Lessons from the regions - time for a rethink on City law firm culture?
Amid recent changes in the law to promote more flexible ways of working, City lawyers may well reflect on their own inflexible working day and long hours culture...
October 01, 2014 at 09:25 AM
4 minute read
Since the change in law earlier this year which gave all employees the right to request flexible working, many lawyers will be working closely with clients to support them in implementing an effective and practical flexible working policy. And more change to how people work day-to-day is on its way, with shared parental leave coming into force next April.
With all this change to the workplace encouraging more flexible ways of working, lawyers may well reflect on their own inflexible working day and long hours culture.
Although more challenges and difficulties can arise for law firms when trying to change or adapt working practices, such as an embedded culture and necessary long hours due to the type of work, it is essential that law firms evolve and think more innovatively to keep up with the rest of the business community.
Implementing a more flexible working culture can mean firms are in a stronger position to attract and retain talent. Younger lawyers now expect a degree of work/life balance and will therefore pick a firm that offers that culture. In terms of retaining talent, female lawyers can find it more challenging to progress on the same career path as their male counterparts after returning from maternity leave. Presenteeism is often still promoted at the expense of flexible/part-time working which can often be equally or sometimes more efficient in the delivery of good client service.
Of course, there are examples of firms embracing a more flexible way of working. For instance, Slaughter and May recently launched a work from home programme which it will pilot for six months, which sees partners and associates working from home for one day every two weeks, and take-up has already been strong.
Meanwhile, new models such as Lawyers on Demand also mean that lawyers can work on a variety of interesting cases and projects, while maintaining flexibility and having autonomy over when and where they work.
Lessons from the regions?
Across the legal profession, regional firms are often better at promoting flexible working – both permitting working hours on a non-conventional timetable or from home and tailoring roles to suit individuals' strengths, rather than shoehorning them into specific roles. This is partly because, in the regions, we see a greater emphasis on lasting, people-orientated relationships, with both staff and clients which go beyond the issue of working hours.
Compared to large City firms, smaller regional firms can be more responsive and often have more confidence to innovate and break away from the traditional law firm structure. For example, being a partner doesn't suit every lawyer, but could suit non-lawyers, and it is a great way to ensure those individuals who contribute strongly to the business are valued and treated as equals.
As a regional firm we have actually benefitted from the inflexibility of the City culture – hiring a number of talented lawyers who no longer wanted to work in the centre of London.
However, while we contemplate the improvements a new culture of flexible working can bring to law firms, are we in danger of becoming too introspective? At the heart of any firm should be its clients and their needs. We should be focused on how flexible working can benefit our clients – if our clients are working more flexibly, we need to think how this impacts the services we provide – and how we provide them.
I do believe that regional firms can have the edge over London-based firms when it comes to flexible working. A more reactive, flexible structure means we can base decisions around our people more than how we implement a firmwide policy. Although flexibility is likely to remain the workplace buzzword, it is important law firms do not forget to give serious thought to how to improve services to help clients work more flexibly, perhaps even more than ourselves.
Steve Ryan is managing partner at SA Law.
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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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