Avoiding RTO Forum

[nixy]

Yeah, that’s a really good point. It also perhaps helps explain why some firms are more willing to hire laterals remotely, since laterals can be hired specifically for skills they already have, than to change up their associate hiring/on-boarding process.

[Anonymous User]

I like how the discussion has basically boiled down to "WFH is better. What's so good about in-person? Why is it necessary for training to be in-person?" with the standard response being a deviation of "You're a desperate loser without friends and only absolute chads who go to work can grasp the absolute joy and educational value of in-person meetings. Dweeb."

I will agree that there is more room for spur of the moment training when in-person and the threshold to receive the training is lower. I will also just say that this not being offered on a more consistent basis while WFH is 100% on the senior parties. This won't be accepted by senior lawyers, but I have yet to meet a midlevel/senior who will admit he is a sucky manager.

[Joachim2017]

Agree that there's a lower threshold for on-the-spur training to occur in the office, but it doesn't just happen. There's no magic that kicks in once you're in the office. Partners and seniors have to make an effort to be approachable. If I'm in my office during the work day but the entire row of partner offices on my floor have their doors mostly closed and just go in and out doing their work, jumping on calls, walking back and forth from the cafe, it's not much different, in practice, than WFH.

Will be interesting to see if managers actually make an effort to back up all the "training in the office is so much more effective" talk when everyone's back.

[nixy]

I like how the discussion has basically boiled down to "WFH is better. What's so good about in-person? Why is it necessary for training to be in-person?" with the standard response being a deviation of "You're a desperate loser without friends and only absolute chads who go to work can grasp the absolute joy and educational value of in-person meetings. Dweeb."

I will agree that there is more room for spur of the moment training when in-person and the threshold to receive the training is lower. I will also just say that this not being offered on a more consistent basis while WFH is 100% on the senior parties. This won't be accepted by senior lawyers, but I have yet to meet a midlevel/senior who will admit he is a sucky manager.

I think the first paragraph above is way overblown.

I agree, though, that the fact that RTO has some benefits doesn’t mean that everyone experiences them equally. In-person may not be better if all the people it gives you access to suck and are unhelpful.

That said, I know the barrier to me getting the info/support I need is lower in the office. That doesn’t mean I can’t get it WFH, it just requires more effort.

(Hoping too that this doesn’t turn into a re-hash of the debate over whether the problem with training is sucky managers or sucky juniors.)

[Anonymous User]

I like how the discussion has basically boiled down to "WFH is better. What's so good about in-person? Why is it necessary for training to be in-person?" with the standard response being a deviation of "You're a desperate loser without friends and only absolute chads who go to work can grasp the absolute joy and educational value of in-person meetings. Dweeb."

I think this was a small minority of the comments, but it was in direct response to something like "what, you talk to people in the office". And yes, some of us do!

[Anonymous User]

Agree that there's a lower threshold for on-the-spur training to occur in the office, but it doesn't just happen. There's no magic that kicks in once you're in the office. Partners and seniors have to make an effort to be approachable. If I'm in my office during the work day but the entire row of partner offices on my floor have their doors mostly closed and just go in and out doing their work, jumping on calls, walking back and forth from the cafe, it's not much different, in practice, than WFH.

Will be interesting to see if managers actually make an effort to back up all the "training in the office is so much more effective" talk when everyone's back.

That really sucks that the partners all have closed doors, but the mentoring mostly happens with midlevels/seniors rather than partners. Regardless, I agree that it's up to midlevels/seniors/partners to be approachable if they actually want to promote a positive RTO environment. The least they can do is open their doors. I do whenever I'm not on a call or about to miss a key deadline.

I disagree with the previous poster, though, that failure to mentor is 100% the fault of the seniors. That's an exaggeration not because it's instead the juniors' job to seek out mentorship, but rather because WFH just isn't conducive for mentorship period. If I'm going down the hallway to get some coffee as I stress out about a big project I've never done before and see my colleague's door open who happens to have done that same thing many times, I'm way more likely to walk in and ask about it. I don't think to do that on the way to the coffee pot in my apartment.

