Remote Working Programs: True Flexibility or Masked Rigidity? YL Editorial Board
Recently, a handful of prominent law firms have implemented formal work-from-home policies in an effort to both appeal to attorneys seeking flexibility and accommodate the ever-changing modern workplace.
August 02, 2017 at 05:12 PM
16 minute read
Recently, a handful of prominent law firms have implemented formal work-from-home policies in an effort to both appeal to attorneys seeking flexibility and accommodate the ever-changing modern workplace.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis, for one, announced this spring that it was launching a formal remote working program for its associates. Launching May 1, associates could opt into the program that would permit them to work remotely up to two days per week. Jackson Lewis also announced—this past spring—that it would permit its attorneys to work remotely on an “as-needed” basis, which fundamentally memorialized an “informal” policy that had been in place for several years. Shearman & Sterling implemented a policy permitting associates and counsel to work remotely two days per month in 2016. Some of these programs, and there are others, have even provided technology such as computer monitors, phones, printers and scanners to assist attorneys in setting up a remote workplace that facilitates maximum productivity and seamless transitions from the firm's office to the attorney's home office.
According to these firms, implementing a formal program is intended to improve work-life balance; respond to requests from a new generation of attorneys; and minimize traditional or old-school thoughts about “face time” in an office. Some associates explained that they often felt guilty or that they needed to justify their absence from the office when their personal lives occasionally required them to work remotely. With a formal policy in place, firms hope to eliminate such pressures while still receiving a high-quality work product.
This content has been archived.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 AllPeople in the News—Dec. 17, 2024—Holland & Knight, Marshall Dennehey
4 minute readLaw Firms Are In a Strong Spot, But Their Continued 'Growth Mindset' Comes With Challenges
5 minute readPeople in the News—Nov. 5, 2024—Pietragallo Gordon, Tucker Arensberg
3 minute readTrending Stories
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