Biglaw

Stop Using Stare Decisis To Justify Lousy Policies And Inefficiencies

In this radically and rapidly changing legal landscape, it’s more critical than ever to challenge the status quo.

By  
on
Jeena Cho

Jeena Cho

In offering mindfulness workshops at law firms, I’m often in the position of gaining insights about how the people within a firm work together. One common friction is between what I’ll grossly generalize as the Millennial / Baby Boomer divide.

Often, there’s a sense that the older attorneys have become comfortable with the narrative of “this is the way it’s always been done, and therefore, it’s the only correct way of doing this.” It makes sense. Those older attorneys have broken boundaries and have done much to improve the firm they’re working for. Plus, lawyers live by stare decisis.

The younger attorneys, as has been the case with every previous generation, have their own perspectives, wishes, desires, and ideas about the type of legal workplace they would like to work for. Again, generalizing, but the younger attorneys value autonomy much more. They want to feel a sense of purpose in the work they are doing. They value working in collaborative teams towards shared purposes or values.

One place where I often notice friction between the two generations is on the issue of what a standard work day or work week should look like. As has been the case for many generations, the standard 40+ hour work week where you get dressed each morning and report to an office at an expected time and stay at the office all day was the norm. The number of hours you were physically in the office was, of course, directly correlated to the number of hours you could bill.

When I started practicing law in 2004, I was given a lot of advice about the importance of “face time.” If you didn’t spend enough time at the office, other associates would take notice and make assumptions about you. She’s not that serious about her job. It was often seen as a lack of commitment to the firm. In some strange way, the amount of time you spent at the office was more valued than the work product you produced.

Recently, I had a conversation with a young attorney at a Biglaw firm. To my surprise, she shared that one of the partners she worked for told her she should be “at the office more.” I cringed a bit. I remember being told the exact same thing, some 10 years ago. I asked her what her response was.

Sponsored

She asked the partner why he felt she should be at the office more. He seemed surprised by her question and responded by saying, “Because you have to be at the office to do your work. Working from home is a privilege you earn.”

She then asked the partner if he was satisfied with her work product. It surprised her that this partner was telling her that she needed to come into the office more frequently because his feedback of her work had always been positive. I thought this was an excellent line of inquiry.

In this age of telecommuting and more attorneys desiring (and valuing) a flexible work schedule, it makes sense to question the assumption that you should always be at the office. The partner responded that he was perfectly happy with her work product.

The partner told her that in his younger days, associates were expected to come into the office before and stay after the partner has left. In other words, he was saying this is the way it’s always been done and you should do it this way too.

The attorneys were having a deeper conversation about values and how people interpret and express those values. Of course, both of the attorneys value providing excellent work product to their clients. But the way they deliver the quality work product differs. One attorney may need to have the structure of coming into the office every day, while another attorney for many reasons (including other obligations), or simply preference, prefers to do her work elsewhere.

Sponsored

The younger attorney may value the ability to take care of both her work, personal obligations, and having some semblance of balance.

So often, we fail to challenge our deeply held assumptions. For example, more time at the office is always better, and results in more billable hours. Or that it’s required to become a good attorney. I want pause here to make clear that I am not saying this assumption is true or false. It’s also possible that like many things in life, it’s partly true, and partly false. Or an answer you should all be very familiar with — it depends.

Sadly, too many law firms are losing a segment of their talent pool, namely women. There are, of course, many reasons for this dip. One reason is that the firm structure disproportionately places an undue burden on this group. The lack of flexibility and lack of autonomy over one’s schedule is often the reason for why women leave the workplace.

In this radically and rapidly changing legal landscape, it’s more critical than ever to challenge the status quo. The response — it’s always been this way — is no longer a satisfactory response. In fact, it’s a dangerous way of thinking.

P.S. If you’re a self-identified woman lawyer and are interested in intimate conversations around Wellness + Wealth + Wisdom, you’re invited to our upcoming Shape the Law Unconference in New York City on October 28th. Connect with me by email, [email protected], or on Twitter, @jeena_cho.

Jeena Cho is the author of The Anxious Lawyer: An 8-Week Guide to a Joyful and Satisfying Law Practice Through Mindfulness and Meditation (affiliate link). She is a contributor to Forbes and Bloomberg where she covers diversity/inclusion, resilience, work/life integration, and wellness in the workplace. She regularly speaks and offers training on women’s issues, diversity, wellness, stress management, mindfulness, and meditation. You can reach her at[email protected] or @jeena_cho on Twitter.

Topics

, , , , , , ,