As we approach the fifth anniversary of the pandemic, The Brief looks at the ways flexible working has been adopted by law firms, and uncovers a range of very different attitudes to office life.
It might be hard to believe, but it almost five years since the Covid-19 pandemic sent most of the nation’s office workers home to their kitchen tables, bedrooms, or whatever domestic nook or cranny could serve as a workstation. In the intervening period, the perception of what the working week looks like for most professionals has been turned inside out.
However, although for some this still means permanent home working, for most it is some kind of hybrid arrangement, and for others a full-time return to the office, albeit probably with less rigid hours than previously. And, while the all-nighter might not have gone away, it is at least now likely that any antisocial-hours work will be carried out at home with a cup of tea.
As well as genuine concerns for employee wellbeing, post-pandemic flexible working policies have two major commercial drivers: recruitment and retention, and efficiency.
In the latter case, businesses are balancing the trade-offs between people potentially being able to work more effectively in a distraction-free environment (although not all home environments are equal in this regard) and the benefits of collaboration and knowledge transfer in an office environment.
Another major factor is the efficient use of capital. Many law firms that have moved to new offices post-pandemic have done so to premises that could never accommodate all of their staff all at once, thus either saving money or moving to premises with a much higher specification than they could otherwise afford.
When it comes to recruitment and retention, it is impossible to please everyone so, as long as firms are being reasonable, they will just have to accept that some people will be keener than others whatever working environment they offer.
As an example, a number of consultancy firms, in particular, barely provide any office space and expect all of their staff to work remotely all the time. This is exactly what some lawyers want, but it by no means suits everyone.
It is not just those at either end of their careers who want to be able to go into the office; sometimes it is the mid-career parents who value it most highly. For example, Louise Thompson of Trethowans, star of July’s “A day in the life of…” feature, told “The Brief” that she valued being able to work from her firm’s office to create a boundary between family and work life, only working from home when necessary in the evenings.
Team dynamics
The Leeds-based employment law specialist Robinson Ralph has maintained an office and intends to do so for the foreseeable future because, partner David Sillitoe explains, “We recognise the importance of people being in the same building from a team cohesion perspective.”
Although the firm’s practice is to be flexible, he says, “We try to make sure we have senior people in with junior lawyers, as being around more experienced lawyers and seeing how they work is absolutely vital for development. Psychologically, it somehow makes it much easier to ask questions, as compared with having to call someone!
If more-senior lawyers are reluctant to come in because they don’t personally benefit, that should be a red flag from a team dynamics perspective.
Personal circumstances
As an employment lawyer Sillitoe says that, although some employers he deals with are moving back to full-time office working, most in his experience are sticking with a hybrid model.
He says, “What is absolutely key is to consider personal circumstances, such as health issues and childcare responsibilities, for both men and women, given that men with childcare responsibilities can now bring indirect sex discrimination claims, based on the ‘same disadvantage’ principle.
“With health issues, a request for flexible working could also be a request for reasonable adjustments. Indeed, with a disabled employee, an employer shouldn’t wait for a request, as the duty to make reasonable adjustments is imposed on the employer; it is not the employee’s duty to make them happen.
I have had cases of people faking conditions to avoid returning to the office, but that is very much the minority
Freelance freedom
Daniel Adams, co-founder of the commercial law firm Arbor Law, says there has been a steady increase in the number of freelance solicitors since the Solicitors Regulation Authority introduced new rules in 2019. “I would argue this reflects a wider trend in favour of increased autonomy and flexibility,” he says.
He believes that in many cases working from home policies increases productivity. “If, for example, you are drafting a complex technical brief, it makes sense to have the time and space to focus on this in an environment of your choosing,” he explains.
We’ve tried to create an environment where we trust our lawyers to choose what works best for them.’
The Arbor Law platform, Adams continues, is geared toward maximising flexible working for its lawyers.
He says, “Technology allows for greater communication and learning in virtual environments, and we also provide meeting spaces for collaborating, shared learning and social interaction.
“We haven’t found it necessary to impose strict rules around this. Instead, our approach has been to focus on building a healthy working environment and allowing the individual more autonomy.”
Visit
Connect with Daniel Adams via LinkedIn
Connect with David Sillitoe via LinkedIn
Connect with Louise Thompson via LinkedIn