I've posted here about this before ITT, but I made an effort to be available for juniors during WFH, but only 2 or so took me up on that. I would check in, let people know I'm around if they need anything, etc. But even those 2 came to me fewer times than I did my mentor, likely because there just aren't as many organic opportunities.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Seems we get so caught up in whether RTO has any benefit at all, we forget that isn't really the question. The question is whether RTO is so beneficial that it outweighs the enormous benefits of WFH. I can't imagine a good faith argument that RTO is that important.

I think the argument is training. But the half-assed compromise RTO that firms are implementing now doesn't help for that, especially since a maximum of ~60% of the workforce is there at any given point. If there were particular mandatory days, incentives for juniors and midlevels to work together more closely, etc. to bring the culture back to what it used to be then I think the benefits would outweigh what we all get from WFH.

But for now I 100% agree that as is RTO does not outweigh the benefit of WFH.

What training specifically do you believe is done so much better in the office than remotely that it outweighs WFH? I guess we're also somewhat eliding the question of WFH's value. For me, it has completely changed my relationship with work and has dramatically improved by day-to-day life. I really can't imagine a serious argument that the 15 minutes a week a first-year might spend in my office seeking advice outweighing that. But I'm all ears if you have something substantive.

We've been over this already in the thread, so please just read further back. Basically, juniors need face time with midlevels and a good culture of mentoring in order to grow. That hasn't happened during the pandemic, and many midlevels and above are less than pleased with junior performance ATM. To me, it would be worth some RTO to have better juniors. But as you suggest, that culture may have evaporated over the pandemic, so as is it's hard to see the benefit.

Same anon. As a midlevel myself, to the extent I have been displeased with Junior performance, I don't see how it could have been remedied by occasional face-time in my office. This argument *REALLY* seems like total bullshit to me.

[GFox345]

Even if you just want to put in your 2-3 years and get out, it's still important to receive the right training and get staffed on good matters/deals. If I have to staff someone as a junior on a deal, it is probably going to be an associate who is in the office and who I can more easily work with and train, as opposed to someone who never comes in. Just being realistic.

I love having the flexibility of working from home, btw.

But being in the office ≠ more easily to work with and train. Be honest, over 95% of meetings before the pandemic were done via phone anyway, and trainings generally consist of powerpoint slides w/ a lecture or Q&A, which are probably easier to do via zoom where everyone can have their computers in front of them. Sure, every now and then juniors/midlevels would get a conference room for a week when there's a very involved deal, but that was mostly just to keep each other company/gossip/etc. The people pushing for RTO always throw out the vague assertion that RTO is better for training and collaboration, but I'm yet to hear anything concrete to actually back that up.

Totally agree. I have never understood this argument, as if partners are coming in your office and standing over your shoulder when giving you feedback or advice (as if they even do that frequently). The absolute bullshit rationales I keep hearing make me think that the real reason for RTO has nothing to do with actual performance.

Also, stopping in a partner's office to chit chat? Is that a thing?

Convinced that the people who disclaim that RTO has significant and concrete benefits on training, development and workforce cohesion have literally never been invited to a social function ever before, or had any kind of actual mentors in their academic or professional careers (or even had a professional career pre-law).

We should apply the same logic and just have parties and social gatherings over zoom where you drink alone in your computer screen.

I'm not sure if you're just being obtuse or actually don't grasp how garbage this analogy is. The point of a party is in-person social interaction. The point of working at a law firm is not. And, if we're going to fire off half-baked psycho-analysis of people based on their positions on RTO, I'm convinced most people who want to force people back to the office are control freak psychopaths who can't stand the idea divorcing work from the misery of being chained to a desk.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a first year associate and I've "chit chatted" with partners in the coffee room. And those partners threw some work my way. Also I got a redline from a partner with "pop by the office if you have questions". So I did, and it led to a very useful conversation. None of this happens remote.

Personally, I think the best way is to designate two days a week when everyone comes in, and flexible rest of the week.

One day, but in general I agree. I readily admit that there are people who get absolutely nothing from RTO - no extra training, no extra clarity on feedback, nothing. Maybe they "just get it from a redline" or, more cynically, maybe they just want a paycheck and the door in a few years.

