Avoiding RTO Forum

[nixy]

Some of the best mentoring I received was sitting around with partners waiting for depositions to start, or going in the cab to the courthouse, or hanging out in a conference room waiting for a client to arrive -- these were organic ways for me to ask general questions, whether about thoughts on career development, or broader case strategy, or why we filed X motion when we did rather than Y motion.

Ironically, every thing you just mentioned would still happen for remote lit associates. Fully remote would still mean attending depositions, or hearings, or client meetings - it would just mean that the day-to-day eventless work would happen from home instead of from the office.

Okay, I'm confused. You're saying that "fully remote" would involve leaving your house and going to these experiences physically anyway, so you can still get those best of both? I suppose that's true (mostly - if you're coming from different directions and leaving to different directions, it cuts out some of the interaction), but that's not going to placate the 100% WFH people who want to be able to live in a different city or work while traveling the world.

[Anonymous User]

Some of the best mentoring I received was sitting around with partners waiting for depositions to start, or going in the cab to the courthouse, or hanging out in a conference room waiting for a client to arrive -- these were organic ways for me to ask general questions, whether about thoughts on career development, or broader case strategy, or why we filed X motion when we did rather than Y motion.

Ironically, every thing you just mentioned would still happen for remote lit associates. Fully remote would still mean attending depositions, or hearings, or client meetings - it would just mean that the day-to-day eventless work would happen from home instead of from the office.

This also happens waiting for / packing up from regular team meetings, interacting at the watercooler, stopping by someone's office, etc.

For me, conversations waiting for everyone to join a Zoom call are awkward and forced. But those same conversations waiting for everyone to arrive at an in person meeting were one of the best (and most insightful parts) of my day pre-pandemic. And they would continue as we walked back to our offices, whereas we all just hang up and leave from a Zoom when it's over.

[Anonymous User]

Some of the best mentoring I received was sitting around with partners waiting for depositions to start, or going in the cab to the courthouse, or hanging out in a conference room waiting for a client to arrive -- these were organic ways for me to ask general questions, whether about thoughts on career development, or broader case strategy, or why we filed X motion when we did rather than Y motion.

Ironically, every thing you just mentioned would still happen for remote lit associates. Fully remote would still mean attending depositions, or hearings, or client meetings - it would just mean that the day-to-day eventless work would happen from home instead of from the office.

Not necessarily -- a lot of depos and court appearances are remote now. Many juniors choose to attend remotely too, even when the partners/seniors are in the office together, doing the zoom in a conference room. Their choice, but an example of a possible lost opportunity.

[Anonymous User]

Some of the best mentoring I received was sitting around with partners waiting for depositions to start, or going in the cab to the courthouse, or hanging out in a conference room waiting for a client to arrive -- these were organic ways for me to ask general questions, whether about thoughts on career development, or broader case strategy, or why we filed X motion when we did rather than Y motion.

Ironically, every thing you just mentioned would still happen for remote lit associates. Fully remote would still mean attending depositions, or hearings, or client meetings - it would just mean that the day-to-day eventless work would happen from home instead of from the office.

Not necessarily -- a lot of depos and court appearances are remote now. Many juniors choose to attend remotely too, even when the partners/seniors are in the office together, doing the zoom in a conference room. Their choice, but an example of a possible lost opportunity.

The same is true for client meetings, hearings, etc. Even conference calls in the before times. If you can do it in somebody's office with them, there's a chance to talk about it after, or put it on mute and discuss. And maybe you talk a bit before. You're losing those interactions.

[Anonymous User]

Some of the best mentoring I received was sitting around with partners waiting for depositions to start, or going in the cab to the courthouse, or hanging out in a conference room waiting for a client to arrive -- these were organic ways for me to ask general questions, whether about thoughts on career development, or broader case strategy, or why we filed X motion when we did rather than Y motion.

Ironically, every thing you just mentioned would still happen for remote lit associates. Fully remote would still mean attending depositions, or hearings, or client meetings - it would just mean that the day-to-day eventless work would happen from home instead of from the office.

This also happens waiting for / packing up from regular team meetings, interacting at the watercooler, stopping by someone's office, etc.

For me, conversations waiting for everyone to join a Zoom call are awkward and forced. But those same conversations waiting for everyone to arrive at an in person meeting were one of the best (and most insightful parts) of my day pre-pandemic. And they would continue as we walked back to our offices, whereas we all just hang up and leave from a Zoom when it's over.

