It
must
be
hard
for
law
firm
administrators
to
handle
all
of
the
decisions
they
need
to
make
during
the
ongoing
COVID-19
pandemic.
Conditions
keep
changing
as
variants,
vaccination
availability,
and
other
factors
influence
decisions
about
remote
work
and
when
offices
will
reopen.
Due
to
the
contagious
nature
of
the
omicron
wave,
many
law
firms
stalled
and
then
reversed
reopening
plans.
Some
law
firms
are
taking
a
measured
approach
to
reopening
offices
and
are
letting
employees
know
that
they
should
consider
only
returning
to
offices
if
they
are
comfortable.
This
flexibility
is
commendable,
but
law
firms
should
give
employees
the
genuine
choice
about
when
to
return
to
work
and
should
not
use
implied
or
explicit
cues
to
force
attorneys
to
return
to
offices
notwithstanding
such
flexible
policies.
Since
starting
my
own
practice
almost
three
years
ago,
I
do
not
have
as
much
of
a
sense
of
what
it
is
like
to
work
at
a
larger
law
firm
during
the
pandemic
than
I
might
have
if
I
still
worked
for
another
firm.
However,
I
also
probably
wouldn’t
be
able
to
write
as
openly
as
I
do
if
I
still
worked
as
an
associate
at
another
law
firm,
so
there’s
that!
Nevertheless,
I
talk
regularly
to
numerous
lawyers
who
do
work
at
other
law
firms,
and
some
are
speaking
about
a
strange
situation
that
often
occurs
at
law
firms
that
purport
to
have
flexible
return-to-the-office
policies.
Numerous
law
firms
tell
employees
that
they
can
choose
to
stay
at
home
or
come
to
work
as
they
see
fit.
Other
workplaces
have
been
telling
employees
that
they
would
like
people
to
be
in
the
office,
but
employees
do
not
need
to
come
to
the
office
if
they
would
be
uncomfortable
doing
so.
Employers
are
essentially
conveying
that
they
are
giving
employees
agency
over
their
situation,
which
makes
the
most
sense.
It
does
not
really
make
sense
for
employees
to
be
forced
to
return
to
the
office
if
they
can
be
just
as
productive
from
home,
and
a
flexible
approach
is
the
best
way
to
handle
all
of
the
issues
involving
COVID-19
and
the
workplace.
Not
surprisingly,
many
employees
are
choosing
to
stay
home
rather
than
return
to
work.
It
is
just
easier
to
complete
work
tasks
and
all
of
the
personal
things
that
individuals
need
to
complete
in
the
present
environment
by
working
from
home
than
arbitrarily
going
into
the
office.
Moreover,
some
employees
need
to
spend
hours
on
commutes
to
and
from
an
office
each
day,
so
by
eliminating
this
commuting
time,
individuals
can
devote
more
time
to
work
and
personal
matters.
Some
managers
seem
to
be
respecting
the
decisions
of
employees
to
stay
at
home
and
not
return
to
the
office.
However,
some
managers
are
sending
explicit,
but
more
often
than
not
implicit,
cues
that
they
would
like
employees
to
return
to
the
office.
In
the
current
environment,
an
explicit
requirement
to
return
to
the
office
is
not
good
for
PR
and
could
potentially
lead
to
liability
if
COVID-19
spreads
at
a
shop,
so
managers
seem
to
be
using
more
subtle
cues
to
compel
employees
back
to
the
office.
People
I
speak
with
tell
me
that
if
they
do
not
return
to
the
office
for
a
while,
especially
if
other
people
at
a
shop
are
voluntarily
returning
to
work,
they
may
receive
a
phone
call
from
a
manager.
The
manager
may
ask
if
there
is
any
reason
why
the
person
does
not
feel
comfortable
returning
to
the
office
and
if
anything
can
be
done
to
make
that
person
more
comfortable
with
going
into
an
office.
Although
this
may
seem
altruistic
at
first
blush,
such
calls
are
likely
more
about
pressuring
employees
back
to
the
office
rather
than
assuaging
any
concerns
about
returning
to
work.
In
fact,
some
managers
seem
to
be
more
overt
about
suggesting
that
employees
return
to
the
office
by
conveying
that
many
members
of
a
team
have
returned
to
the
office
to
suggest
that
an
employee
does
not
want
to
be
in
the
minority
of
people
working
from
home.
It
is
not
beneath
individuals
in
the
legal
industry
to
employ
implicit
employment
tactics,
as
can
be
seen
with
stealth
layoffs
and
other
practices,
and
such
tactics
should
be
exposed
for
what
they
are.
Law
firm
managers
who
do
not
want
to
deal
with
the
bad
PR
of
requiring
employees
to
go
back
to
offices
are
using
pressure
and
other
tactics
to
guilt
or
strongly
suggest
that
people
return
to
work.
Such
tactics
should
not
be
condoned,
and
law
firm
employees
should
have
a
bona
fide
choice
about
when
they
return
to
the
office,
especially
if
a
law
firm
has
an
explicit
flexible
return-to-the-office
policy.
Everyone
has
their
own
unique
situation,
and
law
firm
managers
should
not
use
implied
pressure
or
other
tactics
to
compel
people
back
to
offices.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.