As long as the SEC continues to be so telework friendly, I’m okay with other agencies going in more, especially for those that struggle with productivity and working from home. To each their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

If you care so much about these things, one solution is to tax the rich. Your solution is to tax the working class.

Lol, the "working class" never got to WFH at all. And middle class people (teachers, office administrators, people who work in customer service, etc.) have been back in person for a long time.

The WFH holdouts are UMC workers who can afford to do things like pay for downtown parking and buy lunch every day. And they are the ones missing from the downtown economy because they were always the ones who spent lots of money during their workday in town. And yes, that includes plenty of feds making 120k+ -- the federal workers in DC most likely to be WFH also tend to make very respectable salaries even if it's not Big Law or consulting money.

The Biden administration is putting more cars in the road. Goodbye, climate action! Hello big landlord profits! Thanks Zients!

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

My agency’s mission is not to keep a DC dry cleaner open. Think critically!

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

This is a rubbish argument. I patronize the restaurants and services around my home now. Guess they’ll feel the pinch now.

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

Tell me how that contributes to a company’s bottom line. It doesn’t

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

Private sector is demanding more and more days in office. Many top firms now want 3-4 days in the office a week. There are firms offering full-time virtual or more flexible hybrid schedules, but increasingly they are offering them to a segregated workforce. So partners and partner-track associates are in office more, but staff attorneys might be virtual. But there's a significant loss in pay associated with that.

Firms are increasingly worried about the impact on by culture and productivity of widespread WFH. Sure, it works in some legal specialties and for some people. But I am hearing more and more partners talking about issues with associates not even coming close to their billable targets, or just a general loss of camaraderie at the firm due to the combination of WFH and a very active lateral market.

All of which is to say, I think you are idealizing private practice because you are mad about having to go into the office. And the feds actually know that private industry is moving more and more back to the office, that's part of why this push is happening.

Do you know how much “top firms” pay their attorneys vs. the fed gov? A first year with no experience right out law school makes substantially more than I do as a capped 15-10, where I’ve sat for over ten years with no hope of any substantial raise. Ever. Unless they fix the cap. If I have to commute in anyway, it’s not going to be for a 15-10. My whole calculus changes.

Yes I am aware, and those attorneys work way more than you do. If you really think you are going to switch to private sector and get that massive pay bump but somehow magically get more flexibility and more, or even the same amount, of WFH, you are mistaken.

Switch to private sector for the money if you want. But there is a reason Big Law attorneys make eye-popping sums of money. And coming in as a lateral from DOJ will mean even higher expectations for you. Some associates come into Big Law and fart around for a few years collecting ridiculous salaries they don't earn before flaming out and heading elsewhere (some to places like the DOJ). But that's not going to fly for a mid-career lateral. You will be expected to come in and earn right away.

You also need to understand the law firm market right now. Huge pressure to grow both revenues and partner profits, tons of consolidation in the industry making even midsize firms that used to be more relaxed environments push profitability hard. There's also a very busy lateral market so you'll be competing against a lot of attorneys from other law firms, too. DOJ experience is a plus but it's not that uncommon and unless you are coming in with good client prospects (harder to do from DOJ), you may overestimate your value on that market.

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

If you care so much about these things, one solution is to tax the rich. Your solution is to tax the working class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

Private sector is demanding more and more days in office. Many top firms now want 3-4 days in the office a week. There are firms offering full-time virtual or more flexible hybrid schedules, but increasingly they are offering them to a segregated workforce. So partners and partner-track associates are in office more, but staff attorneys might be virtual. But there's a significant loss in pay associated with that.

Firms are increasingly worried about the impact on by culture and productivity of widespread WFH. Sure, it works in some legal specialties and for some people. But I am hearing more and more partners talking about issues with associates not even coming close to their billable targets, or just a general loss of camaraderie at the firm due to the combination of WFH and a very active lateral market.

All of which is to say, I think you are idealizing private practice because you are mad about having to go into the office. And the feds actually know that private industry is moving more and more back to the office, that's part of why this push is happening.