Is this really what we're arguing over? Small talk, whether it's waiting for an in-person meeting or waiting for a zoom call, is generally awkward and forced. The more and more I hear from the RTO crowd, the more it sounds like they just want their in-office social life back. This is like forcing everyone in college to join a frat/sorority. The people that love the social aspects of college are going to love it, while the people who just want to go to class, get their work done, study and go home/meet up their friends/family have to suffer. Sure, there may be a few peripheral benefits like networking and study groups, just like those ever so important water cooler conversations at the office, but let's stop pretending like these things significantly increase the quality of our work-product, which is the reason why we're employed; i.e., to produce quality work. Like most other things in the world, RTO should be 100% optional.

[Anonymous User]

Is this really what we're arguing over? Small talk, whether it's waiting for an in-person meeting or waiting for a zoom call, is generally awkward and forced. The more and more I hear from the RTO crowd, the more it sounds like they just want their in-office social life back. This is like forcing everyone in college to join a frat/sorority. The people that love the social aspects of college are going to love it, while the people who just want to go to class, get their work done, study and go home/meet up their friends/family have to suffer. Sure, there may be a few peripheral benefits like networking and study groups, just like those ever so important water cooler conversations at the office, but let's stop pretending like these things significantly increase the quality of our work-product, which is the reason why we're employed; i.e., to produce quality work. Like most other things in the world, RTO should be 100% optional.

Can we quit it with the strawmen? Of course there is a meaningful distinction between "small talk" and mentoring. They may occur in similar situations, but the former is not an good reason for RTO whereas the later is. As reported time and time again ITT, the later also increases the quality of work product. I am a much better attorney (and produce higher quality work) because I had the opportunity to interact with my colleagues in-person when I was a junior. They offered strategic advice in the hallways or in their office that I would not have sought out with a Zoom call. I don't know how many times people have to post about their personal experiences benefiting from in-person interactions or about juniors falling behind for you WFH fetishists to get that.

Let me go through a quick logic lesson here. Assume person A benefits from X but person B does not. Person A can make the general statement that there are benefits from X by citing to their own anecdotes as an example. But Person B cannot make the general statement that there are no benefits from X by citing to their own anecdotes as an example. You WFH folks continue to seek to prove too much from your personal experiences.

I also think you disprove your point by broadening this out to college, etc. If college were just about listening to lectures, then we could all just get what we need from YouTube videos?

[Anonymous User]

delete

[Anonymous User]

Can we quit it with the strawmen? Of course there is a meaningful distinction between "small talk" and mentoring. They may occur in similar situations, but the former is not an good reason for RTO whereas the later is. As reported time and time again ITT, the later also increases the quality of work product. I am a much better attorney (and produce higher quality work) because I had the opportunity to interact with my colleagues in-person when I was a junior. They offered strategic advice in the hallways or in their office that I would not have sought out with a Zoom call. I don't know how many times people have to post about their personal experiences benefiting from in-person interactions or about juniors falling behind for you WFH fetishists to get that.

Let me go through a quick logic lesson here. Assume person A benefits from X but person B does not. Person A can make the general statement that there are benefits from X by citing to their own anecdotes as an example. But Person B cannot make the general statement that there are no benefits from X by citing to their own anecdotes as an example. You WFH folks continue to seek to prove too much from your personal experiences.

I also think you disprove your point by broadening this out to college, etc. If college were just about listening to lectures, then we could all just get what we need from YouTube videos?

For most degrees, yes. Not sure if this is news to you, but there are many people who don't go to class (in both UG and law school) and pull cum laude or better all the time.

I also don't see how your argument disproves that RTO should be 100% optional. The people who want this form of "mentoring" can go to the office and get it from the people who want to provide it. And the people who don't want to participate can stay home and get their work done and whatever else just like they've done the past two years. This is probably how it was pre-pandemic anyway, except instead of people sitting in their home communicating with people via zoom/teams/phone, they sat in their office with the door closed and communicated with people via teams/phone.

