Legal Professionals Want to Keep Working From Home, but Will That Last?
A new study by Loeb Leadership finds that 67% of lawyers and staff want to continue to work remotely, even when it's safe to return to offices. But there are risks to firms and employees in that approach.
June 11, 2020 at 04:36 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers and law firm staff enjoy working remotely so much that 67% want to continue that arrangement once offices fully reopen following the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new survey by a company that does leadership training for firms.
The online survey of 25 firms conducted in mid-May by Loeb Leadership, based in New Jersey, found that nearly seven of every 10 people working at firms want to continue working remotely, at least a few days a week, once it's safe to return to offices.
That is key information for managing partners to consider as firms begin to redeploy lawyers and staff to offices, and as firm leaders consider whether they even need as much office space in a post-pandemic world. But some consultants warn that interest in working from home may wane as it becomes safer to go out in public.
David Robert, chief strategy officer for Loeb Leadership, said the survey finding reinforces what he's been hearing in conversations with law firm clients.
"A vast majority of employees want their role to remain, in some degree, remote," Robert said.
Consultants are hearing the same thing from clients.
Lisa Smith, a principal at Fairfax Associates in Washington, D.C., said she's hearing that people miss the socialization aspect of being in the office but also appreciate not having to commute.
She's not surprised that the majority of lawyers and firm staff want to continue to work from home some of the time, but she would be surprised to hear that people want to do it all of the time.
"I think people miss it more than they expected," she said.
Smith said some managing partners she's talked to are skeptical that lawyers and staff have been as productive or as available at home as in the office, but for COVID-19-related reasons, such as having to homeschool children, or to deal with other matters because the entire family has been housebound together.
Kent Zimmermann, a firm consultant at Zeughauser Group, said that high desire to continue to work at home indicated in the Loeb Leadership study may shrink over time as people begin to feel more comfortable going out if the number of the coronavirus cases fall substantially or a vaccine is developed.
He said a lot of people don't want to take risks if they can avoid it, especially those who are over age 65 or have health conditions, or are caring for someone who does.
"As a result, what we hear from most firms is that they for the foreseeable future don't plan to force anybody to go to the office who doesn't want to go to the office," Zimmermann said.
While firms may take the position that lawyers or staff can continue to work at home if they are more comfortable, there is a risk when relationship partners expect lawyers or staff working for them to be in the office, he said.
"That gets complex," Zimmermann said. "People who come back may have advantages versus the rest in terms of building relationships with key people that might help them get staffed on certain matters that will enhance their careers."
Robert, the Loeb Leadership consultant, said client demands can also impact how a firm handles the issue of remote work. Clients may expect in-person meetings, he said.
But 92% of the survey respondents said they believe their firm has been meeting client needs during the pandemic. The survey includes responses from 147 lawyers and staff ranging from Am Law 100 firms to small shops.
As states begin to allow businesses including firms to reopen, governors are restricting the numbers of employees in offices to comply with social distancing and safety concerns. But, as those restrictions are lifted over time, managing partners will need to consider the legal implications of requiring employees to shift back to in-office work, and then find that someone gets infected with the coronavirus, Robert said.
Only 37% of the survey respondents said they would feel comfortable returning to the office if stay-at-home orders were lifted within the next 30 days.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250