Do you think DOGE will eliminate remote policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've worked in both the federal government and BigLaw, with my most recent stint in BigLaw about 7 years ago. I jumped to a BigLaw counsel spot and then jumped back into government after an embarrassingly short time. The skill sets do not transfer; firms want someone who can develop business, even if they claim that business development is not a requirement. That is not me. I want to do my job--preferably something involving really interesting research and minimal human contact--and go home to my family. I do not want to network, ever.

Not only is BigLaw unable to absorb all of the federal lawyers who claim they want to leave government, but if DOGE is able to do what it wants to do (which is unlikely), much of the legal work in the private sector will dry up. No more compliance counseling. No more SEC defense. No more merger enforcement.

I don't find that plausible. These people want reduced enforcement for their own companies, not for competitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't see mentioned enough is the effect on existing biglaw lawyers if the market were suddenly flooded with experienced lawyers who think $200k is a sweet salary. Even if those ex-fed lawyers ultimately are fired in a few years (and certainly never make partner) I think there would be a big temptation for firms to unload their more expensive associates and junior partners in favor of cheaper options in the short term. Somebody with 20+ years practicing can definitely do an associate's job, even in an unfamiliar area, and a smart firm would offer a lifestyle billing requirement in exchange for "low" salaries. It could potentially remake the DC law market.

lol anyone who actually worked in biglaw knows how dumb this sounds. Firms aren’t to replace their associates and junior partners with feds accustomed to completely different work/life balance. If there is a mass exodus of fed attorneys at most it will drive down salaries of biglaw staff attorneys and doc reviewers.

You're saying firms are too hidebound to change their hiring pipeline - which is a fair point, law firms are snobby and change slowly. But if they are too previous about it, their clients will find it's pretty cheap to expand in-house operations and outsource less.

Most of the work government attorneys do just doesn’t translate to the private sector. Further, most companies have already figured out what work can be done more cheaply in house. Whatever happens with DOGE just isn’t gong to remake the legal job market. Government law jobs are a very good gig, working 10 hours more a week or having to commute doesn’t justify returning to Biglaw, which is about a hundred times harder with far less job security,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't see mentioned enough is the effect on existing biglaw lawyers if the market were suddenly flooded with experienced lawyers who think $200k is a sweet salary. Even if those ex-fed lawyers ultimately are fired in a few years (and certainly never make partner) I think there would be a big temptation for firms to unload their more expensive associates and junior partners in favor of cheaper options in the short term. Somebody with 20+ years practicing can definitely do an associate's job, even in an unfamiliar area, and a smart firm would offer a lifestyle billing requirement in exchange for "low" salaries. It could potentially remake the DC law market.

lol anyone who actually worked in biglaw knows how dumb this sounds. Firms aren’t to replace their associates and junior partners with feds accustomed to completely different work/life balance. If there is a mass exodus of fed attorneys at most it will drive down salaries of biglaw staff attorneys and doc reviewers.

Don't be a jerk PP, it is a fair question. If you have somehting helpful to contribute, do that. Otherwise save the snark.

Objectively, however, snarky PP is correct. Biglaw doesn't work this way, for any number of reasons/biases. However, there could be a world where more of this happens if the currrent crop of junior associates in biglaw screw themselves out of a job. Law firms don't like older people as associates, but they might be swayed if those older people are willing to grind out a life rather than ask for a million dispensations like the current junior associate geneation does.

[Anonymous]

DOGE or the threat there of gave me the push I needed to start looking. Bring it on Elon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I don't see mentioned enough is the effect on existing biglaw lawyers if the market were suddenly flooded with experienced lawyers who think $200k is a sweet salary. Even if those ex-fed lawyers ultimately are fired in a few years (and certainly never make partner) I think there would be a big temptation for firms to unload their more expensive associates and junior partners in favor of cheaper options in the short term. Somebody with 20+ years practicing can definitely do an associate's job, even in an unfamiliar area, and a smart firm would offer a lifestyle billing requirement in exchange for "low" salaries. It could potentially remake the DC law market.

lol anyone who actually worked in biglaw knows how dumb this sounds. Firms aren’t to replace their associates and junior partners with feds accustomed to completely different work/life balance. If there is a mass exodus of fed attorneys at most it will drive down salaries of biglaw staff attorneys and doc reviewers.

Don't be a jerk PP, it is a fair question. If you have somehting helpful to contribute, do that. Otherwise save the snark.

Objectively, however, snarky PP is correct. Biglaw doesn't work this way, for any number of reasons/biases. However, there could be a world where more of this happens if the currrent crop of junior associates in biglaw screw themselves out of a job. Law firms don't like older people as associates, but they might be swayed if those older people are willing to grind out a life rather than ask for a million dispensations like the current junior associate geneation does.

Do current feds really want to work 80 hours a week to “out grind” current associates? I don’t think so. If it’s just working a few more hours a week, or coming into the office, the fed job is still way more family friendly than Big Law.

