The argument over returning to the office was settled at most large law firms by badge data rather than by principle. Firms that spent 2021 announcing they would let teams decide for themselves began, within about two years, publishing anchor days, running attendance reports, and in some cases making bonus eligibility contingent on meeting an in-office minimum. The interesting question is no longer whether firms went back. It is which parts of the remote experiment quietly survived, and what the return created in the way of licensing, tax, and employment exposure that nobody had to think about before 2020.
Firms that handled the transition well treated it as a management problem with measurable inputs. Embracing change worked better than announcing it, and the firms that lost the most people were generally the ones that reversed a written promise without explaining the reasoning behind the reversal.
What law firms actually landed on
The dominant model at large US firms is a structured hybrid: three or four required days, with specific anchor days set at the practice group or office level so that teams overlap rather than each person choosing a different Tuesday. Anchor days are the substantive part of the policy. A three-day requirement without coordination produces an office that is full on paper and empty of the particular people a junior associate needs to run into, which defeats the stated purpose.
Enforcement has moved from exhortation to measurement. Badge or turnstile data, desk booking systems, and network sign-in logs give firms a per-person attendance record, and a number of firms have made a stated attendance level a condition of full bonus eligibility or of a discretionary component. Where that happens, the policy stops being a cultural preference and becomes a compensation term, which is exactly how associates read it and how employment counsel should treat it.
| Model | What it means in practice | Strongest argument for it | Main exposure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fully in office | Five days, limited exceptions | Simplest supervision and training; no tax or licensing complexity | Weakest recruiting position for laterals and senior staff |
| Structured hybrid | Three or four days with fixed anchor days | Overlap is engineered, so mentoring actually happens | Enforcement burden; resentment if applied unevenly |
| Flexible hybrid | A day count with no fixed days | Popular with associates; low friction | Teams rarely overlap, so the development benefit evaporates |
| Remote first | Office optional, used for gatherings | Access to talent in any market; low real estate cost | Multistate tax, licensing, and supervision obligations scale fast |
| Practice specific | Litigation and transactional groups set their own rules | Matches the actual work rhythm of each group | Perceived as two tiers of employee inside one firm |
The case firms make, and the part of it that holds up
The strongest argument for in-person work in a law firm is not culture, it is apprenticeship. Legal skill transfers through observation and interruption: sitting in on a call and hearing why a partner conceded a point, being pulled into a conference room for twenty minutes because a document turned up, having a draft marked up in front of you rather than returned with tracked changes and no commentary. None of that scales well over video, and the associates who joined in 2020 and 2021 were widely described by supervising partners as needing more explicit instruction because the ambient learning was missing.
The weaker arguments are the ones about real estate and visible effort. A firm with a long lease has a sunk cost, not a reason. And attendance measured by badge swipes measures presence, not contribution, which is why associates respond to swipe-based policies by optimizing the swipe. The firms that made hybrid work tend to be the ones that told people what the office was for on a given day, rather than simply requiring that they be in it.
Retention math nobody publishes
The cost of a mandate is concentrated in two groups: senior associates with children and business services staff whose roles are genuinely location-independent. Both are expensive to replace, and the second group is competing against employers outside the legal industry who never called anyone back. A firm that hardens its policy should expect the departures to be non-random rather than spread evenly across the pyramid, and the professional trajectories described in profiles such as Intelligent and Outgoing show how much of a lawyer’s value is built through community and client relationships that a rigid schedule can either support or obstruct.
The compliance problems remote work created
Practicing from a state where you are not admitted
When lawyers scattered in 2020, many of them started working from states where they held no license. American Bar Association Formal Opinion 495, issued in December 2020, addressed this directly: a lawyer may practice the law of a jurisdiction where they are licensed while physically located in a jurisdiction where they are not, provided the local jurisdiction has not prohibited it and the lawyer does not hold out a local presence, for example by listing a local address or advertising local availability. Several states adopted their own versions. A firm allowing indefinite remote work needs to know where its lawyers actually sit.