[clarion]

Can we quit it with the strawmen? Of course there is a meaningful distinction between "small talk" and mentoring. They may occur in similar situations, but the former is not an good reason for RTO whereas the later is. As reported time and time again ITT, the later also increases the quality of work product. I am a much better attorney (and produce higher quality work) because I had the opportunity to interact with my colleagues in-person when I was a junior. They offered strategic advice in the hallways or in their office that I would not have sought out with a Zoom call. I don't know how many times people have to post about their personal experiences benefiting from in-person interactions or about juniors falling behind for you WFH fetishists to get that.

Let me go through a quick logic lesson here. Assume person A benefits from X but person B does not. Person A can make the general statement that there are benefits from X by citing to their own anecdotes as an example. But Person B cannot make the general statement that there are no benefits from X by citing to their own anecdotes as an example. You WFH folks continue to seek to prove too much from your personal experiences.

I also think you disprove your point by broadening this out to college, etc. If college were just about listening to lectures, then we could all just get what we need from YouTube videos?

For most degrees, yes. Not sure if this is news to you, but there are many people who don't go to class (in both UG and law school) and pull cum laude or better all the time.

I also don't see how your argument disproves that RTO should be 100% optional. The people who want this form of "mentoring" can go to the office and get it from the people who want to provide it. And the people who don't want to participate can stay home and get their work done and whatever else just like they've done the past two years. This is probably how it was pre-pandemic anyway, except instead of people sitting in their home communicating with people via zoom/teams/phone, they sat in their office with the door closed and communicated with people via teams/phone.

While I'm not sure to what extent this thread has focused on whether RTO should be 100% optional (it seems to mostly be about 1) can I avoid RTO, and 2) are there any benefits to RTO) I find your last paragraph to be well said. Nonetheless, this really comes down to the fact that law firms (and other companies) as businesses have to decide what type of culture they want to promote.

It's like law firms who have open door policies. Sure, no one disagrees that you can be productive and get your work done with your door closed. Same goes for WFH. But the point of the policy isn't "can you do your work." It's that the firm has made a decision to have a culture that encourages socializing and making oneself available. The difference between an open door policy and RTO is significant in terms of the burden it places on employees and thus warrants (some of) the deeper conversations being had ITT. But I do believe the concept is the same in many ways.

[Anonymous User]

I also don't see how your argument disproves that RTO should be 100% optional. The people who want this form of "mentoring" can go to the office and get it from the people who want to provide it. And the people who don't want to participate can stay home and get their work done and whatever else just like they've done the past two years. This is probably how it was pre-pandemic anyway, except instead of people sitting in their home communicating with people via zoom/teams/phone, they sat in their office with the door closed and communicated with people via teams/phone.

First reasonable argument in the anti-RTO camp I've seen in a while, but it's still coming from the wrong perspective. Nobody is proving or disproving anything - this is an inherently fuzzy judgment call that firms will have to make. So we're talking about why some firms may make some RTO decisions over others, and I think there are some good reasons to do that.

I'm currently at a 3-days in RTO firm, but hardly anybody follows it, so it's basically optional as you suggest it should be. That means there isn't a critical mass of people in the office to support in-person meetings, etc., so they don't happen. Also, many of the seniors I learned most from are avoiding the office completely. They may see no benefit to coming in, but I would have lost something if they made that decision for themselves pre-pandemic. Given these facts, I can see why my firm would inconvenience some who would would perform great with pure WFH in order to help others like me who need mentorship/in-person interaction to grow.

To be clear, I'm not saying that because I benefited from in-office interactions, every firm must mandate in-office time. This is all pretty dang squishy. All I'm saying is it's reasonable for a firm to say that given the (admittedly unmeasurable) benefits an (admittedly unmeasurable) number of juniors could reap from a large number of people being in the office at a given time, it may be worth hauling everyone into the office once or twice a week.

But your point about not going to class continues to miss the mark. RTO, again, is not about those who can get along just fine without in-person interaction. It's about creating the proper environment for those who decidedly cannot. Using my firm as an example, you may need to haul some people who would be fine working from him in order to help those who would not.

[nixy]

Some of the best mentoring I received was sitting around with partners waiting for depositions to start, or going in the cab to the courthouse, or hanging out in a conference room waiting for a client to arrive -- these were organic ways for me to ask general questions, whether about thoughts on career development, or broader case strategy, or why we filed X motion when we did rather than Y motion.

Ironically, every thing you just mentioned would still happen for remote lit associates. Fully remote would still mean attending depositions, or hearings, or client meetings - it would just mean that the day-to-day eventless work would happen from home instead of from the office.

