As big corporates push full-time office returns and adopt workplace surveillance, will BigLaw follow, and will smaller firms, as a result, be more appealing to lawyers seeking flexibility? Here, lawyers and recruiters weigh in.
In August, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan proposed legislation around the right to work from home at least twice a week, in a move she said will “increase workforce participation and ultimately boost productivity”.
Following this, the Greens said this WFH push should be rolled out nationally.
“The Prime Minister supports Victorian Labor Premier Jacinta Allan’s push for legislating WFH two days a week. Now he has a chance to work with the Greens in Federal Parliament to make this a reality for those Australians whose jobs it suits,” Greens leader and spokesperson on women, Larissa Waters, said in a statement last month.
This push, empire group national legal manager Rachael Musgrave told Lawyers Weekly, “reflects how embedded flexibility has become in modern workplace expectations”.
“In the current market, flexibility remains one of the most highly sought-after benefits for lawyers and professional staff alike. While salaries and career progression are always key drivers, the ability to work from home – even just a couple of days a week – is consistently raised as a ‘must-have’ by candidates,” she said.
“It’s unlikely that large corporates will enthusiastically back this kind of legislation. Many already have internal hybrid policies, but most want to retain control over how these are implemented. Mandating a one-size-fits-all model doesn’t always work and could potentially be viewed as undermining business autonomy and limiting their ability to tailor arrangements to their industry, client demands, or team needs.”
Many large corporations are leaning away from hybrid working – Amazon and AT&T were among organisations ordering staff back to the office full-time this year, with Commonwealth Bank (CBA) and NAB mandating increased office time for staff for some time. ANZ, Suncorp Group, and Origin Energy have also all warned of bonus cuts if staff don’t spend enough time in the office, with many companies now requiring employees to sign in to the office to prove attendance.
CBA also uses an app, Navigate, which is used by staff to get into the CBA office. Despite the bank stating that the app is not used to track staff, installing the app means giving it access to location features, which can be accessed even when not using the app, an employee told The Guardian recently.
While Carlyle Kingswood Global (CKG) in-house legal and governance director Phillip Hunter noted that the WFH debate in Victoria hasn’t “materially shifted” the reality that the hybrid working and flexibility are “core parts” of the firm’s employee value propositions (EVP), he said it was “unlikely” that big corporates would support legislation around WFH.
“Corporates generally want flexibility to remain employer-led, not government-mandated. A statutory ‘right’ to WFH curtails managerial discretion and introduces compliance and operational risk, particularly where organisations have made significant investments in office infrastructure, culture, and governance frameworks,” he said.
“The trend is also moving the other way: large employers are increasing data-driven oversight of attendance and activity. The Guardian’s reporting on CBA’s Navigate access app and wider workplace surveillance illustrates how monitoring is expanding under limited privacy protections – hardly a signal that corporates are ready to hand more control to legislators by enshrining WFH rights in law.”
Following the Victorian government’s plan to legislate WFH, a number of lawyers also voiced concerns around the proposed legislation – calling it a “political stunt” that could create “more grey areas and disputes”.
Will BigLaw firms push for less flexibility?
While many BigLaw and top-tier firms offer flexible and hybrid working as a benefit, leaders within firms have long expressed concerns around missed learning opportunities, particularly for junior lawyers working from home.
Despite seeing a few candidates here and there who prefer the office, Burgess Paluch Legal Recruitment consultant Emma Leeseberg said that “most employees” are still “placing high value” on WFH options, which BigLaw firms are using to remain competitive when attracting talent.
“I think the big corporates are trying to use every perk they can to convince people to come work for them (especially if they have to fight the image that they work long hours [and] have bad cultures),” she said.
“I think most BigLaw firms are keen to continue providing WFH as an added benefit. They generally have to stay competitive and align with each other to make sure they retain staff; otherwise, they could lose current staff, and certainly potential future staff, to other top tiers [that] provide better benefits.”
However, while top-tier firms may still offer flexibility, they also pay “a lot” for time and talent – meaning that “reasonable logging of activity” is “part of professional accountability”, according to Hunter.
