The
hybrid
office
policy
at
Ropes
&
Gray
is
basically
a
supervillain
origin
story.
Once
a
paragon
of
a
flexible
return
to
the
office
policy
with
a
three-day
model,
fissures
grew
as
partners
began
complaining
that
associates
were
taking
advantage
of
the
policy.
The
firm
removed
the
“flexible”
part,
mandating
a
Tuesday
through
Thursday
regime
and
launching
what
associates
described
as
an
Orwellian
surveillance
policy
to
check
up
on
associates
whenever
they
didn’t
make
it
into
the
office.
Now,
the
firm
is
apparently
docking
bonuses
for
associates
with
“insufficient”
compliance
with
the
mandatory
office
attendance
rule.
You
might
point
out
that
in
the
firm’s
bonus
announcement
this
month,
there’s
no
mention
whatsoever
of
reducing
bonuses
based
on
the
mandatory
attendance
policy.
According
to
the
memo,
bonuses
would
be
reduced
for
failing
to
meet
hourly
targets,
but
made
no
mention
of
physical
office
attendance.
Associates
received
no
follow-up
policy
amendment,
with
the
firm
telling
associates
in
their
individual
performance
reviews
that
bonuses
are
getting
docked
by
as
much
as
15
percent.
Which
is
exactly
why
associates
—
even
those
who
dutifully
complied
with
the
policy
and
received
the
full
bonus
—
are
so
irritated.
As
one
tipster
put
it:
There
was
no
warning
about
this
policy
which
is
making
some
people
pretty
mad….
If
they
wanted
to
force
people
in,
no
one
understands
why
they
didn’t
just
warn
us
about
this
policy
instead
of
being
silent
and
then
penalizing
people
without
any
warning.
Firms
do
need
to
get
associates
back
in
the
office.
There’s
too
much
“soft
learning”
that
new
associates
pick
up
by
the
happenstance
of
screwing
up
in
front
of
a
midlevel
who
may
not
even
be
in
the
same
practice
group.
Revamping
training
models
can
only
convey
so
much
when
it
comes
to
those
accidental
lessons.
There
are
also
critical
business
development
connections
forged
in
the
office
because
—
in
Biglaw
—
future
clients
are
generally
the
associate
you
have
lunch
with
who
will
one
day
be
the
Deputy
GC
somewhere
else.
Which
is
why
this
all
reads
like
an
origin
story.
The
best
villains
have
entirely
reasonable
motivations.
They
just
take
it
too
far.
Because
associates
generally
understand
all
these
concerns
and
that’s
why
very
few
voices
are
out
there
agitating
for
permanent
remote
work.
But
they
want
flexibility.
If
there
isn’t
any
business
reason
to
go
in
on
Tuesday,
they
want
to
be
able
to
go
in
Friday.
If
their
best
child-care
arrangement
involves
coming
in
Monday-Wednesday,
that’s
what
they
want
to
do.
Or,
perhaps
more
to
the
point,
they
want
to
be
treated
like
professionals
in
making
those
decisions.
We
reached
out
to
Ropes
multiple
times
for
comment
on
these
reports
yesterday
and
have
not
heard
back.
We
will
update
this
story
if
we
do.
Earlier:
Biglaw
Firm’s
Three-Day
Office
Workweek
Descending
Into
Paranoid
Surveillance
The
Biglaw
Firm
That
Ended
The
5-Day,
In-Office
Work
Week
Announces
3
Mandatory
In-Office
Days
Biglaw
Partner
Calls
Out
Associates
Unwilling
To
Drag
Their
Asses
To
The
Office
Three
Times
A
Week
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