This also happens waiting for / packing up from regular team meetings, interacting at the watercooler, stopping by someone's office, etc.

For me, conversations waiting for everyone to join a Zoom call are awkward and forced. But those same conversations waiting for everyone to arrive at an in person meeting were one of the best (and most insightful parts) of my day pre-pandemic. And they would continue as we walked back to our offices, whereas we all just hang up and leave from a Zoom when it's over.

Is this really what we're arguing over? Small talk, whether it's waiting for an in-person meeting or waiting for a zoom call, is generally awkward and forced. The more and more I hear from the RTO crowd, the more it sounds like they just want their in-office social life back. This is like forcing everyone in college to join a frat/sorority. The people that love the social aspects of college are going to love it, while the people who just want to go to class, get their work done, study and go home/meet up their friends/family have to suffer. Sure, there may be a few peripheral benefits like networking and study groups, just like those ever so important water cooler conversations at the office, but let's stop pretending like these things significantly increase the quality of our work-product, which is the reason why we're employed; i.e., to produce quality work. Like most other things in the world, RTO should be 100% optional.

It sounds like you haven’t experienced this because otherwise you’d be able to grasp that no one is talking about small talk. I’ve had some of the most helpful conversations for understanding what’s going on while waiting for shit to start or dissecting it after. It’s not a social phenomenon but a work phenomenon (I am the world’s biggest introvert and I avoid work social activities like the plague). It improves my work product a LOT to have a better understanding of what’s going on in a case, and what to worry about going into the meeting, or why what happened in the meeting actually happened, and what we need to think about going foreword. You’re right that these conversations don’t happen over zoom, but they definitely happen in person. And to go back to the “career development” issue, this is also a huge way to get to know people who are going to be influential in your career. If you have no intention of staying past year 2-3, cool beans, but you can’t organize a workplace around people who feel that way.

And for the millionth time: this is not me saying you should be forced to come into the office. It doesn’t sound like you’d get anything out of it regardless of circumstances. This is me saying there *are* legitimate work benefits to being in the office (on appropriate occasions, *not* 24/7) and denying that those benefits are real for many people and insisting the people who experience these benefits are just delusional frat bros isn’t going to bolster your case for permanent WFH. Saying that RTO has some benefits isn’t the same as saying it should be mandated.

Maybe this is some kind of unbridgeable divide btw lit and corporate or something, who knows, but Jesus.

[Anonymous User]

I've been avoiding RTO, not for any politically-charged reason but just because it's flat out inconvenient to go to my job with the hours my job wants from me. When I'm busy the last thing I can afford to do in a day is to lose two billable hours to a commute both ways. When I'm not busy, I want to do some of the human things I couldn't do when I was busy (clean my apartment, do the laundry) and it becomes inconvenient to commute two hours to and from the office. And so...I just rarely end up making it in, especially since there is no day that everyone seems to go in and no real incentive to do my work from an almost empty office floor vs. at home. I'm also not convinced covid is over and curious about what will happen this winter without a concrete fourth dose plan for us all.

[Anonymous User]

I've been avoiding RTO, not for any politically-charged reason but just because it's flat out inconvenient to go to my job with the hours my job wants from me. When I'm busy the last thing I can afford to do in a day is to lose two billable hours to a commute both ways. When I'm not busy, I want to do some of the human things I couldn't do when I was busy (clean my apartment, do the laundry) and it becomes inconvenient to commute two hours to and from the office. And so...I just rarely end up making it in, especially since there is no day that everyone seems to go in and no real incentive to do my work from an almost empty office floor vs. at home. I'm also not convinced covid is over and curious about what will happen this winter without a concrete fourth dose plan for us all.

This describes me to a T. I go in maybe 1 day a week to show my face, but I'd be much happier about it if everybody else were in on that same day as well. Would something like that make it more worthwhile for you?

[1styearlateral]

It's interesting to see the dichotomy of the different camps for and against RTO in relation to their passion for the subject. The anti-RTO almost always seem to take it as a personal attack on their freedom, where the other camp tend to approach it as "meh, it's how things just are."