Confidentiality and supervision at a distance
ABA Formal Opinion 498, issued in 2021, set out the duties that apply to virtual practice, and it reads as a checklist: competence in the technology in use, protection of client confidences on home networks and shared devices, and continued supervision under Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of both lawyers and non-lawyer staff. Formal Opinion 477R remains the reference point for securing electronic communication of protected client information. Supervision is the obligation that hybrid arrangements strain most, because a partner cannot supervise by proximity if the junior is never nearby.
Tax, payroll, and expense reimbursement
A lawyer working regularly from another state can create payroll withholding and, in some circumstances, business tax nexus for the firm in that state. New York’s convenience of the employer rule is the most familiar complication, taxing a nonresident employee’s income where the remote work is for the employee’s convenience rather than the employer’s necessity, and a handful of other states apply similar tests. Separately, states including California and Illinois require employers to reimburse necessary business expenses, which reaches home internet and phone costs when the employer requires remote work.
Accommodation requests
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an individualized interactive process, and the fact that a role was performed remotely for two years is evidence that remote work is feasible for that role. It is not automatically dispositive, because an employer can still show that in-person presence is an essential function, but a blanket denial of remote accommodation is much harder to defend after the position was demonstrably performed from home. Firms that grant exceptions informally and inconsistently create the worst version of this risk.
Questions worth asking before you accept a stated policy
- Is the requirement a day count, or are there fixed anchor days that your practice group actually observes
- Is attendance measured, and if so, does it feed into bonus, review, or promotion decisions
- Who grants exceptions, and are they documented or handled quietly by individual partners
- Does the policy apply to partners on the same terms as associates and business services staff
- What happens to your compensation and title if you relocate to a lower-cost market
- If you would be working from a state where you are not admitted, has the firm addressed licensing and withholding in writing
- Are travel days, client site days, and court appearances counted toward the requirement
Frequently Asked Questions
How many days a week do most large law firms require in the office?
Three or four days is the common requirement at large US firms, with a minority requiring five and a minority operating remote-first. The number matters less than whether the days are fixed. Firms that set anchor days by practice group get the mentoring and supervision benefits the policy is meant to produce, while a floating day count often results in offices that are technically occupied but rarely by the people who need to work together.
Can a law firm tie bonuses to office attendance?
Generally yes, if the condition is disclosed in advance and applied consistently. Bonus eligibility is a term of compensation, and firms may attach conditions to discretionary compensation. The risks are practical and legal at once: uneven enforcement across offices or practice groups invites discrimination claims, and denying a bonus to someone with an approved disability accommodation or protected leave creates obvious exposure.
Can I work remotely from a state where I am not licensed?
Often yes, under ABA Formal Opinion 495, provided you are practicing the law of a jurisdiction where you are admitted, the state you are sitting in has not prohibited it, and you do not hold yourself out as having a local presence. That means no local office address, no local phone listing, and no advertising availability for local matters. Check the specific state, because the rules and opinions vary.
Does my firm have to reimburse home office costs?
It depends on the state. California and Illinois require reimbursement of necessary business expenses, and several other states have comparable rules, which typically reaches internet service and phone use when remote work is required rather than merely permitted. Where no state statute applies, reimbursement is a matter of firm policy. Under federal law, unreimbursed employee business expenses are generally not deductible for employees.
Did remote work actually hurt associate training?
Supervising attorneys widely reported that it did, particularly for lawyers in their first two years, and the mechanism they describe is consistent: the loss of incidental observation rather than a loss of formal instruction. Formal training programs continued over video. What disappeared was the twenty-minute unplanned conversation after a call. Firms that rebuilt that deliberately, through structured shadowing and mandatory debriefs, closed most of the gap without requiring five days.
The Bottom Line
If you are setting a policy, define what the office is for on each required day and set anchor days at the group level, because coordinated presence is the only version of a mandate that delivers what firms say they want. If you are evaluating a firm, ask how exceptions are granted and whether attendance is measured, since those two answers reveal the real policy faster than the announcement does. Readers comparing firms and practice environments can start with the Find A Lawyer coverage.
This article is general information about law firm workplace policy and is not legal or employment advice for any specific situation.
