“That relationship can’t be built overnight, and requires ongoing maintenance via regular, scheduled meetings. Conflating delegation by written corrections, with genuine supervision, is problematic. In a world of everyone working in tucked away corners and crevices in the home (or for the lucky few a dedicated home office), there is an interpersonal void,” he told Lawyers Weekly.

“For some this may be a relief because a supervisor is unable to mosey into a [supervisee’s] office and passively make incredibly unreasonable demands without a hint of embarrassment, or any trace of a record. The virtual context requires transparency in communication, more forward planning, better organisation and purposeful collaboration; incidentally these are all factors that contribute to effective supervision anyway.”

Where supervisors and supervisees had a solid pre-existing supervisory relationship, Dr McNamara explained, the transition to the online realm will have not been too difficult, albeit less convenient.

“Keeping up synchronous contact, where both can see the other person’s face, is really important. Resorting solely to contact via email (or other asynchronous communication) doesn’t work well at the best of times, and this is exacerbated in the virtual environment because there is no chance for interaction in the form of ad-hoc encounters, which although not great for supervision are better than no interaction at all,” he noted.

In the looming “new normal”, Dr McNamara believes that while the nature of supervisory relationships will evolve, there may not necessarily be a directive for in-depth training to adapt to new circumstances. There will, he said, be “little shift” – but added that he hopes he is wrong, given that it is imperative that supervisors be as adept as they can be.

“Really, any lawyer with supervisory responsibilities, especially those who are supervising newly admitted lawyers completing a period of supervised practice, should be required to complete a supervision training program,” he argued.

“This should be significantly more than a box-ticking CPD session and require investment of time, as well as emotional and mental energy. Supervisor training, and even accreditation of supervisors, [are] the norm in other professions. The fact that we let untrained supervisors loose on junior lawyers is actually quite odd.”

VIEW ALL

Such training – and effort on the part of supervisors – [are] “absolutely critical”, he stressed.

“This is about preparing the next generation of legally literate leaders. It is also about collective [wellbeing]. For individual firms/legal departments, it really depends. Some law firms/legal departments will perpetually be able to skim the cream of the top,” he mused.

“However, if too many take this approach the milk will turn sour. The benefit, like many positive externalities, doesn’t fit nicely into a spreadsheet. Therefore, putting supervision firmly on a firm’s agenda requires clear insight at the top level of leadership.”

Supervision, Dr McNamara submitted, will ultimately be a two-way street moving forward, whereby supervisees need to bring the right attitude – that is, “a growth mindset is a mantra that has found its way into primary schools, but less so law schools”.

“The recruitment processes for law graduates (of some law firms/legal departments), may not consider the supervision factor. In this context, law firms serious about developing their juniors should be thinking: which candidates, if we provide effective supervision, will be the best supervisees?” he said.

“Graduate recruitment programs are not hiring complete packages! No matter the academic credentials, a newly admitted lawyer is still subject to supervised legal practice. There is no evidence at all to indicate a link between high GPA and positive supervisee attributes.

“Also, maybe there is now an economic/financial justification to reduce the salary of newly admitted lawyers, some of whom in the large law firms are overpaid given they are subject to supervised legal practice in their first two years.”