Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Legal Industry newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (July 20, 2020, 11:08 PM EDT) -- When COVID-19 hit the U.S. in March, law firms grappled with office closures and remote-work arrangements to comply with local stay-at-home orders. Four months later, many attorneys seem to have adapted to working from home and may not need to return to the office anytime soon, experts said during a panel discussion Monday.
"I just don't think that the genie can go back in the bottle," Debevoise & Plimpton LLP partner Jyotin Hamid said during the web panel, which was hosted by the New York City Bar Association. "I think now that we've recognized that we can do a lot more than we might have imagined remotely, we're going to continue to do that because it's better in so many ways."
For the panel, the bar invited a group of legal professionals to discuss the challenges they've faced during the coronavirus pandemic. As cities begin to ease restrictions and law firms gradually move toward reopening offices, Hamid and other speakers said they are expecting firms to continue to offer flexible working arrangements because not all attorneys wish to go back to the office.
"There are many people who don't want to go back," said Laurie Berke-Weiss, principal attorney of boutique employment firm Berke-Weiss Law PLLC. She pointed to a variety of reasons for attorneys not wanting to return, from health concerns to family responsibilities.
As the virus persists across the country, Berke-Weiss said law firms can't dictate which employees qualify as "high-risk" for severe illness from the virus. Therefore, as employers, it's best that they accommodate the needs of employees individually to ensure their health and safety, as well as to avoid any liability issues, she said.
"The best practice is to really have an open dialogue with your employees to gauge what their needs are and how they might be able to do all the things that they have to do in order to work," Berke-Weiss said.
However, employers can legally terminate an employee for refusing to come to work, if they have taken all reasonable precautions and are fully compliant and consistent with government guidance, Hamid noted.
"Of course, saying that one can insist does not mean that one should insist," Hamid said, adding that firms should consider other factors, such as morale, workplace culture and social impact, before making such decisions.
He suggested that a solution is to have a program that is "truly voluntary." Hamid encouraged firms to maintain their work-from-home policies while staying in constant communication with employees.
Debra J. Guzov of Guzov LLC said she had been hearing from a number of attorneys who are not planning to return to their offices.
As a result, some firms may begin to downsize their office spaces, Guzov said. However, in a profession that relies heavily on in-person interaction, she stressed that law firms should make sure that "personal touch" isn't sacrificed when attorneys work remotely.
Guzov also pointed out that some attorneys are putting in longer hours when they work from home. Therefore, they should continue to evaluate their own arrangements, she said.
"I don't think that the situation as we see it today is going to mean it will remain a permanent way of life for all of us," Guzov said. "And I don't necessarily think it's giving us that extra downtime that we need, so, we all have to be mindful of the work-life balance going forward."
--Editing by Aaron Pelc.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misattributed remarks by Debra J. Guzov. The error has been corrected.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