[Anonymous]

Just thinking ahead to next week... Another reason to keep telework... I'll still be working on Monday while everyone who has RTO gets a snow day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just thinking ahead to next week... Another reason to keep telework... I'll still be working on Monday while everyone who has RTO gets a snow day.

they'd have to actually cancel ad-hoc telework agreements altogether to get snow days. but if one is in place then folks have to telework or take leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just thinking ahead to next week... Another reason to keep telework... I'll still be working on Monday while everyone who has RTO gets a snow day.

they'd have to actually cancel ad-hoc telework agreements altogether to get snow days. but if one is in place then folks have to telework or take leave.

If they actually require 5 days in office, of course I'm canceling my ad hoc agreement.

[Anonymous]

I had an interesting discussion with my manager about this. Their theory is that DOGE wants to look at full office buildings. If an office building looks full-ish, they aren’t going to pull up an org chart and realize that only 20% of people are in at any given time because our agency gave up 80+% of our space in the last three years. Trump is flash over substance. If it looks good, it is good. If it looks empty, that’s an issue. And Elmo, who is at best a contractor, really doesn’t have the ability to figure out how many of 2.1 millions Feds in 50 states and overseas are in chairs in offices on a given day.

Liking my odds since our space that’s after we let a lot go is left is full with just managers coming in 2 days a week and our CBA is fantastic towards telework and goes into 2029.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just thinking ahead to next week... Another reason to keep telework... I'll still be working on Monday while everyone who has RTO gets a snow day.

they'd have to actually cancel ad-hoc telework agreements altogether to get snow days. but if one is in place then folks have to telework or take leave.

If they actually require 5 days in office, of course I'm canceling my ad hoc agreement.

My office requires it as a condition of employment. I’m in public safety so it’s pretty common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just thinking ahead to next week... Another reason to keep telework... I'll still be working on Monday while everyone who has RTO gets a snow day.

they'd have to actually cancel ad-hoc telework agreements altogether to get snow days. but if one is in place then folks have to telework or take leave.

If they actually require 5 days in office, of course I'm canceling my ad hoc agreement.

Our NBUs were required to have them precovid just fur snow days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

BUT I’ll be beyond pissed if my coworkers who came up with b.s. medical accommodations to remain fully remote are allowed to continue fill time remote. We have people who have claimed anxiety, sleep apnea, all kinds of nonsense and been approved.

Do you know for a fact that is what they have claimed? Or are your assertions based on rumor or assumptions?

I have a serious medical condition (non-psychological) that has supported my reasonable accommodation. I have not yet chosen to broadcast it to my coworkers. It is not at all obvious when you see me on the screen (or even in person).

Because of those who assume that a disability must be obvious to be legitimate, if we have full RTO I will have to either be very open about my health or allow others to presume that I made up a BS diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BUT I’ll be beyond pissed if my coworkers who came up with b.s. medical accommodations to remain fully remote are allowed to continue fill time remote. We have people who have claimed anxiety, sleep apnea, all kinds of nonsense and been approved.

Do you know for a fact that is what they have claimed? Or are your assertions based on rumor or assumptions?

I have a serious medical condition (non-psychological) that has supported my reasonable accommodation. I have not yet chosen to broadcast it to my coworkers. It is not at all obvious when you see me on the screen (or even in person).

Because of those who assume that a disability must be obvious to be legitimate, if we have full RTO I will have to either be very open about my health or allow others to presume that I made up a BS diagnosis.

I have a young seemingly healthy coworker who was in 5 days a week before covid. After Covid she received a full work from home exception. She has never mentioned it and I have never asked. Between her and management. I will add that we were told that so many people are claiming disability that it is taking over a year to process them..and you get the accommodation in the mean time. It was almost like they were saying if you want more time at home...apply!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BUT I’ll be beyond pissed if my coworkers who came up with b.s. medical accommodations to remain fully remote are allowed to continue fill time remote. We have people who have claimed anxiety, sleep apnea, all kinds of nonsense and been approved.

Do you know for a fact that is what they have claimed? Or are your assertions based on rumor or assumptions?

I have a serious medical condition (non-psychological) that has supported my reasonable accommodation. I have not yet chosen to broadcast it to my coworkers. It is not at all obvious when you see me on the screen (or even in person).

Because of those who assume that a disability must be obvious to be legitimate, if we have full RTO I will have to either be very open about my health or allow others to presume that I made up a BS diagnosis.

I have a young seemingly healthy coworker who was in 5 days a week before covid. After Covid she received a full work from home exception. She has never mentioned it and I have never asked. Between her and management. I will add that we were told that so many people are claiming disability that it is taking over a year to process them..and you get the accommodation in the mean time. It was almost like they were saying if you want more time at home...apply!

They are probably afraid to say no or this is a way to say they are complying but yet still let people work from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BUT I’ll be beyond pissed if my coworkers who came up with b.s. medical accommodations to remain fully remote are allowed to continue fill time remote. We have people who have claimed anxiety, sleep apnea, all kinds of nonsense and been approved.

Do you know for a fact that is what they have claimed? Or are your assertions based on rumor or assumptions?

I have a serious medical condition (non-psychological) that has supported my reasonable accommodation. I have not yet chosen to broadcast it to my coworkers. It is not at all obvious when you see me on the screen (or even in person).

Because of those who assume that a disability must be obvious to be legitimate, if we have full RTO I will have to either be very open about my health or allow others to presume that I made up a BS diagnosis.

Oh these people have broadcast it loudly.