Formal WFH policies Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
ConfusedNYer

New
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:45 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by ConfusedNYer » Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:25 pm

lolwutpar wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:42 pm
With how greedy firms/partners are, I'm kind of surprised so many are pushing for a return to the office. A more flexible system and "hotel" style offices like big accounting would save them so much $$$ in office rent I thought these cheap fucks would be all over it.
Very few firms are likely in a position to take advantage of this (at least in major cities where this cost is going to be particularly high.) Most firms have multi-year leases, including potentially 10+ year leases. In fact, I imagine a non-negligible force behind the push to get back in the office is because of the leases in certain situations.

Think about those firms that just moved into/are moving into Hudson Yards for example. I bet there are more than a few partners grumbling about how they're paying so much for those new, nice spaces and nobody is actually using them, and I doubt that grumbling goes away.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre

Gold
Posts: 2479
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Monochromatic Oeuvre » Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:02 pm

lolwutpar wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:42 pm
With how greedy firms/partners are, I'm kind of surprised so many are pushing for a return to the office. A more flexible system and "hotel" style offices like big accounting would save them so much $$$ in office rent I thought these cheap fucks would be all over it.
It's never been just about money. It's a misconception to think of law firms running like a profit-maximizing business rather than as the collected desires of a group of millionaires. There's not a business reason firms love to lease expensive spaces on the 50th floor of skyscrapers overlooking Central Park or the water (and no, it's not to "impress" clients who never meet in person anymore anyway) or why firms give them all thousands of dollars to renovate their offices with nice furniture and stuff. So it doesn't really matter if WFH saves a lot of money if the people calling the shots think having everyone in the office flatters their sense of tradition and their desire to be "overseers of productivity" and kings of the castle. Of course money matters (especially if it can just be taken from you!), but feeling important and/or powerful is usually a stronger motivator for people.

OsamaJerry

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 8:48 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by OsamaJerry » Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:02 pm

I think you are all right. It's a combination of what you said. First, they're locked in to super expensive leases so they have the darn space until like 2050. Second, they think that having an office with bodies in it all the time will give them some competitive edge (it won't). Third, they get meaning in their miserable lives by having a group of associates kiss their ass in person. Fourth, a lot of them like to cause suffering to others.

Would permanent WFH be amazing and allow most of us to stay in this job long term? Yes. But I doubt these old white men who have been at the top of these firms since the 80s/90s are gonna care. I think WFH actually has a positive impact on people's lives (even the ones who don't want it). Think of it this way, if you're a sad, lonely, associate with no friends living in a 500sqft apartment in Manhattan, WFH gives you the liberty to go places and meet people and make friends and live your life. Work is not life. They're separate things people. Who in their right mind would want less time to live your life (see friends, family, your kids, your SO, go for a walk, jog, workout, do a hobby)? WFH really just gives you time you didn't have before. And for the people who say (I get calls at 8 a.m. now blahblhablha) yeah that is true, but those calls end, and when they end you can see your kids, spouse, step outside, or do a bunch of other things (assuming you don't have work due at that moment). The people who want to go back into the office are either: (1) partners with sad lives; (2) fresh associates that think they need to smell a partner's gas to learn; (3) retards.

MarcusH

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:06 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by MarcusH » Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:17 am

OsamaJerry wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:02 pm
I think you are all right. It's a combination of what you said. First, they're locked in to super expensive leases so they have the darn space until like 2050. Second, they think that having an office with bodies in it all the time will give them some competitive edge (it won't). Third, they get meaning in their miserable lives by having a group of associates kiss their ass in person. Fourth, a lot of them like to cause suffering to others.

