A Growing Divide in BigLaw Offices
Midlevel associates at some of the nation’s largest and most prestigious law firms are voicing growing frustration over office return mandates. While firm leadership continues to emphasize the importance of in-person presence, associates are increasingly questioning the need to spend more days at their desks when the same work can be handled remotely with equal — if not greater — efficiency.
The debate reflects a broader shift in professional culture across industries, but within BigLaw the stakes are particularly high. Associates are expected to log long hours and deliver near-perfect work product under tight deadlines. For many, the added burden of commuting, navigating rigid office schedules, and working in spaces that offer limited support feels unnecessary.
As one associate recently told The American Lawyer, “Midlevel associates really don’t want to go to the office.” That sentiment is gaining traction as firms seek to balance tradition, client demands, and workforce expectations in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Why Associates Are Resistant
The resistance is not rooted in a lack of commitment. Rather, associates argue that hybrid and remote models have proven effective since the pandemic reshaped professional norms. Many report higher levels of productivity at home, where they avoid long commutes, enjoy quieter work environments, and can better manage personal responsibilities alongside grueling workloads.
Key reasons cited by associates include:
- Productivity: Associates claim that remote work eliminates distractions and allows for more focused drafting, research, and client communication.
- Time efficiency: Hours otherwise lost to commuting can be reinvested in client work or personal recovery, reducing burnout.
- Work-life balance: The ability to control their environment helps midlevels manage the stress of high-stakes legal practice.
- Cost savings: Many also note the financial relief of not commuting daily, especially in cities with high transit or parking costs.
For many, the logic is straightforward: If the work is getting done, why should physical presence matter?
The Partner Perspective
From the leadership side, however, the story is more complicated. Senior partners often argue that office presence is critical for mentorship, collaboration, and firm culture. They point out that younger attorneys benefit from the informal training and feedback that naturally arises in hallways, conference rooms, and client meetings.
Some firm leaders also believe that clients expect a certain level of visibility and accessibility, which is more easily assured when teams are together in the office. Moreover, in an industry that often equates commitment with face time, being “seen” at the office continues to carry symbolic weight.
Still, associates contend that the benefits partners cite are rarely realized in practice. Instead, they report that many days in the office amount to long hours of solitary desk work — the same work they could have done from home, minus the commute.
The Risk to Talent Retention
The clash between expectations and preferences may have real consequences for talent retention. BigLaw firms are already competing aggressively to recruit and retain high-performing associates. If firms continue to impose office mandates that midlevels view as arbitrary or outdated, they risk losing talent to more flexible employers — whether lateral moves to rival firms, in-house counsel positions, or even career changes outside law altogether.
This dynamic places pressure on firm leadership to reconsider how they structure hybrid policies. Associates are increasingly savvy about their market value, and firms with rigid approaches could see turnover rise, particularly among midlevels who are both highly skilled and in high demand.
The Future of Hybrid Work in BigLaw
The path forward remains uncertain. Some firms have adopted flexible policies, requiring only a few in-office days per week and allowing associates to decide how best to structure the remainder of their schedules. Others remain more rigid, demanding three to four days in the office regardless of workload or client needs.
Industry observers predict that firms will eventually converge on models that balance flexibility with strategic in-person collaboration. That could mean:
- Designated “anchor days” when teams are required to be present together.
- Enhanced mentorship programs to ensure junior associates still receive development opportunities remotely.
- Clearer guidelines on how office presence ties directly to client outcomes or professional growth.
Ultimately, the firms that succeed in the coming years will likely be those that can articulate the real value of office presence — and offer associates a say in shaping those expectations.
Call to Action for Firms and Associates
- For Firms: Take stock of associate sentiment. Transparent communication and flexible policies will help maintain morale and reduce attrition. Leaders should ask: Is requiring office presence about culture and collaboration, or simply about tradition?
- For Associates: Document the benefits of remote productivity and raise concerns constructively. Engage in firm surveys, speak with practice group leaders, and build a record of success that demonstrates hybrid models work.
Conclusion
The tension around office return is more than a logistical issue — it represents a generational and cultural shift in how legal work is viewed and delivered. Associates want to be judged on output and quality, not hours spent in a physical building. Partners, meanwhile, remain attached to the traditional hallmarks of BigLaw life.
Whether this divide leads to policy adjustments, attrition, or a long-term cultural evolution remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that midlevel associates have drawn a firm line: the old expectations of constant office presence are no longer acceptable.
JDJournal will continue to track how BigLaw firms navigate this turning point and how associates respond to the next wave of workplace policies.