But RTO isn't about them. It's about most other people who could use some organic mentoring, even if they don't realize they need it or haven't noticed it when it happens. The 1st/2nd years I've worked with could really use some help, and a Zoom training just won't do the trick.

Listen, I see arguments for appeasing those in the permanent WFH camp. And I think more firms should consider that. All I'm saying, though, is that it's not without merit for firms to prioritize those who need in person interaction (which I personally think is more than half, and includes many of those who probably think they can cut it remotely).

Based on literally every single survey I have seen of workforce attitudes toward remote work, you are way, way off base in characterizing people who want permanent remote/hybrid arrangements as an outlier group. If you want 4-day or more RTO, YOU are in the minority, not the other way around.

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Seems we get so caught up in whether RTO has any benefit at all, we forget that isn't really the question. The question is whether RTO is so beneficial that it outweighs the enormous benefits of WFH. I can't imagine a good faith argument that RTO is that important.

I think the argument is training. But the half-assed compromise RTO that firms are implementing now doesn't help for that, especially since a maximum of ~60% of the workforce is there at any given point. If there were particular mandatory days, incentives for juniors and midlevels to work together more closely, etc. to bring the culture back to what it used to be then I think the benefits would outweigh what we all get from WFH.

But for now I 100% agree that as is RTO does not outweigh the benefit of WFH.

What training specifically do you believe is done so much better in the office than remotely that it outweighs WFH? I guess we're also somewhat eliding the question of WFH's value. For me, it has completely changed my relationship with work and has dramatically improved by day-to-day life. I really can't imagine a serious argument that the 15 minutes a week a first-year might spend in my office seeking advice outweighing that. But I'm all ears if you have something substantive.

We've been over this already in the thread, so please just read further back. Basically, juniors need face time with midlevels and a good culture of mentoring in order to grow. That hasn't happened during the pandemic, and many midlevels and above are less than pleased with junior performance ATM. To me, it would be worth some RTO to have better juniors. But as you suggest, that culture may have evaporated over the pandemic, so as is it's hard to see the benefit.

Same anon. As a midlevel myself, to the extent I have been displeased with Junior performance, I don't see how it could have been remedied by occasional face-time in my office. This argument *REALLY* seems like total bullshit to me.

Have you tried mentoring during the pandemic? Has it worked for you? What else do you think explains the correlation between poorer junior performance and WFH, if not the lack of in person interaction? What about the plethora of posters who have talked about the importance of "open door" policies for their growth as associates? Are they just bullshitting too?

Clearly RTO is not for you. You might not want to mentor, and maybe you didn't need it as an associate either. That's totally fine - I believe you. But there are plenty of other people who DO see a benefit, myself included. Two things can be true at once.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a first year associate and I've "chit chatted" with partners in the coffee room. And those partners threw some work my way.

For associates who already have a lot on their plate, this is not a reason to RTO. When you're busy, there could hardly be a worse outcome of interacting with a partner than having more work.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a first year associate and I've "chit chatted" with partners in the coffee room. And those partners threw some work my way. Also I got a redline from a partner with "pop by the office if you have questions". So I did, and it led to a very useful conversation. None of this happens remote.

Personally, I think the best way is to designate two days a week when everyone comes in, and flexible rest of the week.

One day, but in general I agree. I readily admit that there are people who get absolutely nothing from RTO - no extra training, no extra clarity on feedback, nothing. Maybe they "just get it from a redline" or, more cynically, maybe they just want a paycheck and the door in a few years.

But RTO isn't about them. It's about most other people who could use some organic mentoring, even if they don't realize they need it or haven't noticed it when it happens. The 1st/2nd years I've worked with could really use some help, and a Zoom training just won't do the trick.

Listen, I see arguments for appeasing those in the permanent WFH camp. And I think more firms should consider that. All I'm saying, though, is that it's not without merit for firms to prioritize those who need in person interaction (which I personally think is more than half, and includes many of those who probably think they can cut it remotely).

Based on literally every single survey I have seen of workforce attitudes toward remote work, you are way, way off base in characterizing people who want permanent remote/hybrid arrangements as an outlier group. If you want 4-day or more RTO, YOU are in the minority, not the other way around.