Would permanent WFH be amazing and allow most of us to stay in this job long term? Yes. But I doubt these old white men who have been at the top of these firms since the 80s/90s are gonna care. I think WFH actually has a positive impact on people's lives (even the ones who don't want it). Think of it this way, if you're a sad, lonely, associate with no friends living in a 500sqft apartment in Manhattan, WFH gives you the liberty to go places and meet people and make friends and live your life. Work is not life. They're separate things people. Who in their right mind would want less time to live your life (see friends, family, your kids, your SO, go for a walk, jog, workout, do a hobby)? WFH really just gives you time you didn't have before. And for the people who say (I get calls at 8 a.m. now blahblhablha) yeah that is true, but those calls end, and when they end you can see your kids, spouse, step outside, or do a bunch of other things (assuming you don't have work due at that moment). The people who want to go back into the office are either: (1) partners with sad lives; (2) fresh associates that think they need to smell a partner's gas to learn; (3) retards.
I disagree with (3), much easier to buy GME from home than at the office ;) (traders with lax formal securities trading policies unite).

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:02 pm

Sadly I am pessimistic about this one.

I've already had conversations with partners who have told me there's (unofficially of course) an expectation that associates will make their way back into the office after receiving their second jab of the vaccine. So that is really a timeframe of the next month or so.

It was also suggested that I make preparations to move back to Manhattan in an apartment within a 10-15 minute radius of the office. Apparently that's the best bet to see my kids in the evening. No exaggeration as I raised this point during the conversation.

Their justifications were fairly lame. I won't repeat them in case its too revealing but I'm sure you get the gist. Doubt I'm alone, there's likely to be a number of people facing similar pressures. The only exception that I'm hearing is where partners have themselves moved outside of NYC and found a whole new lease on life.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:02 pm
Sadly I am pessimistic about this one.

I've already had conversations with partners who have told me there's (unofficially of course) an expectation that associates will make their way back into the office after receiving their second jab of the vaccine. So that is really a timeframe of the next month or so.

It was also suggested that I make preparations to move back to Manhattan in an apartment within a 10-15 minute radius of the office. Apparently that's the best bet to see my kids in the evening. No exaggeration as I raised this point during the conversation.

Their justifications were fairly lame. I won't repeat them in case its too revealing but I'm sure you get the gist. Doubt I'm alone, there's likely to be a number of people facing similar pressures. The only exception that I'm hearing is where partners have themselves moved outside of NYC and found a whole new lease on life.
Sounds like it is time for you to lateral.

jotarokujo

Bronze
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:23 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by jotarokujo » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:02 pm
Sadly I am pessimistic about this one.

I've already had conversations with partners who have told me there's (unofficially of course) an expectation that associates will make their way back into the office after receiving their second jab of the vaccine. So that is really a timeframe of the next month or so.

It was also suggested that I make preparations to move back to Manhattan in an apartment within a 10-15 minute radius of the office. Apparently that's the best bet to see my kids in the evening. No exaggeration as I raised this point during the conversation.

Their justifications were fairly lame. I won't repeat them in case its too revealing but I'm sure you get the gist. Doubt I'm alone, there's likely to be a number of people facing similar pressures. The only exception that I'm hearing is where partners have themselves moved outside of NYC and found a whole new lease on life.
how many days per week wfh permanently do you think?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:07 pm

Cooley, Goodwin, Fenwick, Kirkland and WSGR are allowing for remote postings which appear permanent. Screw that firm. Spend time with your kids.

User avatar
lolwutpar

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:13 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by lolwutpar » Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:14 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:02 pm
It was also suggested that I make preparations to move back to Manhattan in an apartment within a 10-15 minute radius of the office. Apparently that's the best bet to see my kids in the evening. No exaggeration as I raised this point during the conversation.
I can't imagine telling someone that with a straight face. Truly awful people in this industry.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:34 pm

Alright listen. This is what I imagine would be best. I'm a midlevel at a V10 in NYC. I fucking hate commuting. I have a kid. I have a life. Fuck going back to the office.

