Covid-19 may be behind us as a daily personal preoccupation, but one major repercussion of its shockingly extended and global impact is still with us: Do we or do we not go back to the office?
May we review the bidding?
- Totally remote/zero days-week in the office is not an answer
- 100% back/five days-week for everyone all the time is not an answer
- Zeroing in on Law Land:
- Staff, business professionals, and lawyers all have different views, preferences, and approaches.
- If “staff” means people largely occupied in keeping the office itself running–conference room staff, receptionists, catering/kitchen personnel–then less demand for their services translates to less call for them to be there @ 100% force level.
- And it’s the same, or should be, for business professionals. Even if you think that almost everything that could be done in the office by finance and accounting people, HR and Marketing/BD people, knowledge management and librarians’ staff, can be done largely remotely, you are assuming they aren’t part of the team. They are, in spades: Integral to your firm’s operating and thriving.
- But for lawyers, there’s no simple or glib answer. And this is where it gets difficult.
- Staff, business professionals, and lawyers all have different views, preferences, and approaches.
Unforeseen to most of us three years ago, when Covid was just some weird, exotic, and isolated outbreak in Wuhan, China, senior partners turn out to be among the fastest and most enthusiastic adopters of “WFH.” And it makes sense: They have their personal and professional networks established, their spacious and comfortable homes, their community connections solidified, a family, and embedded client relationships.
Associates, by contrast, and the more junior they are the more dramatically this is true, have no, young, nascent, precarious networks; small and often undistinguished apartments with acceptable but not great architecture and design, friends and significant others, little to no established social life outside the office, Starbucks and the local neighborhood restaurant as their living rooms, and you get the idea. Who would want to spend 24 hours/day, 7 days/week in this environment? The office promised energy, interaction, sociability, a welcome change of scene.
On the other hand, midlevel and more senior associates may be married or with a long-term significant other, plans for or the reality of infants arriving, a young but solidifying social network through their neighborhood, college and law school classmates, volunteer organizations, book clubs, a church or synagogue, and so forth. They don’t need the office so much to fulfill those indispensable human yearnings of connection, interaction, sociability, and practice in group dynamics.
Thus we seem to arrived at an impasse. Or rather, two very distinct experiences of the same work “reality.” With the attendant tension, misunderstandings, subterranean tension and anxiety, and as the classic line has it, “a failure to communicate.”
Where do we go from here?
A start would be to recognize that BigLaw is scarcely alone in not yet discovering what the new equilibrium between WFH and RTO will be. Goldman Sachs hasn’t figured it out. Nor have Apple, JP Morgan Chase, McKinsey, Google, Starbucks, BlackRock, Fidelity, Facebook/Microsoft/Salesforce, and almost everyone else. Our current reality somehow conjured in my mind’s eye what it’s like to be swimming up towards the surface from a dive, sunshine and fresh air getting closer with every stroke, just not there yet.
And I’m here to tell you we will get there; we will surface, gulp in the air, re-enter our familiar environment. I know this for two reasons. First, the global experience is not the US experience. Workers elsewhere have already gotten back to their offices at far higher rates than we have: In the UK and the EU particularly–but in Asia and Australia as well–office occupancy is approaching pre-Covid levels. Granted, some of the reasons have to do with those regions’ different urban infrastructure, with more comprehensive and more reliable public transit (cutting commute times) and smaller residences making it more awkward to concentrate in peace.
Thanks to the WSJ, we saw just this week that:
and
In other words, some of what we Americans are experiencing is contingent and not inevitable. Now, I am not suggesting anything idiotic here (as a rule, I try to avoid that becoming a habit), such as snapping our fingers to make homes and apartments smaller and dynamiting freeways to turn them into mass transit corridors, but I am suggesting that our preferred behaviors turn out, like many other such “habits,” to be at least partially a function of incentives and comfort levels. Spacious homes, long commutes? One set of preferences. Cramped homes, cheap/reliable commutes? Different result.
Then of course the final answer may be to drastically reconfigure The Office. “Stealth” rent decreases are evidently extremely widespread in, just to take two cities with more than their share of BigLaw denizens, New York and London. They take the form not of discounting the “headline” or reported rent per square foot, but of offering far more generous “tenant allowances” when new leases are signed, and–with even greater impact–waiving rental payments outright for a substantial portion of the lease term.
To take just one example, Canary Wharf in London would be no one’s idea of an anachronistic, neglected, or undesirable location, yet reports are that new leases being signed there have been in the range of 30+ months rent-free on a 10-year lease. Meanwhile, commercial real estate brokers and landlords calculate that for space of that caliber, a 33-month waive on a 10-year lease is the rough tipping point where the deal turns from profitable to unprofitable for the owner.
Finally and best of all: Consider this an era of (unexpected, unsolicited) “creative destruction” of our very concept of The Office. It’s too soon to tell whether Netflix will replace Blockbuster, Tesla and Lexus will replace Pontiac and Oldsmobile, or smartphones will replace everything in sight, but we know how we used to live now bears the ineradicable scent of the obsolete, the outdated, the stuffy and slightly moldy.
The clear blue surface of the water is approaching.
Three years in, and I’m pretty convinced that it is almost impossible to build partner-quality lawyers without some regular in person contact in an office setting. For law firms, that seems to be the sine qua non of the office. And to be clear, not talking about transmitting substantive knowledge such as how to draft/negotiate this agreement or perform this piece of due diligence (I’m a transactional guy, so I’ll stick to what I know). I’m mainly talking about how to conduct oneself as a professional in a law firm setting as you move up the ladder. Things like feeling the urgency/pressure of a closing in real time with others around you. Seeing how senior associates juggle imposing workloads. Seeing how a partner handles a difficult adversary or client and debriefing afterward. All the informal learning that takes place in the first ten years of a lawyers career, the true formative years. And all of the internal relationships that get built through purely voluntary social interactions, not forced parties/mixers and the like, that no one really has time for over Zoom.
We haven’t seen the bill for this yet. And it won’t manifest the same in all firms. But it’s coming due in the near future. If you regularly work with juniors, I’d argue you can see the effects. They look and feel lost in some important respects even if they are substantively doing well. I feel for this cohort.
What to do? No other way around it. More senior lawyers have to show up regularly and somewhat frequently. Two to three days a week seems to be a sweet spot. But not just being in the office. Checking in on folks. Seeing what is going on in their lives outside of work. Reading their reactions. Time/resources need to be invested in these junior lawyers’ careers. The real senior partners who have raised families and are hanging out at home because it’s just easier don’t have any excuse. Middle management consisting of junior partners and senior associates (where a lot of the informal knowledge exchange occurs) have to just buckle down and do it if they want the organization to be successful in the future. I would argue it should be recognized at comp time too, at least to some proportionate degree.
It’s like exercise. You won’t see the results right away. It’s hard to get started. And once you do, it’s a pain in the butt some days. But over time, done consistently, you’ll see improvement and the results will cascade. And you’ll help some other people in their careers, which is good for the soul.
Dear Skeptic: I wish I could disagree with you, but you have nailed it here. “Disagree” only in the sense that people seem quite comfortable, thank-you-very-much, with the WFH status quo.
The most trenchant point you make, to my mind, is that the senior and midlevel partners need to step up and do their duty for the young associates and the future of the firm. I truly appreciate and admire this sort of tough love.
Good for you!
And now: Do other readers disagree? Is “Skeptic” wrong on this one?