Chill dude. You read my post incorrectly. You said 2 days RTO, I said 1. I also said a majority of people would benefit from some form of RTO, but nothing about majority/minority preferences...

[Anonymous User]

Exactly. Seems we get so caught up in whether RTO has any benefit at all, we forget that isn't really the question. The question is whether RTO is so beneficial that it outweighs the enormous benefits of WFH. I can't imagine a good faith argument that RTO is that important.

I think the argument is training. But the half-assed compromise RTO that firms are implementing now doesn't help for that, especially since a maximum of ~60% of the workforce is there at any given point. If there were particular mandatory days, incentives for juniors and midlevels to work together more closely, etc. to bring the culture back to what it used to be then I think the benefits would outweigh what we all get from WFH.

But for now I 100% agree that as is RTO does not outweigh the benefit of WFH.

What training specifically do you believe is done so much better in the office than remotely that it outweighs WFH? I guess we're also somewhat eliding the question of WFH's value. For me, it has completely changed my relationship with work and has dramatically improved by day-to-day life. I really can't imagine a serious argument that the 15 minutes a week a first-year might spend in my office seeking advice outweighing that. But I'm all ears if you have something substantive.

We've been over this already in the thread, so please just read further back. Basically, juniors need face time with midlevels and a good culture of mentoring in order to grow. That hasn't happened during the pandemic, and many midlevels and above are less than pleased with junior performance ATM. To me, it would be worth some RTO to have better juniors. But as you suggest, that culture may have evaporated over the pandemic, so as is it's hard to see the benefit.

Same anon. As a midlevel myself, to the extent I have been displeased with Junior performance, I don't see how it could have been remedied by occasional face-time in my office. This argument *REALLY* seems like total bullshit to me.

Have you tried mentoring during the pandemic? Has it worked for you? What else do you think explains the correlation between poorer junior performance and WFH, if not the lack of in person interaction? What about the plethora of posters who have talked about the importance of "open door" policies for their growth as associates? Are they just bullshitting too?

Clearly RTO is not for you. You might not want to mentor, and maybe you didn't need it as an associate either. That's totally fine - I believe you. But there are plenty of other people who DO see a benefit, myself included. Two things can be true at once.

I have no idea how people just claim that there is "poor junior performance" as a result of the pandemic. It is unquantifiable and absolutely wreaks of confirmation bias of and pretext to the merit of RTO. Juniors have always sucked. The pandemic and increased flexibility of WFH didn't cause juniors to suck. Most juniors become better at their work performing job duties that they also do while working from home, not in the 10-minute conversations they have in a senior's office. Claiming otherwise seems utterly ridiculous to me.

I can understand the argument that people develop more meaningful personal relationships in-person. That's why I personally choose to go in one or two days a week, but I absolutely hate the argument that WFH makes you a worse lawyer or signals disengagement from your job. It's just flat-out false.

[GFox345]

I'm a first year associate and I've "chit chatted" with partners in the coffee room. And those partners threw some work my way. Also I got a redline from a partner with "pop by the office if you have questions". So I did, and it led to a very useful conversation. None of this happens remote.

Personally, I think the best way is to designate two days a week when everyone comes in, and flexible rest of the week.

One day, but in general I agree. I readily admit that there are people who get absolutely nothing from RTO - no extra training, no extra clarity on feedback, nothing. Maybe they "just get it from a redline" or, more cynically, maybe they just want a paycheck and the door in a few years.

But RTO isn't about them. It's about most other people who could use some organic mentoring, even if they don't realize they need it or haven't noticed it when it happens. The 1st/2nd years I've worked with could really use some help, and a Zoom training just won't do the trick.

Listen, I see arguments for appeasing those in the permanent WFH camp. And I think more firms should consider that. All I'm saying, though, is that it's not without merit for firms to prioritize those who need in person interaction (which I personally think is more than half, and includes many of those who probably think they can cut it remotely).

Based on literally every single survey I have seen of workforce attitudes toward remote work, you are way, way off base in characterizing people who want permanent remote/hybrid arrangements as an outlier group. If you want 4-day or more RTO, YOU are in the minority, not the other way around.

