In an illuminating commentary, longtime legal industry consultant Tim Corcoran sheds light on the entrenched dynamics between Biglaw partners and associates, asserting that the former hold nearly unfettered sway over the latter’s professional lives. As Corcoran articulates, “If the partners want associates to be in the office four days a week, or wear funny hats, or bill 2,400 hours three years in a row until they burn out and leave, that’s their prerogative.”
These remarks come in the wake of a significant policy shift by Latham & Watkins, which recently announced a four-day in-office requirement for associates starting in 2025. This move has sparked widespread debate within the legal community, particularly given that a handful of firms—such as Fried Frank, Goodwin Procter, and Paul Weiss—are adhering to a three-day in-office mandate for the time being. However, Latham is not alone; other top-tier firms including Davis Polk, Ropes & Gray, and Simpson Thacher are also reinstating a four-day in-office policy.
Corcoran’s forthright assessment underscores the demanding nature of Biglaw culture, where associates often find themselves acceding to rigorous and sometimes unconventional demands to ascend the career ladder. Corcoran’s views were previously highlighted in an interview with American Lawyer to discuss the broader implications of these in-office requirements.
The context for these operational shifts is complex, intertwined with firms’ efforts to maintain firm cohesion and client service excellence while also accommodating lingering remote work preferences. As firms navigate the post-pandemic landscape, such policies may set important precedents for the future of workplace expectations in the legal industry.
For further insights on the evolving dynamics in Biglaw and associates’ response to these new mandates, readers can refer to the full commentary here.