croquet law

The best way to understand an ultra high net worth private client is to behave like an ultra high net worth client.


A law firm has ordered junior solicitors to come into the office five days a week while allowing senior solicitors to stay at home, RollOnFriday understands.

A recent email from the management of Wiggin Osborne Fullerlove, a boutique private wealth firm in Cheltenham, announced to staff that fee earners up to 5PQE were required to be in the office "5 days per week, Monday to Friday, as normal (pre-pandemic)". 

WOF bosses explained in the email that attendance was necessary so the junior lawyers could be "supported" by more qualified fee earners.

However, the email went on to explain that there were to be "no specific requirements on other fee earners' attendance at the office". 

A source said it meant that junior fee earners would be in the office in order to be supervised "...by senior fee earners who are working from home. That makes perfect sense". 

"Infuriatingly", said the insider, the email added, "We think that the arrangements will work well and will offer the benefits of being able to work from home without losing the significant benefits which we have seen over many years of working together in the office".

"So it seems that partners can continue to have the benefits of working from home, while being assured that when they do deign to visit the office, the juniors will be on hand to help them with their printing", said the source.

Firms have adopted all sorts of hybrid WFH policies to deal with the pandemic and its hoped-for aftermath, and there is a strong argument that juniors should attend the office at least some of the time in order to benefit from superior training opportunities afforded by a person-to-person environment. But that scenario usually relies on the supervisors being there, too.

Wiggin Osborne Fullerlove's senior partner did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Patchy wifi at home, perhaps.

Tags
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Lydia 24 September 21 10:18

I think up to 5 years you benefit from learning at work and it is better. It sounds fairly sensible as long as enough senior people are in the office to teach them of course.

Anonymous 24 September 21 10:35

@08:48 - your todger is boutique.

Your partners have never complained of being Fullerlove.

 

 

 

I too will arrange for the collection of my jacket from the cloakroom...

Anonymous Anonymous 24 September 21 11:16

This indicates new firms offering fixed fees working remotely could take trade from the established legal firms. Legal advice could be offered via a the internet.

It begins 24 September 21 11:16

I think we will see a lot of this. The "learning by osmosis" brigade full of senior lawyers who are perfectly comfortable and confident in their specialisms continue to work from home quite merrily while junior careers continue to stagnate due to a dearth of supervision or proper training. Marvellous.

Choosing to have children has consequences 24 September 21 11:47

Some people choose to have children and that choice has consequences. There are 168 hours in the week for everyone. If you have children, that's time you can't commit to your employer. That's no ‘fault’ of employers. It has always been open to couples to make the man the primary carer, and it remains so now. *None of us can have it all*. Children take time and effort, even if child-rearing is outsourced to schools, nannies, etc. Deciding to have children, and deciding who takes the primary carer role is a personal decision for each couple. The most valuable employees are those who can focus 100% on their career. That’s not discrimination, it’s the inevitable result of a world in which clients have freedom of choice where to take their business.

George Orwell warned (www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/in-front-of-your-nose) that:

"[...] we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. [...] In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one’s weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean world where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one’s political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality."

Efforts to make reality match political wishful thinking are failing. The reality is that:

1. None of us, male or female, can “have it all”, no matter how much we “lean in”. People who choose to have children must decide which partner will take primary responsibility for raising them.

2. Primary carers - male or female - can not give 100% at work, in the same way that child-free colleagues can (who are in competition with them).

3. The most valuable employees are those who can focus 100% on their career. For as long as companies and firms compete for customers and clients, based on cost, quality of service, attentiveness, responsiveness, etc. those companies who employ people who can give 100% to the job will thrive, and the remainder will be at a disadvantage. Employers want people who can give 100%.

4. Wishful thinking won’t survive international competition. In a global economy, all the domestic legislation in the world forcing employers to accept inferior performance won’t change competitive dynamics from overseas rivals without such handicaps. We can’t change economic reality via employment law.

5. All of the above are why US firms are winning market share. It's also why many US firms are now adopting "egg freezing programmes": they're not there to actually be used, they're an excellent warning to the whingers, the child-rearers and the pram-pushers, that "You're not welcome here: if you want to breed, pick another firm. You're replaceable (probably with a man), you don't matter, we don't need you, we don't want you, and we'd rather you GTFO rather than waste our time with your petty, entitled tantrums demanding to "have it all". Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out".

