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
© 2025 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 AllKPMG's Bid to Practice Law in U.S. on Indefinite Hold, as Arizona Justices Exercise Caution
Orrick Hires Longtime Weil Partner as New Head of Antitrust Litigation
Sidley Adds Ex-DOJ Criminal Division Deputy Leader, Paul Hastings Adds REIT Partner, in Latest DC Hiring
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 2Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 3Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 4Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 5'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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