Practical Suggestions for Reopening Small, Midsize Firms in COVID-19 Era
As South Florida slowly begins to reopen, law firms should remember that this does not mean they may go back to business as usual. Not only were law firms not included in Phase One of Florida's reopening plan, but reopening will require businesses to adhere to enhanced safety protocols.
May 18, 2020 at 09:05 AM
5 minute read
The coronavirus outbreak hit Florida's three most populous counties—Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach—substantially worse than the rest of the state. While these counties hold approximately 30% of the state's population, over half of the confirmed coronavirus cases were here. Thus, it came as no surprise that South Florida was excluded from Phase One of Gov. Ron DeSantis' reopening plan issued on April 29.
As South Florida slowly begins to reopen, law firms should remember that this does not mean they may go back to business as usual. Not only were law firms not included in Phase One of Florida's reopening plan, but reopening will require businesses to adhere to enhanced safety protocols. After all, the goal of the plan is to promote business operation and economic recovery while maintaining focus on core safety principles.
Currently, midsize law firms may remain open for the limited purposes of facilitating remote operation and performing tasks necessary to accomplish legally mandated activities. Access to courthouses also remains limited. On May 4, the Florida Supreme Court issued a new administrative order that suspended jury trials through July 2 and extended the limits on in-person hearings until May 29.
If the sequence of events leading to stay-at-home orders taught us anything, it is likely that midsize law firms will be able to reopen sooner than larger offices. As such, boutique and midsize firms should start preparing now for reopening. This will require thoughtful consideration of how and when they should further open their physical offices once more restrictions are lifted.
Compared to other industries, law firms are in a decent position to operate either fully or partially remotely. However, a physical office is helpful when it comes to things like mailing, printing, collaborative projects, and client meetings. The challenge then becomes establishing a workable plan that does not needlessly expose employees and clients.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to reopening law firms. Offices will have to be flexible and adapt quickly as circumstances change. Regardless, the suggestions below may prove helpful as law firms develop their individualized enhanced safety protocols.
- Social distancing protocols: |
- Limit office access by alternating days or weeks employees work from the office.
- Require that social distancing rules be followed within the office.
- Remove and space out seating in lunch and conference rooms.
- If in-person meetings are necessary, see clients and witnesses by appointment only, and: |
- Remove all unnecessary, frequently touched items like magazines, fliers and other unnecessary paper products and décor from visitor areas;
- Allow time between appointments for proper disinfecting practices;
- Require employees and visitors to wear masks for use during appointments;
- Avoid hand-shaking and sitting too close.
- Ensure in-person interactions with high-risk individuals (attorneys, staff, clients or witnesses) only take place when absolutely necessary.
- Require the use of masks during face-to-face interactions and while walking around the office.
- Good hygiene protocols: |
- Leave doors propped open
- Disinfect surfaces daily
- Promote frequent hand washing for all employees
- Provide hand sanitizers at workstations and shared spaces
- Provide masks for employees
- Health protocols: |
- Check temperatures daily
- Prohibit employees with any symptoms from going to the office
- Have high-risk employees continue to work from home, including: |
- Those who are part of the high-risk population or care for such individuals
- Those who reside with essential workers who are frequently exposed to others
- Those who must take public transportation to go to work
- Limit travel and in-person depositions or hearings
- Have employees who travel quarantine and work remotely for 14 days
Special accommodations must also be made for high-risk individuals. The vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 recover without significant problems. However, high-risk individuals have a substantial risk of developing serious problems, including severe long-term systemic disease and death. High-risk individuals include people over the age of 65, as well as younger people with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, pulmonary disease, renal disease or compromised immune systems.
Until a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 is developed and deployed, or a readily available effective treatment or cure becomes available, high-risk individuals must continue to avoid nonessential social contacts. Therefore, unless absolutely necessary, attorneys, staff, clients and witnesses who are high risk should continue to rely on technology instead of in-person interactions. Programs and technology must be implemented so that those at high risk can function and be served within the legal system without unnecessary risk to their lives and health.
Law firms should also remember to maintain an open communication with their employees. Failure to provide staff with periodic updates can quickly lead to confusion, concern and dissatisfaction. Moreover, staff members may help offer creative solutions for individual firms.
Law firms should take this opportunity to remain vigilant and continue fine-tuning their enhanced safety protocols. This is especially true for firms that operate in South Florida, the epicenter of Florida's coronavirus outbreak.
Karina Rodrigues and Harlan Wald are attorneys with Kelley | Uustal in Fort Lauderdale. Rodrigues litigates negligence, products liability, medical malpractice, construction defects and wrongful death cases. Contact her at [email protected]. Wald is a retired physician, and his practice areas include medical malpractice, catastrophic personal injury, and wrongful death. Contact him at [email protected].
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Business Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
- 2Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Ex-Miami Commissioner and Attorney
- 3Pennsylvania Modernizes Trust Administration With New Directed Trust Statute
- 4Farella Hires Former AUSA, Jan. 6 Prosecutor
- 5Dougherty Jury Returns $2M Verdict
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