Officious Bystander 24 September 21 16:17

Law firms aren't run for the benefit of junior lawyers' social lives, holiday plans or box set viewing schedules.   The "learning by osmosis brigade" are not wrong.  Junior lawyers won't learn how to become good well rounded lawyers by working largely from home and communicating intermittently with colleagues by Teams or phone.   The law remains a highly competitive market where if you want to be successful you have to work hard at it and accept that client demands won't necessarily fit in with your holidays or social life.  If you aren't prepared for that then fine, but choose a 9-5 job instead.  The sense of entitlement from some of the junior echelons is astonishing..  So much of this post pandemic bullshit about WFH is purely about people wanting an easy life - whilst retaining all the same rewards they had before.   Lets see where we are in a year's time......

Big Brother 24 September 21 18:22

@1147 - your views are seemingly entrenched in the 1930s and 1940s, which suits your reference to Mr Eric Blair rather well.  
 

In 2021, where the rest of us live, employers are compelled by law to consider flexible working requests and to not discriminate.   You might want to check out some of those laws.  
 

Now, it’s probably time for your early evening brandy and soda, whilst someone finds your pipe and slippers and you can settle down to the wireless in front of the fire and worry about those pesky Nazis across the channel.  

Josip Broz 25 September 21 03:00

@11:47 - U ok hun?  It's just that the distressed syntax and weird obsessions make me think that you might be struggling slightly. 

The following really isn't something somebody normal would write:

5. All of the above are why US firms are winning market share. It's also why many US firms are now adopting "egg freezing programmes": they're not there to actually be used, they're an excellent warning to the whingers, the child-rearers and the pram-pushers, that "You're not welcome here: if you want to breed, pick another firm. You're replaceable (probably with a man), you don't matter, we don't need you, we don't want you, and we'd rather you GTFO rather than waste our time with your petty, entitled tantrums demanding to "have it all". Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out".

Offshore tyrant 25 September 21 04:06

@Big Brother

Good effort with the ad hominem but you haven't said anything to refute the substance of 1147's points. Perhaps they are more accurate observations than you wish to acknowledge? The fact that the law compels employers to consider flexible working requests, actually proves 1147's points - it is wishful thinking, except that it is a legislated one.

Female solicitor who doesn't have children 25 September 21 07:56

11:47  not sure why you came here to share your weirdly antiquated opinion re the working ability of parents against an article that has no relevance to this matter.

I am confused as to why you can't rationalise that a couple with shared childcare commitments and access to a nursery, nanny and/or family member (Ie. most parents) will have equal "commitment" to their professional life as any other individual with a hobby, a gym membership or who simply likes to leave the office at a reasonable time every day to benefit their life outside of work. I know plenty of parents who work longer hours than their child free friends. It isn't complicated - it is just individual choice.

Your comments on US firms aren't reflective of the reality of the situation (see numerous firms offering breast milk pumping facilities to couples to assist them in retaining flexibility at work for example).

I am sorry you are either unable to have children or that you have just been passed over for promotion in favour of someone who has, as I cannot think of any reason why you would have such strong feelings on this matter to share it in response to a completely irrelevant post. No, not everyone wants children, but not everyone comes out with the butthurt tantrum you ended your post with either - hypocritical, given its contents.

Drop your laughable use of the word "breed" and show some respect to the people who gave life to you or those that raised you and those you care about.

Eggery 25 September 21 14:41

Any reply to these erudite and frankly withering criticisms, 11.47? 1147 being also, presumably, your year of birth.

Big Wig 27 September 21 11:23

The rewards aren't that great really though are they when you consider what you have to give in return. I think the youngsters have this one right.

Never lost.... 29 September 21 10:49

Why 5 pqe as a cut off? Why not stick to titles / band e.g sols, associate, snr associate etc.... people’s role reflects their competence not the number of years in the job 

Anonymous 29 September 21 20:12

@1617

So how do the junior staff osmoose with the seniors when all the seniors are WFH? Telepathy?

I can agree we should see where we all are in a year's time, my guess is that a lot of people will move. Polls suggest up to 60 percent would move if WFH possibilities are restricted, which is not surprising when so many have moved further away from London.

Lil Lester 30 September 21 20:02

No, not telepathy, obviously.

They'll just schmooze a bit harder at the Christmas Party and start the lip-licking and eyebrow waggling a few drinks earlier. Job done.

Remember: half-tiger, half-lambourghini, half-bondage-instructor. Equity by 5pqe. Bosh.

Related News

Law Firm Satisfaction Survey

If you work in private practice, please take RollOnFriday's quick survey measuring how happy you are with your firm. We use the results to rank firms and write stories and reports.

Your firm*
Your role*
Your sex
How satisfied are you with your pay?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's management?*
How satisfied are you with your career development?*
How satisfied are you with your work/life balance?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's culture?*