This is how it should be: First years should be required to come in 3 days a week. After that it should be at your discretion 2 years and on. The reason I say this is because first years are the only ones bitching and moaning about face time. I know a crabby old partner who doesn't even want to go back to the office. The key to a happy life is freedom. Open the offices back up. I don't give a shit. Just let me come in when I need to, which based on the fact that I billed more this past year than ever and I've been much more productive and happier, means NEVER. FUCK! Courts should go virtual, meetings should go virtual. Think about it - what the fuck were we thinking having an army of attorneys fly around the country for hearings and depositions when you can do it just as effectively from the comfort of your home or anywhere. It's stupid. Companies don't want to pay for 10 to 20 attorneys (billing at $1000/hour on average) to fly to a city in bumfuck midwest flyover country and put them in 5 star hotels and pay for their food and other shit. It's dumb as hell. Hopefully things change.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by nixy » Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:36 pm

Pretty sure from what’s getting posted here that there are lots of 1st years who don’t want to go back and lots of partners who do.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by objctnyrhnr » Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:00 pm

Feel like my take on mandatory show-up-at-office policies lines up with my take on other issues:

If you don’t like abortion, don’t get an abortion.

If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry somebody your own gender.

If you don’t want to work from home, don’t work from home.

But don’t try to make me do (or not do) something against my will when it has absolutely no effect on you at all, purely because it makes you feel better for some ridiculous reason.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:15 pm

Poster above told to live within 10-15 min of office so you can see your children. Pleaseeee let us all know what firm this is so we can avoid at all costs.

That is possibly the worst thing I’ve ever heard. WFH is here to stay. Firms like this will have an exodus (unless they are not exposed)....

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:22 pm

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

The firm said in March that it had launched a task force to evaluate the timing of a wide-scale return to the office as well as the future of virtual work, but any changes won’t happen until June 30 at the earliest.
Cahill Gordon & Reindel

Lawyers and staff are not expected to return to the office until January 2022, firm leader William Hartnett said in late March.

Milbank
Chairman Scott Edelman said he doesn’t expect a mandatory return to office until September at the earliest, “but as people get vaccinated, we are encouraging them to start coming back in the office, and we’re starting to see a pickup.”

Nixon Peabody

The firm said it is targeting a July 6 return, although it will reevaluate at the end of May. If the firm decides to not return in July, it expects to push the date to September.

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Chairman and CEO Mitch Zuklie said he’s optimistic about returning around Labor Day in September, but that the firm hasn’t made a final decision yet.

Perkins Coie

Firm personnel can continue working remotely until October, per an April 9 announcement. Amid plans for a 24% contraction in the firm’s total footprint, the firm plans to adopt a “hybrid workplace” working model allowing a mix of in-office and remote work in October. That will mean a mix of office sharing, hoteling and reverse hoteling for many in the firm, according to a March interview.

Ropes & Gray

The firm in March said that its current policy of “permissive office usage” in the firm’s U.S. offices will continue until Labor Day. Chairwoman Julie Jones said she’s optimistic the continued rollout of vaccines will make it possible to resume working together in person even in advance of Sept. 6.

Sanford Heisler Sharp


A-ListBOOK


Get More Information

Chairman David Sanford said in an email to the firm that beginning June 1, all offices will be officially open, and everyone will be “welcome to return for as much or as little as you like.” Everyone returning to the office beginning June 1 is required to be vaccinated and will continue to follow COVID-19 safety protocols.

Beginning Sept. 9, Sanford wrote, “everyone will be expected to work in the office for at least some of the week.”

“Please plan on being in the office and, therefore, plan on moving back to the city of your assigned office by September 7 and making any logistical and practical arrangements necessary to ensure your physical presence in the office,” the email said.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

The firm will not require its attorneys to return to the office through 2021.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

The firm will not require its attorneys to return to the office through 2021.

objctnyrhnr

Moderator
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by objctnyrhnr » Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:22 pm
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

The firm said in March that it had launched a task force to evaluate the timing of a wide-scale return to the office as well as the future of virtual work, but any changes won’t happen until June 30 at the earliest.
Cahill Gordon & Reindel

Lawyers and staff are not expected to return to the office until January 2022, firm leader William Hartnett said in late March.

Milbank
Chairman Scott Edelman said he doesn’t expect a mandatory return to office until September at the earliest, “but as people get vaccinated, we are encouraging them to start coming back in the office, and we’re starting to see a pickup.”

Nixon Peabody

The firm said it is targeting a July 6 return, although it will reevaluate at the end of May. If the firm decides to not return in July, it expects to push the date to September.