Chill dude. You read my post incorrectly. You said 2 days RTO, I said 1. I also said a majority of people would benefit from some form of RTO, but nothing about majority/minority preferences...

You literally said more than half of people need in-person training...

[Anonymous User]

I have no idea how people just claim that there is "poor junior performance" as a result of the pandemic. It is unquantifiable and absolutely wreaks of confirmation bias of and pretext to the merit of RTO. Juniors have always sucked. The pandemic and increased flexibility of WFH didn't cause juniors to suck. Most juniors become better at their work performing job duties that they also do while working from home, not in the 10-minute conversations they have in a senior's office. Claiming otherwise seems utterly ridiculous to me.

I can understand the argument that people develop more meaningful personal relationships in-person. That's why I personally choose to go in one or two days a week, but I absolutely hate the argument that WFH makes you a worse lawyer or signals disengagement from your job. It's just flat-out false.

This is right. And as for the meaningful relationship argument, I agree, people develop more meaningful relationships in person. But this is exactly why RTO should be 100% optional. People that want to develop meaningful relationships with people at work are free to do so, but that doesn't mean the people who don't prioritize those types of relationships should be forced to RTO.

[Anonymous User]

Same anon. As a midlevel myself, to the extent I have been displeased with Junior performance, I don't see how it could have been remedied by occasional face-time in my office. This argument *REALLY* seems like total bullshit to me.

Serious question - how did you best learn what you needed to learn to figure out the job? Just want to know what kind of training you think is valuable and how it can happen. If it was just “learn by doing,” do you think that interaction with more experienced associates (or partners maybe) had anything to do with it?

[Anonymous User]

Same anon. As a midlevel myself, to the extent I have been displeased with Junior performance, I don't see how it could have been remedied by occasional face-time in my office. This argument *REALLY* seems like total bullshit to me.

Serious question - how did you best learn what you needed to learn to figure out the job? Just want to know what kind of training you think is valuable and how it can happen. If it was just “learn by doing,” do you think that interaction with more experienced associates (or partners maybe) had anything to do with it?

Not the quoted anon, but I agree with their take. Learning the job is obviously an incremental process. Idk about you, but I may have stopped by a midlevel's office once every other week max, and I'm sure the amount of "learning" I got out of those interactions was nominal compared to what I absorbed from email conversations about general and specific substantive issues, walking through a redline over the phone or when sharing my screen with the midlevel/senior, listening to calls with opposing counsel, clients, specialists, advisors, etc.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a first year associate and I've "chit chatted" with partners in the coffee room. And those partners threw some work my way. Also I got a redline from a partner with "pop by the office if you have questions". So I did, and it led to a very useful conversation. None of this happens remote.

Personally, I think the best way is to designate two days a week when everyone comes in, and flexible rest of the week.

One day, but in general I agree. I readily admit that there are people who get absolutely nothing from RTO - no extra training, no extra clarity on feedback, nothing. Maybe they "just get it from a redline" or, more cynically, maybe they just want a paycheck and the door in a few years.

But RTO isn't about them. It's about most other people who could use some organic mentoring, even if they don't realize they need it or haven't noticed it when it happens. The 1st/2nd years I've worked with could really use some help, and a Zoom training just won't do the trick.

Listen, I see arguments for appeasing those in the permanent WFH camp. And I think more firms should consider that. All I'm saying, though, is that it's not without merit for firms to prioritize those who need in person interaction (which I personally think is more than half, and includes many of those who probably think they can cut it remotely).

Based on literally every single survey I have seen of workforce attitudes toward remote work, you are way, way off base in characterizing people who want permanent remote/hybrid arrangements as an outlier group. If you want 4-day or more RTO, YOU are in the minority, not the other way around.

Chill dude. You read my post incorrectly. You said 2 days RTO, I said 1. I also said a majority of people would benefit from some form of RTO, but nothing about majority/minority preferences...

You literally said more than half of people need in-person training...

You must be a 0L or a troll. No actually lawyer would be so incapable of understanding an argument.

