Anonymous User]

Any insight on gunderson?

Gunderson is WFH through at least Q1. Norcal offices have had a lenient WFH policy particularly for the general corp group before covid and it's reasonable to expect that policy to expand or at least remain the same after covid.

[Anonymous User]

Any insight on gunderson?

Gunderson is WFH through at least Q1. Norcal offices have had a lenient WFH policy particularly for the general corp group before covid and it's reasonable to expect that policy to expand or at least remain the same after covid.

My money's on 2 days a week "expectation" to be in the office as a general guideline across most bay area firms.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn Emanuel's Silicon Valley office was WFH well before the pandemic. On any given day, about half the office if not more was working from home. Partners and associates routinely worked from home for weeks at a time, perhaps coming in 5-10 times a month. I had one associate tell me he had worked from home for almost 5 months straight.