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Chairman and CEO Mitch Zuklie said he’s optimistic about returning around Labor Day in September, but that the firm hasn’t made a final decision yet.

Perkins Coie

Firm personnel can continue working remotely until October, per an April 9 announcement. Amid plans for a 24% contraction in the firm’s total footprint, the firm plans to adopt a “hybrid workplace” working model allowing a mix of in-office and remote work in October. That will mean a mix of office sharing, hoteling and reverse hoteling for many in the firm, according to a March interview.

Ropes & Gray

The firm in March said that its current policy of “permissive office usage” in the firm’s U.S. offices will continue until Labor Day. Chairwoman Julie Jones said she’s optimistic the continued rollout of vaccines will make it possible to resume working together in person even in advance of Sept. 6.

Sanford Heisler Sharp


A-ListBOOK


Get More Information

Chairman David Sanford said in an email to the firm that beginning June 1, all offices will be officially open, and everyone will be “welcome to return for as much or as little as you like.” Everyone returning to the office beginning June 1 is required to be vaccinated and will continue to follow COVID-19 safety protocols.

Beginning Sept. 9, Sanford wrote, “everyone will be expected to work in the office for at least some of the week.”

“Please plan on being in the office and, therefore, plan on moving back to the city of your assigned office by September 7 and making any logistical and practical arrangements necessary to ensure your physical presence in the office,” the email said.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

The firm will not require its attorneys to return to the office through 2021.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

The firm will not require its attorneys to return to the office through 2021.
This is awesome. Provide to ATL? Try to get some momentum behind this thing in a hot lateral market and in anticipation of OCI in a few months?

Feels like this is in our (associates’) hands now. Firms match bonuses because they have to, due to market pressure. Let’s try to pressure them to match favorable/permissive/flexible WFH policies going forward.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:07 pm
Cooley, Goodwin, Fenwick, Kirkland and WSGR are allowing for remote postings which appear permanent. Screw that firm. Spend time with your kids.
I'm an incoming first year at one of the firms you listed. The partners I've spoken to have assured me that while we won't be able to work full time or even majority time remote, we will have a pretty large amount of flexibility to WFH moving forward. I straight up asked if I could do ~25% remote and everyone I spoke to said it shouldn't be an issue.

jotarokujo

Bronze
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:23 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by jotarokujo » Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:07 pm
Cooley, Goodwin, Fenwick, Kirkland and WSGR are allowing for remote postings which appear permanent. Screw that firm. Spend time with your kids.
I'm an incoming first year at one of the firms you listed. The partners I've spoken to have assured me that while we won't be able to work full time or even majority time remote, we will have a pretty large amount of flexibility to WFH moving forward. I straight up asked if I could do ~25% remote and everyone I spoke to said it shouldn't be an issue.
that would suggest that employees hired through those postings for permanent remote will be treated differently than others which seems somewhat odd

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:01 pm

jotarokujo wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:50 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:07 pm
Cooley, Goodwin, Fenwick, Kirkland and WSGR are allowing for remote postings which appear permanent. Screw that firm. Spend time with your kids.
I'm an incoming first year at one of the firms you listed. The partners I've spoken to have assured me that while we won't be able to work full time or even majority time remote, we will have a pretty large amount of flexibility to WFH moving forward. I straight up asked if I could do ~25% remote and everyone I spoke to said it shouldn't be an issue.
that would suggest that employees hired through those postings for permanent remote will be treated differently than others which seems somewhat odd
I think there will be a gap between "official policy" and what's being negotiated between firms and associates (particularly mid-level and seniors) on an individual basis.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:17 pm

Any mid-seniors here negotiated full-time WFH? I'm looking to take that step soon. My department is bleeding basically associates at every level and I have some built-up good-will so this is the most leverage I will ever have.