Do you know how much “top firms” pay their attorneys vs. the fed gov? A first year with no experience right out law school makes substantially more than I do as a capped 15-10, where I’ve sat for over ten years with no hope of any substantial raise. Ever. Unless they fix the cap. If I have to commute in anyway, it’s not going to be for a 15-10. My whole calculus changes.

It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.


Private sector is demanding more and more days in office. Many top firms now want 3-4 days in the office a week. There are firms offering full-time virtual or more flexible hybrid schedules, but increasingly they are offering them to a segregated workforce. So partners and partner-track associates are in office more, but staff attorneys might be virtual. But there's a significant loss in pay associated with that.

Firms are increasingly worried about the impact on by culture and productivity of widespread WFH. Sure, it works in some legal specialties and for some people. But I am hearing more and more partners talking about issues with associates not even coming close to their billable targets, or just a general loss of camaraderie at the firm due to the combination of WFH and a very active lateral market.

All of which is to say, I think you are idealizing private practice because you are mad about having to go into the office. And the feds actually know that private industry is moving more and more back to the office, that's part of why this push is happening.

I am well aware that private sector firms go into the office, as I oppose them in cases and have generally good working relationships with most - most of them in the area of law I practice in seem to be 3xs a week. When I look at my kids' 529s, though, and the number of hours I currently work, and RTO added on top of it all, I am feeling like to me, this is no longer worth it and I would rather have the money. It's not just being mad about RTO, I am already burned out working this many hours for GS pay, and this DOJ section is kind of a revolving door to private sector anyway. It may well be worth it to other people - totally fine, and I have enjoyed the experience for a number of years, but overall, I think I am feeling done for the time being.

It sounds like, though, there's still lots of flexibility.

We already go in 2x/week (with more frequency depending on rank/specific meetings). It sounds like that is far more than other agencies.

Anonymous wrote:

I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

I'll take metro, but won't do any of those other things (dry cleaning - my office is business casual, I wear Boden, which is machine wash; I bring lunch, I don't drive or buy coffee).

That's you. In aggregate, RTO will be a huge boost to local economies in downtown business districts. Not only do people spend more on transportation, parking, food, and services, but filling up downtown offices has the potential to also bring back downtown retail.

Complain about it all you want but this is the way the wind is blowing. Better get those Boden dresses ready.

Anonymous wrote:It's a bad move. I'm a DOJ attorney, and constantly evaluating my private sector options. If WFH is reduced, I'll go with the money, understanding that I am being paid more and going in at least as often.

Private sector is demanding more and more days in office. Many top firms now want 3-4 days in the office a week. There are firms offering full-time virtual or more flexible hybrid schedules, but increasingly they are offering them to a segregated workforce. So partners and partner-track associates are in office more, but staff attorneys might be virtual. But there's a significant loss in pay associated with that.

Firms are increasingly worried about the impact on by culture and productivity of widespread WFH. Sure, it works in some legal specialties and for some people. But I am hearing more and more partners talking about issues with associates not even coming close to their billable targets, or just a general loss of camaraderie at the firm due to the combination of WFH and a very active lateral market.

All of which is to say, I think you are idealizing private practice because you are mad about having to go into the office. And the feds actually know that private industry is moving more and more back to the office, that's part of why this push is happening.

I'm exhausted between my job and having a disabled kid. My boss has made me a "point person" that other people go to with questions, I am constantly being asked to go to meetings that are not for my own assigned matters. I also have had to travel more than anyone else in my unit, and was assigned to three "high priority" matters that required a ton of extra work beyond 40 hours per week. I received three performance awards in the past year. If I have to go back to the office more days than I currently do (two per week), I am done. I don't have more to give this situation - it's not a matter of whether RTO is right or wrong objectively - this is all I can do.

Anonymous wrote:I love WFH more than anyone, but there’s no question that RTO is much better for the local economy. Lunches, metro rides, parking fees, dry cleaners, etc.

This.