About 1) even if the meeting is physical and somehow private, the related documentation is inevitably going to be digital. It's not like minutes of the meeting or transaction structure discussed or whatever is being recorded on a typewriter. I don't see how physical meeting solves anything there.

Very good points - however, let's be honest - many law firm 'managers' are quite shit on the aspects of bond building/ mentor-ship (if every manager was doing this properly, then this argument would be forceful for the need of a physical environment). You can very well ask how someone is doing, mentor them over phone/ videocall (the loss of opportunity for this seems a bit too exaggerated) - also why not bond on activities/ interests other than work and outside of work places (these would lead to better bonds and camaraderie than anything)

WFH avoids a lot of fake and forced interactions with senior staff, which is a super plus point

Agreed with your comment - nothing like physical presence to build team rapport. But the cost we are looking at here is the genuine risk to life.

It is not a simple choice between staying at home and going to a physical workplace, but one that contains a multitude of other factors. Given these factors, our focus should be on finding ways to prevent burnout and improving human personal development in a WFH home - not just a simplistic "come back to office".

For instance, giving people switch off time - a fixed end to the day and a fixed end to the week would go a long way in improving mental health. Additionally, a team meeting every morning couple of days will also ensure time utilization and a feeling of team work. Occasional one-day at office will also help fix multiple issues. No one wants to build a family with their office colleagues. Even facilitating bare minimum interaction should serve most of the purposes you mentioned above.

The only reason people here want permanent WFH is that they can live in their hometown. This seems unfair to the people living in Mumbai/ Delhi/ Bangalore where the cost of living is high. Law firms should offer permanent wfh for these people living outside the cities if they are ready to take a 20% pay cut.

Well since there are people calling out for a different perspective from Work From Home is best here is a shot -

Working from home which I agree is more efficient from an individual work perspective, is not ideal from a management perspective. There are multiple reasons for that, but primarily good managers (i.e. partners in the law firm context) excel in creating a collegial environment in the middle of intensely stressful work conditions. The bad managers on the other hand will make your life hell whether you work from home or office.

It's the little things the good managers do which makes all the difference, the conversations you have while waiting for a call to start, or while taking a break working on something together, or in the car ride to the meeting, which cannot be replaced by work from home. It gives managers an opportunity for informal bond building and sometimes even mentoring. There is a lot of relationship and 'bond' building which happens in between the times work happens.

This opportunity for good managers, is effectively taken away from WFH. The consequence is the team which was being managed fine till WFH started, is now showing mental fatigue, burnouts, and resignations, because the current crop of good managers learnt how to manage their team well in offline mode, never remotely. Now in order to remain good managers they will have to learn how to achieve that remotely, but there are continuing doubts within these managers as to whether similar bonds and environments are even possible on a remote basis.

Only reasons to go to the office:

1) If something very sensitive and confidential is to be discussed. Although there are secure videoconferencing and encryption software, nothing is foolproof. So an in person meeting would help.

2) Creating a team rapport. Its easier to integrate within teams if you meet in person.

In my view, a hybrid workplace is the best. Going in to office 1-2 times a week suffices.

To partners/PAs/SAs, who say that "collaboration" and "learning" cannot happen, please help us know your concerns.

This comment is not meant as an attack, I genuinely want to understand what are the problems that you actually face when your associate is not in office?

I understand some people may genuinely want to work in a proper office environment over working in a room in the house, but others should not be required to risk their lives for you na? And post COVID, it is a genuine risk for many with vaccine effectiveness hovering around 60% (and we don't even know how much against possibly new variants).

So, if there can be alternate solutions, let us figure them out. Many people have lost their loved ones to COVID and it would be absolutely insensitive to ask them to come to office just because you likeanother working environment better.

Biggest impediment to WFH or even partial WFH are law firm partners who do little else but micromanage your physical presence. My partner is always worried I'm either napping or watching movies during WFH even though my billables now are higher than they were pre-covid and our revenues continue to go up. Like every other field, boomers singlehandedly hold back progress

I, for one, have found myself more productive in WFH than office. And it seems to have no impact on the quality or quantity of work I did since March 2020. Anyway all corporate law work happens over Outlook, Word and Chrome and it's entirely independent of your location. There's nothing as such I need to be in office for.

What are some compelling reasons to return to office and how can they be addressed? What's stopping firms moving to permanent WFH?