Top Law Schools

Please only add to this list if you know of a firm. Lets not make it a run-on thread of comments. A significant portion of us want WFH to be permanent. The only way to effect the market is to shun those who don't offer it. As associates we have power in where we choose to lateral and bring our talent. So far, having reviewed the various threads, these firms are offering permanent WFH or something similar:

(1) Cooley
(2) Goodwin
(3) Wilson Sonsini
(4) Kirkland (?)

Please update accordingly.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:36 pm

Please only add to this list if you know of a firm. Lets not make it a run-on thread of comments. A significant portion of us want WFH to be permanent. The only way to effect the market is to shun those who don't offer it. As associates we have power in where we choose to lateral and bring our talent. So far, having reviewed the various threads, these firms are offering permanent WFH or something similar:

(1) Cooley
(2) Goodwin
(3) Wilson Sonsini
(4) Kirkland (?)

Please update accordingly.

Is Goodwin offering permanent wfh? What does their pship track look like?

Can somebody get ATL to write about this the way that they write about bonuses? Feel like that’s the key here.

objctnyrhnr wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:12 pm

Can somebody get ATL to write about this the way that they write about bonuses? Feel like that’s the key here.

This.

Also, AboveTheLaw wrote their singular, most profound statement recently:

"What associates want (money, it’s always money)." https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/katten- ... onus-2021/. Please keep driving this point home, ATL. That's it. We don't want fancy trips or rolling back-packs. Give us the money to choose whether to buy those things or something else. Make sure firms get this through their noggins.

WFGhallager wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:52 am

objctnyrhnr wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:12 pm

Can somebody get ATL to write about this the way that they write about bonuses? Feel like that’s the key here.

This.

Also, AboveTheLaw wrote their singular, most profound statement recently:

"What associates want (money, it’s always money)." https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/katten- ... onus-2021/. Please keep driving this point home, ATL. That's it. We don't want fancy trips or rolling back-packs. Give us the money to choose whether to buy those things or something else. Make sure firms get this through their noggins.

I’d honestly rather make 20k/year less and have absolutely no pressure (even first subtly felt pressure) to go into the office ever.

Let’s shame “full return to office” firms the same way as we shame no bonus firms, firms that do layoffs, etc.

And let’s treat the full WFH announcement firms as if they are first movers to 200k.

Bumping this. I work in-house, was interested in lateraling to Goodwin, and live in a state where they don't have an office. I reached out to their recruiting team to see if they are hiring permanent remote associates -- looks like they're not.

Any other firms besides the ones listed above that are open to lateral remote associates?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 4:43 pm

Bumping this. I work in-house, was interested in lateraling to Goodwin, and live in a state where they don't have an office. I reached out to their recruiting team to see if they are hiring permanent remote associates -- looks like they're not.

Any other firms besides the ones listed above that are open to lateral remote associates?

I think there's a difference between being okay with being permanently remote and being okay with someone permanently remote in a state in which they do not have an office. That creates all sorts of tax issues for the partnership from what I've been told.

At least one of the firms listed in op have not announced any wfh policy. Take everything you read on these forums with a grain of salt.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 4:17 am

At least one of the firms listed in op have not announced any wfh policy. Take everything you read on these forums with a grain of salt.

i think it's based on hte fact that those firms have all had permanent WFH listings, and it would be odd to have those listings without a permanent WFH policy

jotarokujo wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 8:46 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 4:17 am

At least one of the firms listed in op have not announced any wfh policy. Take everything you read on these forums with a grain of salt.

i think it's based on hte fact that those firms have all had permanent WFH listings, and it would be odd to have those listings without a permanent WFH policy

Agreed. Someone above questioned whether Goodwin is offering permanent WFH, they certainly are, just in specific markets where they don't have an office.

Fenwick is doing this too.

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 9:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 4:43 pm

Bumping this. I work in-house, was interested in lateraling to Goodwin, and live in a state where they don't have an office. I reached out to their recruiting team to see if they are hiring permanent remote associates -- looks like they're not.

Any other firms besides the ones listed above that are open to lateral remote associates?

I think there's a difference between being okay with being permanently remote and being okay with someone permanently remote in a state in which they do not have an office. That creates all sorts of tax issues for the partnership from what I've been told.

This is bullshit. There are no real tax implications at the associate level (maybe at the partner level) -- as evident by many firms letting you work remotely in any state.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 10:04 am

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 9:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 4:43 pm

Bumping this. I work in-house, was interested in lateraling to Goodwin, and live in a state where they don't have an office. I reached out to their recruiting team to see if they are hiring permanent remote associates -- looks like they're not.

Any other firms besides the ones listed above that are open to lateral remote associates?

I think there's a difference between being okay with being permanently remote and being okay with someone permanently remote in a state in which they do not have an office. That creates all sorts of tax issues for the partnership from what I've been told.

This is bullshit. There are no real tax implications at the associate level (maybe at the partner level) -- as evident by many firms letting you work remotely in any state.