First, my clearly stated position is that many of the people who self-identify as someone who does not benefit from RTO nonetheless actually need it. That is, they say they don't, but they actually do. You respond with surveys that are, by design, based on self-reporting (they say they don't), and are therefore inapposite to my comment (that they actually do). By all means, feel free to disagree with me about whether or not people who think they don't need in-person training are actually right, but don't pretend like your trite survey resolves things (or even responds directly to my position - it did not).

Second, you accused me of being in the minority for wanting more than 4 days RTO. I challenge you to find that position in my post (hint: you definitely won't find it where I talk about whether people need some form of RTO, as your post just now suggests). Again, more than half of people needing some form of in-person interaction is unrelated to the number of days on which such interaction is required. But since you obviously didn't understand, let me spell it out for you: I said one day in the office is sufficient instead of the two you suggested.

I'm not harping on you for your position - I'm 100% open to debate on these points and recognize I may be in the minority for wanting X amount of RTO. I'm harping on you because you don't know how to form an argument. You either can't read or don't see that you're a complete moving target. So please come back after you finish your LSAT prep.

[Sad248]

I think a lot of discussion around this is just nonsense (stuff like 4 days in the office is horrible, but 2/3 or is amazing; I agree that WFH works or it doesn't work, it doesn't magically start functioning when it's Friday and go terribly awry when performed on a Wednesday). You also have a large contingent who, honestly, just wants to return to the office because they crave the social element. I think that is fair, but we are talking about work here, not your local tennis club. So that's out of the window.

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.

To bring this somewhat on topic, however: I've seen many people just not show up despite supposed mandated returns. I think it is a bit of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy going on, and I haven't heard (which makes sense, because it's private) any particular reasons why one is not showing up in the office nor do I have associates seen asking each other, so I think there is some mutual understanding. Maybe it will change, however, when summer associates start coming in or when first years come in who, of course, want to show how eager they are, creating a critical mass of bodies in the office and the need (and subsequent push by partners) to have senior associates in. I think then it really depends on the group and if they give in to the pressure or not. I think the levee could break pretty quickly, knowing how lawyers handle (peer) pressure.

[nixy]

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.

[Anonymous User]

I think training is not quiet the right word compared to "career development" and people just default to saying training because it sounds easier. I find it way easier to do the following in the office: talk to seniors and partners about career paths in general and specific terms; figure out background and practice focus on partners to determine who I want work with more going forward; figure out who has new cases coming in and what they are when I'm looking to join a new case; and fostering personal ties that can lead to recommendations / help with finding a job post lawschool.

Sure maybe some people can do that stuff online, but personally I find it way easier in person.

A lot of people who oppose rto probably read that and think "why would I want to do any of that it sounds horrible." And yea its not something you really need to do and if your plan is hit the 2-3 years and bounce then it probably has less value (which is why I'm not going to argue for forced RTO). But I think these things can have a real impact on your career long term depending on the situation.

[Anonymous User]

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.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Couldn’t agree more. I also think it’s frustrating for the WFH 5 days crowd because the things people find that they get from being in the office skew toward being intangible. It also has to do with differences in practice area and personality. As a senior associate who does regulatory work (not antitrust) and does spend time trying to wrap their mind around fairly complex issues, my perspective is going to differ from a corporate first year.

Normally that would be the end of it; but, I get why “it’s different for everyone” would upset people who are being forced to RTO despite those differences.

[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. The research and the writing is largely a solo endeavor, and I totally agree that you don't need to be in an office to do that, but the intangibles about strategy and big picture are both harder to pick up and way more valuable (and understanding them makes you a much better lawyer). You can't replace that entirely with formal mentoring or scheduled conversations, because so much of it is context-specific and organic. It is also just far more difficult to ask those questions and get meaningful answers at the end of a zoom or a phone call when everyone just wants to hang up as soon they can than it is if we're sitting around together. So I don't think you need to be in the office 5 days a week to get those experiences, but I do think something valuable is lost if opportunities for such experiences are lost to a great degree. Caveat that maybe litigation is just fundamentally different than corporate in that it is more creative and less clear cut, but I think there is probably a lot of creativity high up in the corporate practice too that juniors just aren't exposed to, and are less likely to be exposed to without some degree of in-person interaction.

[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.