Uncertain Future: Rethinking the Law Firm Lease Post-COVID-19
Due to COVID-19's impact, the commercial office market should fundamentally shift in favor of tenants for the next several years. Law firm tenants should find an environment characterized by friendly concessions, options across asset classes and price ranges, and limited competition for space.
March 25, 2021 at 12:01 PM
5 minute read
Due to COVID-19's impact, the commercial office market should fundamentally shift in favor of tenants for the next several years. Law firm tenants should find an environment characterized by friendly concessions, options across asset classes and price ranges, and limited competition for space.
Here are some market factors:
- Global office vacancy will rise from a pre-pandemic rate of 10.9% to 15.6% next year. See, https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/insights/covid-19/global-office-impact-study-and-recovery-timing-report
- Rents in the United States likely will fall 6.5% this year and 2.3% in 2022. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-23/office-leasing-seen-remaining-below-pre-covid-levels-until-2025
- The length of lease terms has dropped to a five-year low. https://www.us.jll.com/en/trends-and-insights/research/office-market-statistics-trends
So, what does all of this mean to your law office? If you are negotiating a new lease, or renegotiating an existing one, consider including these seven provisions:
- Contraction Option. A contraction option is a right to reduce the size of a tenant's leased premises. As office space needs change, the firm may want to reduce square footage. In seeking to reduce your law office footprint, you should be prepared to negotiate the responsibility for the cost to physically redemise the space.
- Shorter Terms. Commercial office landlords generally desire longer term leases (typically seven to 10 years) to maximize a building's value for financing purposes. Tenants conversely prefer the inherent flexibility of shorter-term leases. Given the anticipated oversupply for the next several years, you should be poised to negotiate a shorter lease term, while recognizing that a shorter-term lease may impact a landlord's willingness to fund space improvements and to provide other financial incentives, such as an upfront period of free or reduced rent.
- Option to Terminate Early. Be prepared to experience a period of trial and error as you attempt to quantify office space needs. Where there is a sizable oversupply of office space, a law firm could become an "office nomad" of sorts and set up shop in less costly space (through a direct lease or sublease) as such space becomes available. To take advantage of office space oversupply, consider negotiating an early termination or escape clause. Such a clause may come at a price as a landlord may insist on a termination fee. This fee typically reflects the landlord's unamortized upfront costs such as brokers' commissions and buildout costs together with some measure of lost rental income.
- Option to Extend. An extension option (sometimes also referred to as a renewal option) provides a tenant the option, but not the obligation, to extend or renew a lease beyond the lease's base term. The right to extend or renew a lease, when coupled with a shorter length base term, essentially provides your firm the certainty of a long-term lease without the corresponding inflexibility. Conversely, if changes make the firm's lease impractical, then you have the right to "walk away" from the lease when the base term expires.
- Right to Use Space Outside of Premises. As space needs most certainly will evolve, buildings offering flexible as-needed "office hotel space," shared desks, meeting and collaboration spaces, and benching spaces outside of a tenant's leased premises may become more common. You should seek out office properties with this alternative "as needed" space, which can be used by your firm on a gratuitous or fee-based basis. Having such space "in reserve" and available to the firm will provide another layer of flexibility.
- Limitations on Passthrough Expenses. Typically, operating expense provisions permit landlords to charge a tenant for a tenant's pro rata share of a very broad range of costs and expenses. Building design and operational changes are inevitable as a result of COVID-19. For instance, landlords may be:
- Reconfiguring building common areas, such as lobbies and elevators to maintain proper social distancing,
- Incorporating technologies to protect people from exposure, including temperature measurement and UV sanitizing devices,
- Upgrading heating, ventilating and cooling systems to improve air filtration, and
- Increasing building service staff such as day porters to disinfect areas throughout a workday.
These measures are costly. Does your firm's lease include an operating expense provision and if so, will the landlord's COVID-related operational expenses be passed through to the firm? You should scrutinize the operating expense provision in your lease to determine the extent of your responsibility to pay for any increased operating costs that may be associated with COVID.
- Force Majeure Abatements. Finally, although the lease negotiation equivalent of successfully recovering an onside kick, you should attempt to include language in your lease that defines government-mandated shutdowns due to pandemics as force majeure events, which in turn, would trigger an abatement of the firm's obligation to pay rent during this period. This provision, if successfully negotiated, may prove critical in the unfortunate event of a new outbreak.
Conclusion
As someone much smarter than the authors—Einstein—once said, "in the middle of difficulty, lies an opportunity." You should take advantage of market conditions and embrace the opportunity to rethink your lease needs, pursue tenant-friendly options and increase your flexibility to deal with a potentially uncertain future.
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 AllLaw Firms Look to Gen Z for AI Skills, as 'Data Becomes the Oil of Legal'
De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 2
Pennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 2Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 3How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 4Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 5Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
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