Yes...it affects the partnership tax. That's my point. Most firms don't want to deal with the tax implications that would affect every single partner at the firm because of one midlevel who wants to work remotely from a particular state.

jotarokujo wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 8:46 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 4:17 am

At least one of the firms listed in op have not announced any wfh policy. Take everything you read on these forums with a grain of salt.

i think it's based on hte fact that those firms have all had permanent WFH listings, and it would be odd to have those listings without a permanent WFH policy

Fair enough. It’s just odd to me that these firms are making these permanent wfh listings without making any formal announcements internally yet. Unless only new hires will be able to permanently wfh..

I’ve asked friends at Goodwin about the permanent remote positions (I was asking about a city that was listed as an option—Nashville). My friends were apprehensive about recommending it because they think the firm could easily fire us (remote associates) once work starts to slow down since we won’t really “know” any of the partners and no one will feel bad about firing us. One friend pointed out that the firm had no problem stealthing associates last year, so beware.

Even still, I asked more about it, and the recruiting manager I spoke with said that we’d be treated just like any other associate for promotion/bonus. I didn’t end up pursuing it because I’m more risk averse than others.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 2:08 pm

I’ve asked friends at Goodwin about the permanent remote positions (I was asking about a city that was listed as an option—Nashville). My friends were apprehensive about recommending it because they think the firm could easily fire us (remote associates) once work starts to slow down since we won’t really “know” any of the partners and no one will feel bad about firing us. One friend pointed out that the firm had no problem stealthing associates last year, so beware.

Even still, I asked more about it, and the recruiting manager I spoke with said that we’d be treated just like any other associate for promotion/bonus. I didn’t end up pursuing it because I’m more risk averse than others.

Goodwin mid-level here, and I feel compelled to respond to this. I do not feel like the firm is going to fire associates, and am surprised to keep seeing the narrative on here that Goodwin "stealthed" a bunch of associates. By all accounts, the firm is doing incredibly well and pretty openly let go of associates with poor performance reviews. The story caught fire in part because of timing, but anecdotally the two people I knew in my group (who got 6+ months of pay and indefinite time on the website) literally did not come to the office pre-COVID, avoided work, and ignored emails. I'm sure others may have had different circumstances so I don't mean to discount their experiences either, but it's frustrating seeing this come up again and again.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 2:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 2:08 pm

I’ve asked friends at Goodwin about the permanent remote positions (I was asking about a city that was listed as an option—Nashville). My friends were apprehensive about recommending it because they think the firm could easily fire us (remote associates) once work starts to slow down since we won’t really “know” any of the partners and no one will feel bad about firing us. One friend pointed out that the firm had no problem stealthing associates last year, so beware.

Even still, I asked more about it, and the recruiting manager I spoke with said that we’d be treated just like any other associate for promotion/bonus. I didn’t end up pursuing it because I’m more risk averse than others.

Goodwin mid-level here, and I feel compelled to respond to this. I do not feel like the firm is going to fire associates, and am surprised to keep seeing the narrative on here that Goodwin "stealthed" a bunch of associates. By all accounts, the firm is doing incredibly well and pretty openly let go of associates with poor performance reviews. The story caught fire in part because of timing, but anecdotally the two people I knew in my group (who got 6+ months of pay and indefinite time on the website) literally did not come to the office pre-COVID, avoided work, and ignored emails. I'm sure others may have had different circumstances so I don't mean to discount their experiences either, but it's frustrating seeing this come up again and again.

do you mean to say that goodwin's policy is going to be permanent wfh as much as you want, and that people shouldn't be apprehensive about doing so?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 2:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 2:08 pm

I’ve asked friends at Goodwin about the permanent remote positions (I was asking about a city that was listed as an option—Nashville). My friends were apprehensive about recommending it because they think the firm could easily fire us (remote associates) once work starts to slow down since we won’t really “know” any of the partners and no one will feel bad about firing us. One friend pointed out that the firm had no problem stealthing associates last year, so beware.

Even still, I asked more about it, and the recruiting manager I spoke with said that we’d be treated just like any other associate for promotion/bonus. I didn’t end up pursuing it because I’m more risk averse than others.

Goodwin mid-level here, and I feel compelled to respond to this. I do not feel like the firm is going to fire associates, and am surprised to keep seeing the narrative on here that Goodwin "stealthed" a bunch of associates. By all accounts, the firm is doing incredibly well and pretty openly let go of associates with poor performance reviews. The story caught fire in part because of timing, but anecdotally the two people I knew in my group (who got 6+ months of pay and indefinite time on the website) literally did not come to the office pre-COVID, avoided work, and ignored emails. I'm sure others may have had different circumstances so I don't mean to discount their experiences either, but it's frustrating seeing this come up again and again.

