I was recently a guest on the Modern Lawyer podcast hosted by Casetext VP of Business Development Anand Upadhye. In the course of our conversation, we discussed the very real possibility that, even after the economy reopens, Big Law will shift to a mostly remote workforce. I related the story that a person in senior management at an Am Law 200 firm told me recently that, even pre-pandemic, law firm offices functioned predominantly as a recruiting tool to attract the best attorneys. There was a time when law firms hosted clients regularly, but, as this person put it, "When do you ever see clients at law firms anymore?" I, for one, still believe in the value of a downtown skyscraper. A firm's office gives clients the feeling that they are hiring an established trustworthy business, not some fly-by-night mom and pop shop. But the diminishing value of a ritzy ditzy downtown office is significant enough that it could create a groundswell of support to keep flexible work policies in place moving forward.

While we may see big law firms commit to remote work long term, to those heralding the advent of a remote working Big Law as some kind of cure-all to attorney quality of life, I say, "Be careful what you wish for." A recent report from Deutsche Bank estimated the cost to companies of properly equipping just a single remote employee at around $12,600. The report further stresses that, for every study touting the efficiency of remote work and the harm of a long commute, there are a stack of studies showing that remote work succeeds only when very specific criteria are met including creating a dedicated workspace with complete privacy (that's where the $12,600 starts to come in). The evidence also suggests that, after nine months, many remote workers ultimately choose to return to the office. To be sure, remote work pre- and post-COVID is not an apples to apples comparison, but we can at least say this much: remote work has not proven to be a sustainable long term solution.

As a junior attorney, I was certain that my hour commute into the city was the foundation of my work-life imbalance. Some days in the office were literally spent sitting and waiting for work that would not come in until 6:30 pm, coincidentally the very moment it became socially acceptable to leave. Had the firm offered its employees the option to work remotely, I would have gladly covered the $12,600 out of my own pocket. So, naturally, when I left my firm to launch a startup, I looked forward to working at home and assumed it would improve my quality of life.

I was wrong.

Sure, the first six months of working from a two bedroom apartment (I had three kids at the time) were highly productive. I wore comfortable clothes; I rotated between the sofa, the dining room table and an occasional cafe; I dropped my kids off at school in the morning and picked them up in the afternoons. And, in my total and complete naivete, I wondered, "Why would anyone willingly confine themself to an office?"

But, as I would learn, the reason home is so cozy is not just because of the sofa and the ottoman, it is specifically because home is NOT your office. The problem is that once you mix office and home together, it becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle the two. Work becomes more comfortable in the short run, but the long term result is that home becomes more stressful. Put differently, there is a reason that Superman has a fortress of solitude, even if it requires a commute to Metropolis. In a way, some amount of commuting is actually healthy because it creates space between home and office and allows people time to shift between their professional and personal identity.

Remote Work: a Trojan Horse?

"Life was better before Blackberries," one senior partner once told me. He explained that, pre-Blackberry, lawyers might get an occasional call at home to come into the office, but there were more boundaries and work stayed at work. If the Blackberry's impact on attorney quality of life is instructive, then #WFH could be the next Trojan Horse for already embattled lawyers.

Law firms are not Twitter. Twitter along with other tech companies like Shopify have cultivated remote work cultures for years. Silicon Valley's flexing is not a new initiative (as it certainly would be for most law firms) it is simply doubling down on currently successful policies. Managers at these companies understand that they are paying for a job done, not simply their time. What makes remote work so glorious for both employer and employee is that it creates added incentive to getting the job done sooner. Employers like it because work gets done more rapidly and employees like it because they can spend more time on their personal life. Unless law firms figure out an elegant solution to billing clients that does not involve the billable hour a "get the job done" mentality cannot exist, almost by design.

Compounding this problem is the kind of tasks that lawyers would have to do from home. So much of a lawyer's day is spent dealing with high leverage, stressful situations that require extraordinary attention to detail. It is one thing to manage a social media account from your dining room, it is quite another to engage in settlement discussions, prepare for a deposition or negotiate complicated agreements.

Once the economy reopens, firms are going to be under pressure to cut costs and adapt to the new realities, and some firms may seize the opportunity to downsize their workspace. My hope is that the firms that move to a distributed workforce understand the realities of working remotely and create an arrangement that does not simply save them on their bottom line, but improves the quality of life of their employees.

Zach Abramowitz is a law firm adviser and president of Killer Whale Strategies.