[Anonymous User]

I've been avoiding RTO, not for any politically-charged reason but just because it's flat out inconvenient to go to my job with the hours my job wants from me. When I'm busy the last thing I can afford to do in a day is to lose two billable hours to a commute both ways. When I'm not busy, I want to do some of the human things I couldn't do when I was busy (clean my apartment, do the laundry) and it becomes inconvenient to commute two hours to and from the office. And so...I just rarely end up making it in, especially since there is no day that everyone seems to go in and no real incentive to do my work from an almost empty office floor vs. at home. I'm also not convinced covid is over and curious about what will happen this winter without a concrete fourth dose plan for us all.

This describes me to a T. I go in maybe 1 day a week to show my face, but I'd be much happier about it if everybody else were in on that same day as well. Would something like that make it more worthwhile for you?

(poster you replied to) I'm honestly not that interested in RTO in the first place. I feel like the fact that it's just really inconvenient would overcome an anchor day mentality for me. I started virtually and at this point, it's just how I know how to do the job. I've been trying to get in when I can but the doggy daycare I used on those days got my dog sick and so the few times I have been in have honestly resulted in vet expenses.

[nixy]

I started virtually and at this point, it's just how I know how to do the job.

I think this is a big factor as well. If you’ve only ever done the job virtually (especially if you’re K-JD, though not exclusively I’m sure) and it’s what you know, of course RTO is baffling. I know there are also plenty of people who used to work in the office who don’t want to RTO at all, so I’m not saying that if you’d worked in the office you’d “see the light” and understand the benefits of RTO or anything - just that if it’s the only thing you’ve known, that’s just what it is.

(Also totally agree that a 2 hour commute is a huge drag, especially if no one’s even really there when you show up so that it feels pointless. The points people have made questioning whether the value of in-person interaction that used to exist is still the case are totally fair.)

[Anonymous User]

(Also totally agree that a 2 hour commute is a huge drag, especially if no one’s even really there when you show up so that it feels pointless. The points people have made questioning whether the value of in-person interaction that used to exist is still the case are totally fair.)

I made some of these earlier comments and stand by them. I see the point (and even want to go back) if there's a real anchor day 1-2x per week, but otherwise see no point.

[Sad248]

The only question is if WFH or RTO is better for work product. Even though lawyers like to think we're brainstorming away around a desk, coming up with strokes of genius: we are just robots who read, review, and apply. This doesn't need any teamwork. So that leaves the whole training aspect. Again, do full days in a stressful office environment warrant the two in-person questions a senior is asked, that honestly could have been raised over the phone? People here keep on asserting there is this organic osmosis thing going on in the office, but that just isn't the case. If there are any questions, they can be raised from home. And if the junior doesn't do so (not to rehash this too much): it's probably the fault of the senior for being too inaccessible/not explaining the assignment properly in the first place.

I can’t say that the above hasn’t been your experience, but I don’t think that means that it describes all legal workplaces, and people keep describing the “organic osmosis” not because they’ve been brainwashed but because it’s been their actual experience.

I also don’t think “these questions could have been raised on the phone” is definitive if people don’t actually raise such questions on the phone (and I agree with the person who said that if they saw someone when they were walking to get coffee in the office they’d ask them questions that they wouldn’t think to call someone about while walking to their coffee pot at home). Being in person lowers the barrier to asking questions, at least in my experience.

The solution isn’t necessarily to make everyone come in, but to be conscious about the deficiencies in WFH compared to RTO and figure out ways to make up for them (which can probably be done). But denying there are any benefits to RTO whatsoever isn’t going to make the “all remote all the time” case more convincing.

TITCR. I continue to be confused by the anti-RTO folks who respond to actual examples of people saying "I wouldn't have asked X or learned Y were it not for an open door" with the blanket "that just isn't the case." I think hybrid advocates here have done a good job conceding that RTO is completely useless for some, including you Sad248. The question, as nixy suggests, is how to balance your needs with those who do actually benefit from some RTO. Do we prioritize the universal convenience of and cost cuts from permanent WFH over the needs of [insert some percentage] of people who would benefit from some in-person interaction? I answer no, but reasonable minds may differ.

Side note, can someone PLEASE find me the post where someone actually advocated for 4 days RTO? I honestly think it's just some dumb 0L in fighting a strawman in the copypasta a few posts back. I haven't heard anybody (ITT or IRL) realistically advocate for 4 days in the office since before the pandemic.

