Over 20 million people now work at locations remote from their employers, called telecommuting. A recent survey of 769 human-resource professionals by Lee Hecht Harrison, an international outplacement firm, was reported in the Chicago Tribune last month. The consensus of the group was that good employees will work well anywhere.

The normally skeptical human-resource executives admitted that telecommuting was working well in their business environments:

• 68 percent agreed that telecommuters are “no more difficult to manage than on-site employees.”
• 29 percent said they are “harder to manage, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.” (Only 3 percent said they are “too hard to manage and not worth the effort.”)

Flexible work schedules and telecommuting issues are top priority on the list of many lawyers, firms, organizations and bar associations today. Yet, the continued emphasis on “face time,” or the number of hours spent in the office, rather than on the work produced, is one problem in the implementation of policies most law practices have in place.

Burnout and frustration cause lawyers to leave their practices and can be partly blamed on inflexible work schedules. Resistence to flexibility is often due to feared future problems rather than actual issues presented. Management worries about two primary issues: (1) why should we offer such flexibility, and (2) how will flexibility for lawyers impact our ability to keep the doors open during business hours?

There should be little impact on clients when lawyers are given control over their work schedules and locations because of a lawyer’s commitment to ethics and client service. Problems that do arise can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Reasons to offer flexibility include the amount of revenue generated per lawyer (keeping lawyers on board increases revenue significantly), the high cost of attrition when accommodations are not made (estimates range from $80,000 to $250,000 for a first year associate and significantly more for higher level lawyers) and competitors for top legal talent already offer such flexibility.

Unlike the consulting firms, which have more decentralized management and an innovative, “stay ahead of the curve” approach to business, law practices are resistant to flexibility partly because it’s easier to have blanket policies and procedures that apply to everyone than it is to accommodate individuals. Law firms also fear that professionalism, dedication and client service will suffer if the office is left unattended for any period of time.

For example, offices that still resist telecommuting view it as time out of the office and away from work. Yet, there exists a great deal of information and research available to demonstrate that telecommuters generally work more because the work environment is more easily accessible. Telecommuters often generate more money for the firm.

Client service doesn’t suffer because clients generally deal with their lawyers on the phone, by fax, and increasingly by e-mail. Lawyers can just as easily talk from home on the phone as they can from the office; indeed, sometimes more effectively.

In a 1998 article entitled Telework Participation: Whose Choice Is It Anyway?, Froggatt Consulting reported on a voluntary telecommuting program in place at Nortel, a communications company. Ninety percent of telecommuters reported increased satisfaction; 88% reported increased productivity; individual productivity improved by 10-22% on average and ability to work as a team was better in 40% of the cases. Similar results are achievable in law practices. (See also, Telecommuting for Lawyers, Nicole Belson Golobuff, ABA Law Practice Management Section, 1998.)

Of course, scheduled appearances such as court hearings, depositions and so on simply have to be covered, but usually they can be scheduled at convenient times. Deadlines are known well enough in advance to allow them to be met. These days, depositions are taken by telephone or video conferencing, which can be done from home or on vacation. Hearings are done by telephone appearance. These measures are viewed as appropriate to cut costs, why not for convenience alone?

Recall that every lawyer on the team was hired because the practice believed they would be a contributor, represent clients well, generate revenue and profits. Why assume that allowing flexibility will change that? The not so subtle bias here is that a lawyer who wants flexibility isn’t dedicated enough, serious enough, won’t work enough, or is just a dilettante and “not the kind of lawyer we want.”

Flexibility is much less disruptive to the practice than having a lawyer in lengthy negotiations, long trials or other out of office work. If the practice will deal with real problems as they arise instead of premature fears that may never materialize, there is only upside to flexibility.

PeopleWealth can assist your Professional Development staff on a regular or consulting basis to communicate effectively with lawyers and to help lawyers design and build successful careers. If you would like further information about PeopleWealth or our services, please contact our office, e-mail us: info@PeopleWealth.com

©PeopleWealth May 2000