Speaking up for Hybrid and Remote Work Models

My experience interning through law school has been with in-house counsel for an international company. Although I would occasionally go into the office for events, much of my work was done at home. With the company being international, most of the people in my department reside in Europe so we communicate through Teams meetings and emails. While the work from home model was successful for my company, they have still been pushing for workers to return to office for forty percent of the month. They state the issue is not with productivity, rather they stress the importance of those “Ah-ha!” moments experienced when having chats with co-workers in office. Unsurprisingly, there has been a significant amount of pushback from all departments. 

Since I have decided to change my route and work for a firm after graduation, the ability to work from home or hybrid has been an important consideration for me. Tampa Bay traffic is a nightmare most days, and I typically focus best when I am more isolated.

There have been relatively few firms advertising the hybrid or remote model lately. I can appreciate certain areas of law preferring individuals to work in office, but this should become something we leverage when compensation is being negotiated. Necessarily, those working in office will have to dedicate more time to their work because commuting cuts your spare time each day, or they may have to pay for more expensive housing to be closer to work. Parents have less flexibility which increases the cost of childcare. The list goes on for more expenses workers face purely by working in office rather than from home or in a hybrid model. 

Being the fresh faces in the field, we do have some responsibility of updating the expectations employers should have to meet. And, realistically, I do not think it is too much of an ask to do the same amount of work in a more comfortable, convenient, and cost-effective location.