Look, you won't see me saying that everybody's experiences cannot be different. However, you're not making an argument here. If you love going to the office, by all means go. Why do others who do not see the appeal, have to go? It's nice that apparently somebody would ask a question in the office and they wouldn't do so at home (this more points to me that the question is unnecessary in the first place) but this again boils down to the same point: we live in the 21st century and firms have been slow to evolve and create a situation where the threshold for online ad hoc training is lowered. Instead of moving on and figuring out how you can have the best of both world, people are insisting on sitting in an office for 8 hours a day, and the main argument is "well, you know, you just learn by being around unhappy people who are tied to their desks, it just happens" and on the off-chance you might have a question while going back to your desk after chatting with your assistant at the office coffee machine.

If that's the argument, I think there is zero ground to stand on to mandate RTO. Again, sure, there might be benefits for some people to return to the office. I get it. That still doesn't explain why other people who don't want that environment need to come in. Why does somebody who does not want to be there not sees the value of the office have to come in? So you can pop into their office and say hi? So you can check in on them to see if they need more work/you can see if their door is open so you can ask them a question? If it's the former: it's work, not a social club. If it's the latter: we managed just fine for two years, and if it's a worry now and you're admitting it was all bad for two years, maybe you should have geared up the past two years to help people out more and be more accessible.

I'll say that is what I do think will happen, however, that everybody will be forced in to create an hospitable environment for some who love RTO. Especially under pressure from seniors who are gunning for partner who will bitch and moan that they need more bodies on the floor so they can pass around work on their way to partnership. (Let's face it, the push to RTO is not happening on a junior level, who we all supposedly want to help with mentoring). I get it. Obviously, juniors will get worn out more and leave sooner as a result, and then the RTO-fans can just shrug and be confused why all the awesome in-person mentoring did not yield better results.

I know people who are insisting on 4 to 5 days in the office, FWIW. Yes, they're all about to be up for partnership.

[Anonymous User]

This has been debated ad nauseam but there is no one size fits all policy that works for every firm.

I’ve worked at a place pre pandemic where my whole team sat in a different city. In that situation RTO makes no sense. In other cases working on a smaller team that sits together it may make sense to have people back in person.

The number of people working at national mega firms in big corporate groups is over represented here. When you sit in an office of 200-300+ attorneys in NYC the value of RTO seems questionable. At most of these places your interactions with other attorneys is already limited. The number of in person meetings pre-covid was already low enough that you could go for days or even weeks at a place like this without setting foot in the office and nobody would notice.

[Anonymous User]

Look, you won't see me saying that everybody's experiences cannot be different. However, you're not making an argument here. If you love going to the office, by all means go. Why do others who do not see the appeal, have to go? It's nice that apparently somebody would ask a question in the office and they wouldn't do so at home (this more points to me that the question is unnecessary in the first place) but this again boils down to the same point: we live in the 21st century and firms have been slow to evolve and create a situation where the threshold for online ad hoc training is lowered. Instead of moving on and figuring out how you can have the best of both world, people are insisting on sitting in an office for 8 hours a day, and the main argument is "well, you know, you just learn by being around unhappy people who are tied to their desks, it just happens" and on the off-chance you might have a question while going back to your desk after chatting with your assistant at the office coffee machine.

If that's the argument, I think there is zero ground to stand on to mandate RTO. Again, sure, there might be benefits for some people to return to the office. I get it. That still doesn't explain why other people who don't want that environment need to come in. Why does somebody who does not want to be there not sees the value of the office have to come in? So you can pop into their office and say hi? So you can check in on them to see if they need more work/you can see if their door is open so you can ask them a question? If it's the former: it's work, not a social club. If it's the latter: we managed just fine for two years, and if it's a worry now and you're admitting it was all bad for two years, maybe you should have geared up the past two years to help people out more and be more accessible.

I'll say that is what I do think will happen, however, that everybody will be forced in to create an hospitable environment for some who love RTO. Especially under pressure from seniors who are gunning for partner who will bitch and moan that they need more bodies on the floor so they can pass around work on their way to partnership. (Let's face it, the push to RTO is not happening on a junior level, who we all supposedly want to help with mentoring). I get it. Obviously, juniors will get worn out more and leave sooner as a result, and then the RTO-fans can just shrug and be confused why all the awesome in-person mentoring did not yield better results.

I know people who are insisting on 4 to 5 days in the office, FWIW. Yes, they're all about to be up for partnership.

