"So if I want to continue working from home permanently, is there a way I can get unvacced?"

Morrison Foerster will require staff in London to be fully vaccinated for Covid-19 before allowing them to return to the office. 

"As the pandemic continues, we have made the decision to require anyone going into the London office to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19. Those not fully vaccinated will continue to work remotely," a MoFo spokeswoman told RollOnFriday.

“The health and safety of our people remains the firm’s top priority," said the spokeswoman. She added that staff will have to wear a mask in common areas and to maintain social distance in the office.

The US firm is adopting a phased return to the London office, with plans over the next couple of months for lawyers to come in for a minimum of once a week from 13 September, to be increased to twice a week from 18 October. The firm said the attendance of non-lawyers will be "determined to meet business needs, and we will provide flexibility to work remotely as we are able to.”

MoFo is the only law firm in London, to date, to make vaccination compulsory for the office, although Skadden has ordered unvacced staff to get Covid tests before heading to the office.  

Other firms, such as Clifford Chance, Ropes & Gray and Reed Smith have a similar vaccine mandate in their US offices (and Ropes & Gray's policy also applies in Tokyo). But none of those firms have extended that requirement in London.

If your firm is insisting you get jabbed, let us know.

Are you an in-house lawyer? Then please, take RollOnFriday's poll for in-house lawyers:


Status message

Sorry…This form is closed to new submissions.

Tip Off ROF


Lydia 03 September 21 13:50

In effect it means you have no prospects at the firm unless you have the vaccination (even if you have had covid and have even more antibodies). It also is likely to mean if you are BAME you are less likely to be promoted (as less likely to have the jab). And before they say well you can become an equity partner working 100% at home for life pull the other one....

Anon 03 September 21 14:00

Lucky PP lawyers. Wish my bank would do that. I have no interest in sitting with unvaccinated colleagues all day in a poorly ventilated tower block. If one person sneezes, the whole bloody building catches a cold! 

AJ 03 September 21 19:09

Vaccination should be a matter of choice based on informed consent, not coercion which is what this is. In the UK all vaccines are still only authorised (not approved) for emergency use meaning no liability for the vaccine makers, only those who promote it. So if anyone gets a vaccine injury as a result of compliance with this policy, I hope they sue MoFo who are plainly promoting it. Do they not care that Israeli data shows 1 in 3000 16-19 year old males who are Pfizer vaccinated get myocarditis and half of those end up in ICU? And that Israel has seen an 83% increase in heart attacks / cardiac arrests In 20-29 year old females in 2021 over the 2019 and 2020 figures, i.e. no such increase seen in 2020, so this is not a result of covid?  (If anyone wants to check out this data, it’s courtesy of Prof Retsef Levi giving evidence to the Rabbinical Court:

Prof Levi is vaccinated, so he can’t be called an anti-vaxxer. 

AJ 05 September 21 10:13

And here’s something MoFo employees should read before complying with this policy. It’s from the Ontario Public Health body reporting on their findings of myocarditis and pericarditis following the mRNA jabs:

Commonsense 05 September 21 11:36

The amount of ignorance in the legal profession about this vaccine is staggering. To the person above concerned about sneezing you do realise you are just as likely to spread and catch covid with a vaccine This is precisely why covid passports (or covid apartheid more to the point) is a total farce. Name another pandemic where no one gets the jab for their medical health or concern for the actual virus but do so purely to get their life back, travel, have their job. Its sick and I cant wait to watch these firms be sued for discrimination among other things. What happened to peoples right to privacy with regards their medical freedom? What's next proof of STD checks (which in law firms today probably make more sense). I can't believe how many ignorant people think this tyranny is normal.

AJ 06 September 21 13:28

Statistically insignificant numbers liking/disliking the comments, but interesting nonetheless that roughly half of those voting on the comments obviously prefer to live in 1984 than 2019…

Related News