Anyone know how taxes work for full time WFH as well? I am guessing if you are NY/MA based office, you are screwed but if you are based out of most other states, you aren't paying the state tax of where your office is based.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:40 pm

jotarokujo wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:50 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:07 pm
Cooley, Goodwin, Fenwick, Kirkland and WSGR are allowing for remote postings which appear permanent. Screw that firm. Spend time with your kids.
I'm an incoming first year at one of the firms you listed. The partners I've spoken to have assured me that while we won't be able to work full time or even majority time remote, we will have a pretty large amount of flexibility to WFH moving forward. I straight up asked if I could do ~25% remote and everyone I spoke to said it shouldn't be an issue.
that would suggest that employees hired through those postings for permanent remote will be treated differently than others which seems somewhat odd
OP here. I was basically told that as I get more senior, I'll be able to work from home more, but at an entry level I should "err on the side of being in more than out" so I can get to know people, get trained, etc. So I think if the postings are for mid-senior levels, that it's pretty legit.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:40 pm
jotarokujo wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:50 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:58 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:07 pm
Cooley, Goodwin, Fenwick, Kirkland and WSGR are allowing for remote postings which appear permanent. Screw that firm. Spend time with your kids.
I'm an incoming first year at one of the firms you listed. The partners I've spoken to have assured me that while we won't be able to work full time or even majority time remote, we will have a pretty large amount of flexibility to WFH moving forward. I straight up asked if I could do ~25% remote and everyone I spoke to said it shouldn't be an issue.
that would suggest that employees hired through those postings for permanent remote will be treated differently than others which seems somewhat odd
OP here. I was basically told that as I get more senior, I'll be able to work from home more, but at an entry level I should "err on the side of being in more than out" so I can get to know people, get trained, etc. So I think if the postings are for mid-senior levels, that it's pretty legit.
I don't think that is terrible advice, even if it is not an official policy. When you are more senior, you have relationships already with folks at your firm, and it is easier to maintain existing relationships remotely. Establishing new ones is hard, and much easier to do in person. There is I think something to be said for forcing yourself to get "facetime" as a 1st or 2nd year, not because anyone else is making you, but because its the best thing for you to do for your career.

I can say at least with my firm, the strongest pressure to have people come back into the office is actually coming from the first years (not the partners), for this reason.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:17 pm
Any mid-seniors here negotiated full-time WFH? I'm looking to take that step soon. My department is bleeding basically associates at every level and I have some built-up good-will so this is the most leverage I will ever have.

Anyone know how taxes work for full time WFH as well? I am guessing if you are NY/MA based office, you are screwed but if you are based out of most other states, you aren't paying the state tax of where your office is based.
I have not done it, but I know a senior associate that did for a long while (until she left for a pretty sweetheart consulting gig). I can tell you she still spent a lot of time on the road as she was litigation, before the rise of the remote deposition. But we made it work, and by all accounts she would have been able to make partner remotely if she had stayed.

I am pretty sure (not positive) where the tax implications become a real issue is at the share partner level, as I think (not a tax lawyer) the partnership has to pay taxes wherever there is a partner.

WFGhallager

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by WFGhallager » Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:48 pm

OsamaJerry wrote:
Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:02 pm
they think that having an office with bodies in it all the time will give them some competitive edge (it won't).
This is so obvious, and yet somehow partners want us back. Why force people to go back when all you're doing is losing massive work hours for employees commuting and doing other activity to get ready for work that other firms won't be losing?
nixy wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:36 pm
Pretty sure from what’s getting posted here that there are lots of 1st years who don’t want to go back and lots of partners who do.
Also, this. Please dumbass midlevels and higher, stop assuming all first years want to go back. I don't. Only the dumb first years who think associate life is like the summer program want to go back. And I think they've realized by now that it is not and have probably stopped saying they miss face time.

If you want to socialize, make non-work friends using the limited free time you get while WFH. Don't squander this by making us all go back.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:53 pm

Heard from several partners in Latham SF/SV that at least those offices plan on switching to hotelling, which essentially requires a very lenient WFH policy.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428122
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Formal WFH policies

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:43 am

Well, very unfortunately S&C is expecting people and summers to go back to the office on July 6. Looks like no official WFH policy for this one.

I'm a first year and I totoally enjoy WFH and even started thinking about lateral...not good for my career I know but boy I want a life.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”