Your inability to see (or disagreement with) an argument doesn't mean doesn't exist. Let me explain it again real simple like:
- Some people need in-office interactions, others don't.
- If a firm lets people decide whether they want to come in, two things may happen: (1) some people who actually need in-office interactions will nonetheless opt for WFH and their work will suffer, and (2) people who actually don't need to be in the office will stay home and reduce the number of available mentors in the office.
- If there are enough people in either camp, affording a permanent WFH option will have the effect of curtailing any benefits for RTO for those who need it because either those who could benefit don't come in and/or there won't be a critical mass of people in the office for those who do.
- In that case, a firm may make the judgment call that it's worth hauling everyone in for the benefit of those who need in-office interactions.

You may disagree with a number of these points. Maybe there just aren't enough people who need in-office interaction. Maybe people in (1) don't actually exist, or maybe we shouldn't punish others for their shortcomings. Maybe there aren't enough people in (2) to make much of a difference. Maybe you disagree that a critical mass is needed for the benefits of RTO. Or maybe you think that it's not worth upsetting WFH fans to help with the development of those who need some form of RTO (which you may think is laughably small).

But each step in my logic is informed by what I have seen in the lit group of my V25 both during pandemic WFH during and now as we RTO. I think there are lots of new associates in desperate need of some mentoring who are performing poorly right now. But some of those associates have continued to work from home given my office's loosely enforced RTO policy. And many of the other people who those associates would benefit from interacting with (myself included) are just staying home all or most of the week because nobody else comes in anyway. If I were a junior showing up to my office 3 days a week now, I would see absolutely no point.

You make a valid point that maybe firms could do better encouraging mentorship remotely and that until then RTO should be treated as a last resort. But do you have any ideas on how to do that effectively? I doubt it, given that you hardly seem to understand why some people would need in-person interaction in the first place. I've done a lot of thinking on this (alongside others in my department), and I haven't seen anything during WFH that remotely (pun intended) approximates an open door. Besides, you and I both know that firms' failure to act during the pandemic has nothing to do with whether there's merit to RTO - only whether it's the least restrictive means to reap the benefits of human interaction.

Anyway, I think I've given your arguments good faith consideration, so please pay mine the same respect.
Time will tell whether your prediction that RTO burns people out will come to fruition. That's just another factor for firms to consider in the calculus I outlined above.

[nixy]

Look, you won't see me saying that everybody's experiences cannot be different. However, you're not making an argument here. If you love going to the office, by all means go. Why do others who do not see the appeal, have to go? It's nice that apparently somebody would ask a question in the office and they wouldn't do so at home (this more points to me that the question is unnecessary in the first place) but this again boils down to the same point: we live in the 21st century and firms have been slow to evolve and create a situation where the threshold for online ad hoc training is lowered. Instead of moving on and figuring out how you can have the best of both world, people are insisting on sitting in an office for 8 hours a day, and the main argument is "well, you know, you just learn by being around unhappy people who are tied to their desks, it just happens" and on the off-chance you might have a question while going back to your desk after chatting with your assistant at the office coffee machine.

If that's the argument, I think there is zero ground to stand on to mandate RTO. Again, sure, there might be benefits for some people to return to the office. I get it. That still doesn't explain why other people who don't want that environment need to come in. Why does somebody who does not want to be there not sees the value of the office have to come in? So you can pop into their office and say hi? So you can check in on them to see if they need more work/you can see if their door is open so you can ask them a question? If it's the former: it's work, not a social club. If it's the latter: we managed just fine for two years, and if it's a worry now and you're admitting it was all bad for two years, maybe you should have geared up the past two years to help people out more and be more accessible.

I'll say that is what I do think will happen, however, that everybody will be forced in to create an hospitable environment for some who love RTO. Especially under pressure from seniors who are gunning for partner who will bitch and moan that they need more bodies on the floor so they can pass around work on their way to partnership. (Let's face it, the push to RTO is not happening on a junior level, who we all supposedly want to help with mentoring). I get it. Obviously, juniors will get worn out more and leave sooner as a result, and then the RTO-fans can just shrug and be confused why all the awesome in-person mentoring did not yield better results.

I know people who are insisting on 4 to 5 days in the office, FWIW. Yes, they're all about to be up for partnership.

