In depth: Should law firms pressure staff to get back to the office?

News that staff at HM Land Registry could take industrial action after being ordered back to their desks is a reminder for law firms that this is an issue fraught with difficulties.

Managing partners may look despairingly at empty desks (and the costs of vacant space) and worry for junior lawyers not getting the interaction they need. They will also know that lifestyles, priorities and, crucially, caring responsibilities of fee-earners have changed since the pandemic.

But times are slowly changing. The flood of work that followed the lockdown has slowed a little, meaning lawyers cannot leverage the same threat to go elsewhere if they feel pressured to come back in. Attendance rules have been imposed by the likes of PwC, Santander and Amazon, and if big-ticket clients are leading the charge, law firms may feel the need to follow suit.

Considerations

Rebecca Adlington, global marketing manager at legal recruitment firm Sonder, says balancing remote work and in-office requirements will hinge on factors such as client expectations, talent development needs and the competitive landscape.

‘There are compelling reasons why law firms are advocating for office attendance,’ explains Adlington. ‘Leaders are nervous about losing top talent but are increasingly frustrated by the impact of remote work on the development of younger lawyers. The office environment is crucial for shaping firm culture and facilitating mentorship opportunities. Being physically present allows junior associates to learn from senior partners, fosters a sense of belonging and strengthens bonds among colleagues.’

But acting too stringently is fraught with risk if key earners decide they can find a better arrangement elsewhere. Adlington points out that a rainmaker departing would be ‘a lot of money walking out the door for the sake of coming into the City on a Friday’.

Some in the profession fear that the backlash against remote working is making leaders forget the benefits that it brought in the first place. Nicola Coward, a partner with Sussex firm Heringtons, says law firms should see remote working as a net positive. ‘It is quite easy to track an employee’s chargeable hours when working from home versus in the office and if there is a concern, that can be appropriately raised but I’m not aware of there being an issue,’ she says. ‘As someone who works from home two to three times a week I get significantly more work done due to fewer interruptions, but I’m always contactable to clients and staff alike.’

Laura Lack, a digital marketer with legal support firm Conscious Solutions, believes firms that are demanding more time in the office rather than compromising with hybrid systems are missing out on top talent.

‘While it remains a fee-earners’ market and there’s such competition for them, those firms unwilling to compromise and trust their teams will continue to struggle to recruit,’ she says. ‘I know it’s also about passing on that expertise to other team members and being physically in the office to do so, but that doesn’t need to happen Monday to Friday.’

Some firms have not reverted to pre-Covid practices. Manchester and London-based IMD Solicitors decided in 2021 to introduce permanent remote working policies. An office is available for team members who prefer to work in-person, but there are no attendance requirements. Since November 2022, no team member has resigned from the firm and individuals have been hired from top-30 firms.

Managing partner Marcin Durlak says: ‘This model has been a great success for both the firm and our team, and we have no intention of reverting to hybrid or full-time office-based working. We believe that the key is to provide people with choice and autonomy, subject to occasional client meeting needs.’

Labour MP Sarah Russell, a former employment solicitor, supports office working and appreciates the benefits, but is concerned that mandatory attendance could have unintended consequences.

'I honestly think a full-time office requirement is one of the most short sighted things an employer can do,' says Russell. 'Office attendance can help collaboration, but it isn't necessary for it to be every day.

'As an MP I now meet organisations and I ask them about the gender division of their top team. I hear far too often that there just aren't enough women who are C-Suite ready. But this is why there is a dearth of women, because too many fall out of the workforce due to maternity discrimination, and later, subsequent decisions such as these.'

Discussions, not diktats

Commentators largely agree that coordination and communication are the keys to collegiate in-person office working. Forcing people in – or even offering gimmicks such as free food – is no substitute for simply asking people about their needs and trying to fit around them. Speaking to staff can also avoid the problem of people coming in but on different days.

Joanna Gaudoin, a consultant who specialises in helping law firms build internal relationships, says the main issue has to be communication and continually reviewing policies and working practices to make sure they are working to ensure they are effective.

‘Expectations have changed for staff and working from home is no longer seen as unusual,’ she adds. ‘But it is important to be present in the workplace at least some of the time - I am seeing juniors mandated to come in more and some undoubtedly want that because they might flat-share and not have the space to work from home. But often they come in and they are sitting on their own with no more senior fee earners to learn from. There needs to be coordination so people come in at the same time.’

The alternative to collaboration – mandating office attendance – can backfire, as happened with one New York firm that announced a full-time in-office policy, with the threat of reduced pay and holiday entitlements for refuseniks. Any deviation from five days a week would need managing partner approval. As one insider told the US legal press: ‘Associates are furious, many are looking into quitting. Morale could not be worse.’

Senior figures will do well to remember that mandatory office working will count for little if there is no one there to come in.