Fully-remote firms other than Quinn? Forum

[giggaman1228]

I worked remotely at Steptoe for a bit. It's not the norm but it works depending on practice group.

-Chris

[Anonymous User]

It's certainly possible to negotiate this at Crowell. Several have done it, including juniors.

[Anonymous User]

Bump, especially for any other firms that are known to offer remote/flex, or the flip (i.e., firms having a strict physical presence policy), as well as any other experiences gained over the last few weeks.

Wondering the same, in particular WC, BSF, S&C, Latham, and other firms with strong litigation groups.

Gibson Dunn is fully remote too. There are several associates in my office that live out-of-state and no one bats an eye.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a fist year at a firm in NYC that is 100% against remote work. I hate this shit. Is lateraling to another firm possible within the first year? I really really want to work remotely. I'd take a pay cut to work remotely, even.

[Anonymous User]

bump

[Anonymous User]

Bump

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw midlevel associate here. To the extent you want to succeed at any NYC law firm, I think you will have to come into the office occasionally. Partners dictate your success, and partners (in general) want to see you in person at least sometimes. You can be a task minion and crush it virtually, but when the time comes to cull associates or place a call so you get a good in-house gig or think about who is up for partner, people will naturally choose the employees they actually know and built personal relationships with. Those relationships are built at lunches, dinners, happy hours, coffee runs, in-person meetings, etc. In my experience that's especially true as we get into the summer and have recruiting/summer associate events. You need to attend at least some of those. My first years were in COVID (after clerking) and worked very hard -- but my relationships with partners have improved much more through personal engagement.

So, it's cool if you want to work entirely remotely. But just know that you will risk giving up professional advancement at most NYC law firms I am aware of.

Also, to the extent you want to build client relationships, I have found it 1000x easier to do so through occasional in-person meetings. I'm in lit and three days of in-person depo prep beat a year of Zoom meetings.

[Anonymous User]

[accidental post]

[Anonymous User]

Would appreciate any updates on this. I don't think "consensus" is the right term, but anecdotally Gibson appears to be an option for potential remote/hybrid (based on some of the recent TLS threads/posts here), obviously I can't confirm.

[Anonymous User]

Cahill has no in person requirements. Not officially remote tho.

[Anonymous User]

Would appreciate any updates on this. I don't think "consensus" is the right term, but anecdotally Gibson appears to be an option for potential remote/hybrid (based on some of the recent TLS threads/posts here), obviously I can't confirm.

My theory is that people know of firms where it happens, but lawyers are notoriously selfish and risk-adverse. Think firms told their associates to keep any WFH policies confidential and lawyers themselves don't want their firm to be overrun by associates (making it likelier for them to get fired) and especially not WFH lawyers (who have the reputation of being less-hardworking) anyway.

I myself am at Freshfields. Definitely just expected to come in 3-5 times a week.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw midlevel associate here. To the extent you want to succeed at any NYC law firm, I think you will have to come into the office occasionally. Partners dictate your success, and partners (in general) want to see you in person at least sometimes. You can be a task minion and crush it virtually, but when the time comes to cull associates or place a call so you get a good in-house gig or think about who is up for partner, people will naturally choose the employees they actually know and built personal relationships with. Those relationships are built at lunches, dinners, happy hours, coffee runs, in-person meetings, etc. In my experience that's especially true as we get into the summer and have recruiting/summer associate events. You need to attend at least some of those. My first years were in COVID (after clerking) and worked very hard -- but my relationships with partners have improved much more through personal engagement.

So, it's cool if you want to work entirely remotely. But just know that you will risk giving up professional advancement at most NYC law firms I am aware of.

Also, to the extent you want to build client relationships, I have found it 1000x easier to do so through occasional in-person meetings. I'm in lit and three days of in-person depo prep beat a year of Zoom meetings.

This is obviously 100% true, but this was hopefully public knowledge for anyone trying to become partner. It is not about your skills as a lawyer, but about how much you can schmooze and how much business you draw in. You can't do that from your bed (well, at least not ethically so).

Thing is, majority of people in biglaw do not want to become partner and an even larger portion will never become partner, so they really don't care.

[Anonymous User]

Would appreciate any updates on this. I don't think "consensus" is the right term, but anecdotally Gibson appears to be an option for potential remote/hybrid (based on some of the recent TLS threads/posts here), obviously I can't confirm.

My theory is that people know of firms where it happens, but lawyers are notoriously selfish and risk-adverse. Think firms told their associates to keep any WFH policies confidential and lawyers themselves don't want their firm to be overrun by associates (making it likelier for them to get fired) and especially not WFH lawyers (who have the reputation of being less-hardworking) anyway.

I myself am at Freshfields. Definitely just expected to come in 3-5 times a week.

I would imagine that most arrangements allowing WFH are more ad hoc - either de facto for everyone but not the official policy, or arranged on a case by case basis - so people aren’t identifying their firms as “fully remote” because they’re not, even if a lot of people WFH a lot to all of the time. That seems more likely than that there’s some kind of conspiracy to hide the policies. It also doesn’t seem like the pandemic really changed many firms’ take on WFH, as much as everyone may wish it did.

[Anonymous User]

Would appreciate any updates on this. I don't think "consensus" is the right term, but anecdotally Gibson appears to be an option for potential remote/hybrid (based on some of the recent TLS threads/posts here), obviously I can't confirm.

My theory is that people know of firms where it happens, but lawyers are notoriously selfish and risk-adverse. Think firms told their associates to keep any WFH policies confidential and lawyers themselves don't want their firm to be overrun by associates (making it likelier for them to get fired) and especially not WFH lawyers (who have the reputation of being less-hardworking) anyway.

I myself am at Freshfields. Definitely just expected to come in 3-5 times a week.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. Why wouldn't a firm want to be overrun with associates? Every firm wants applicants.

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this to ask if anyone is aware of firms that haven't been discussed here that allow fully-remote lit associates?

[Antetrust]

Would appreciate any updates on this. I don't think "consensus" is the right term, but anecdotally Gibson appears to be an option for potential remote/hybrid (based on some of the recent TLS threads/posts here), obviously I can't confirm.

My theory is that people know of firms where it happens, but lawyers are notoriously selfish and risk-adverse. Think firms told their associates to keep any WFH policies confidential and lawyers themselves don't want their firm to be overrun by associates (making it likelier for them to get fired) and especially not WFH lawyers (who have the reputation of being less-hardworking) anyway.

I myself am at Freshfields. Definitely just expected to come in 3-5 times a week.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. Why wouldn't a firm want to be overrun with associates? Every firm wants applicants.

I think the claim was that the lawyers (i.e., the associates) working for a firm don't want the firm to be overrun with associates because that dilutes their value to the firm. The firm itself would presumably love to be overrun with associates, as you pointed out.