But the bolded isn’t the argument, and you know that. If you’re here debating all this you’re too smart to misrepresent other people’s posts so badly.

[BrowsingTLS]

This has been debated ad nauseam but there is no one size fits all policy that works for every firm.

I’ve worked at a place pre pandemic where my whole team sat in a different city. In that situation RTO makes no sense. In other cases working on a smaller team that sits together it may make sense to have people back in person.

The number of people working at national mega firms in big corporate groups is over represented here. When you sit in an office of 200-300+ attorneys in NYC the value of RTO seems questionable. At most of these places your interactions with other attorneys is already limited. The number of in person meetings pre-covid was already low enough that you could go for days or even weeks at a place like this without setting foot in the office and nobody would notice.

/thread

[Anonymous User]

This has been debated ad nauseam but there is no one size fits all policy that works for every firm.

I’ve worked at a place pre pandemic where my whole team sat in a different city. In that situation RTO makes no sense. In other cases working on a smaller team that sits together it may make sense to have people back in person.

The number of people working at national mega firms in big corporate groups is over represented here. When you sit in an office of 200-300+ attorneys in NYC the value of RTO seems questionable. At most of these places your interactions with other attorneys is already limited. The number of in person meetings pre-covid was already low enough that you could go for days or even weeks at a place like this without setting foot in the office and nobody would notice.

/thread

Can always count on the cool guy to show up with his cool guy post. Thanks, cool guy.

[Anonymous User]

But the bolded isn’t the argument, and you know that. If you’re here debating all this you’re too smart to misrepresent other people’s posts so badly.

Right? Trolls I can deal with, but this guy is truly something else. We literally throw him a bone on what parts of the argument are easy to disagree with, and yet he continues to try to fight a straw man. Sad, really.

[Sad248]

Your inability to see (or disagreement with) an argument doesn't mean doesn't exist. Let me explain it again real simple like:
- Some people need in-office interactions, others don't.
- If a firm lets people decide whether they want to come in, two things may happen: (1) some people who actually need in-office interactions will nonetheless opt for WFH and their work will suffer, and (2) people who actually don't need to be in the office will stay home and reduce the number of available mentors in the office.
- If there are enough people in either camp, affording a permanent WFH option will have the effect of curtailing any benefits for RTO for those who need it because either those who could benefit don't come in and/or there won't be a critical mass of people in the office for those who do.
- In that case, a firm may make the judgment call that it's worth hauling everyone in for the benefit of those who need in-office interactions.

This is a ridiculous misstatement. Throughout the thread, nobody has been able to point out why a profession where one sits behind their desk alone and types away is substantially helped by in-person interaction. And you somehow interpret that as: “there are two types of people in the world: Those who need RTO and will suck without; and those who can work in the office and from home.” Of course, if we just ignore the entire group of people who do way better WFH, then yes, your representation is correct and I cede the entire argument. We should be in the office 5 days a week. You win.

You make a valid point that maybe firms could do better encouraging mentorship remotely and that until then RTO should be treated as a last resort. But do you have any ideas on how to do that effectively? I doubt it, given that you hardly seem to understand why some people would need in-person interaction in the first place. I've done a lot of thinking on this (alongside others in my department), and I haven't seen anything during WFH that remotely (pun intended) approximates an open door. Besides, you and I both know that firms' failure to act during the pandemic has nothing to do with whether there's merit to RTO - only whether it's the least restrictive means to reap the benefits of human interaction.

Yes, let’s discredit a point because random poster on the Internet doesn’t have all the answers ready-made and don’t look at multibillion dollar firms and multimillionaires to put in a modicum of effort for their own business model. But whatever, maybe just give all lawyers a course on how to manage people. I never had an issue mentoring people, whether in person or remotely and I go above and beyond to be accessible and approachable. But thanks for putting the sly insult in there, hope you can now enjoy the rest of your day with glee.

Anyway, I think I've given your arguments good faith consideration, so please pay mine the same respect.
Time will tell whether your prediction that RTO burns people out will come to fruition. That's just another factor for firms to consider in the calculus I outlined above.

Yeah, I could really feel the good faith here, thanks dude. Totally can't see why your office is relatively empty despite your enlightened presence. And “time will tell if RTO burns people out?” You are aware biglaw has been around for a very long time and it is known to burn people out, right? What, you think all these people who are saying WFH has made their life so much better are pulling it out of their ass?