Quoted anon. I think it’s weird hearing all the different perspectives. People I know said that more people than normal were fired in March, then the firm went on a hiring spree in June which annoyed my friends who were drowning in work. Other alleged Goodwin associates on here mentioned that Goodwin fired juniors and midlevels with good reviews. I mean, the numbers speak for themselves. The firm is doing really well.

But my friends were pointing out the fact that the firm acted so quickly at the beginning of covid as a reason for concern.

Like I said, that didn’t stop me from reaching out. At the end of the day, law is a business like any other business. I have no loyalty to a firm (and neither should you).

EDIT —

I think Kirkland is also doing remote roles. I get emails from recruiters regularly saying that Kirkland will let associates work remotely. I’m not sure if it’s practice-specific, but I wanted to note that. I reached out to a recruiter to ask for specifics and will post an update if I get one.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 2:43 pm

I do not feel like the firm is going to fire associates, and am surprised to keep seeing the narrative on here that Goodwin "stealthed" a bunch of associates. By all accounts, the firm is doing incredibly well and pretty openly let go of associates with poor performance reviews. The story caught fire in part because of timing, but anecdotally the two people I knew in my group (who got 6+ months of pay and indefinite time on the website) literally did not come to the office pre-COVID, avoided work, and ignored emails. I'm sure others may have had different circumstances so I don't mean to discount their experiences either, but it's frustrating seeing this come up again and again.

Which office? I've heard too many anecdotes to the contrary by associates that SURVIVED the layoff. But the anecdotes are all from CA offices, hence curious. FYI I have no dog in this fight.

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 11:14 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 10:04 am

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 9:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 4:43 pm

Bumping this. I work in-house, was interested in lateraling to Goodwin, and live in a state where they don't have an office. I reached out to their recruiting team to see if they are hiring permanent remote associates -- looks like they're not.

Any other firms besides the ones listed above that are open to lateral remote associates?

I think there's a difference between being okay with being permanently remote and being okay with someone permanently remote in a state in which they do not have an office. That creates all sorts of tax issues for the partnership from what I've been told.

This is bullshit. There are no real tax implications at the associate level (maybe at the partner level) -- as evident by many firms letting you work remotely in any state.

Yes...it affects the partnership tax. That's my point. Most firms don't want to deal with the tax implications that would affect every single partner at the firm because of one midlevel who wants to work remotely from a particular state.

I think it only matters if the partner is working from that state, or at least in any substantial way. My firm greenlighted me WFH permanently in a state with no offices and I've seen more than a few other firms offering the same from recruiters. If anything, we've just had a year of exactly this and at the associate level, it has not really been an issue.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 3:57 pm

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 11:14 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 10:04 am

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 9:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon May 17, 2021 4:43 pm

Bumping this. I work in-house, was interested in lateraling to Goodwin, and live in a state where they don't have an office. I reached out to their recruiting team to see if they are hiring permanent remote associates -- looks like they're not.

Any other firms besides the ones listed above that are open to lateral remote associates?

I think there's a difference between being okay with being permanently remote and being okay with someone permanently remote in a state in which they do not have an office. That creates all sorts of tax issues for the partnership from what I've been told.

This is bullshit. There are no real tax implications at the associate level (maybe at the partner level) -- as evident by many firms letting you work remotely in any state.

Yes...it affects the partnership tax. That's my point. Most firms don't want to deal with the tax implications that would affect every single partner at the firm because of one midlevel who wants to work remotely from a particular state.

I think it only matters if the partner is working from that state, or at least in any substantial way. My firm greenlighted me WFH permanently in a state with no offices and I've seen more than a few other firms offering the same from recruiters. If anything, we've just had a year of exactly this and at the associate level, it has not really been an issue.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I was explicitly told this was an issue and other non-partners were told this was an issue. They wouldn't care if you were working in upstate NY, but if you were gonna be permanent in Iowa that would cause problems.

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 4:25 pm

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I was explicitly told this was an issue and other non-partners were told this was an issue. They wouldn't care if you were working in upstate NY, but if you were gonna be permanent in Iowa that would cause problems.

Yep, my NYC firm said the same. Then I said I am leaving if I can't work from home from [other state where they have no office] permanently. They looked into it and no material tax issues, and minor bar issues were all there were.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 5:39 pm

lolwutpar wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 4:25 pm

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I was explicitly told this was an issue and other non-partners were told this was an issue. They wouldn't care if you were working in upstate NY, but if you were gonna be permanent in Iowa that would cause problems.

Yep, my NYC firm said the same. Then I said I am leaving if I can't work from home from [other state where they have no office] permanently. They looked into it and no material tax issues, and minor bar issues were all there were.

This. There definitely are tax issues but they aren’t a big deal.

Wanted to submit a lateral application to Fenwick for working remotely and was told no remote associates once the firm re-opens.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Tue May 18, 2021 7:57 pm

Wanted to submit a lateral application to Fenwick for working remotely and was told no remote associates once the firm re-opens.

Did Fenwick spokesperson tell you that or heard from recruiter?