“If firms aren’t already measuring presence and activity, they will soon enough. But there must be limits. The line is crossed when monitoring drifts into intrusiveness or weak privacy controls. The CBA example underscores why transparency, proportionality, and purpose-limitation matter. When those guardrails are in place and the focus is work-related data, most high performers are indifferent,” he added.
“Will monitoring affect talent attraction? To a degree. The better question is whether reluctance stems from genuine privacy concerns (valid) – or resistance to reasonable accountability (less so). The direction of travel for 2025 is clearer expectations, firmer in-office baselines and measured oversight – ideally with radical transparency about what’s collected and why.”
And despite the softer employment market – and some BigLaw firms shifting back towards increased office attendance (whether through formal mandates or subtle cultural expectations), it’s unlikely the profession will track employees’ comings and goings in a “heavy-handed way”, added Musgrave, who referenced the billable hour as a “natural productivity measure”.
“Outright tracking systems risk undermining trust and morale, and I think most firms recognise the damage that could do to their employer brand,” she said.
“What we are seeing, however, is some subtle cultural nudging from larger firms – encouraging more in-office presence for collaboration and training purposes. That said, there’s a risk: if these firms push too hard, they may create a disconnect with talent who value flexibility above almost everything else.”
In contrast, Emplawyer managing principal Michelle Dawson said that workplace surveillance has become a “common practice”, whether employees are onsite or not – but that as firms wouldn’t necessarily advertise these practices, talent attraction is unlikely to be impacted.
“When it comes to talent attraction, enforcing a strict five-day in-office attendance policy could lead some candidates to reconsider their options, favouring employers (or even jurisdictions) that offer greater flexibility,” she said.
“However, as it is not standard for employers to disclose their workplace surveillance systems during the recruitment process, the impact of workplace surveillance on recruitment would likely remain minimal unless such practices were brought to public attention, for instance, through media coverage.”
Potential migration to firms where flexibility is ‘part of the culture’
With more BigLaw firms implementing some form of office attendance policy, will these firms start losing talent to smaller or “remote-first” firms?
While Leeseberg noted that Burgess Paluch is still seeing many lawyers keen to move in-house for “what they think will be a more ‘relaxed environment’” (which isn’t always the case), she said that talent will “definitely” look to move if firms choose to follow the lead of large corporates.
“Most people would rather work good hours and have good flexibility to work from home a couple of days a week than have the top-tier brand association,” she said.
Whereas Hunter argued that professionals – lawyers or otherwise – who want to work in top-tier firms or big corporates above all else will likely be unmoved by full-time office mandates or workplace surveillance.
“Lawyers who want BigLaw want the scale of matters, the learning environment, and the career trajectory. If that requires more office presence – subject to legitimate personal circumstances – most will accept it because prestige, pay and progression outweigh an extra day or two at home,” he said.
“Market coverage continues to show firms balancing hybrid with greater in-office expectations rather than snapping back to fully remote, or fully onsite.”
The impact of office mandates on talent attraction and retention will also ultimately depend on individual circumstances, with some professionals preferring fully remote arrangements over any in-office attendance.
Emplawyer offers fully-remote work, which Dawson said could be a “compelling alternative” for those in BigLaw who want to prioritise flexibility and work/life balance.
“While some legal professionals may be drawn to the increased flexibility offered by smaller firms, this is particularly true for firms that provide entirely remote work options,” she said.
“Such arrangements could be especially appealing to candidates seeking greater autonomy in how and where they work.”
But for female and Gen Z lawyers, flexibility is likely to continue to remain important, as these groups have different values and expectations for work/life balance – especially women, who are more likely to face the “motherhood penalty” and be disproportionately impacted by inflation.
Boutique workplace law and consulting firm Justitia is currently 100 per cent female, which partner Jess Toop said “wasn’t by design” but perhaps a result of the firm being founded by and run by women who “wanted to disrupt the traditional model for the provision of legal services”.
“Nearly all of us work part-time, and nearly all of us work flexibility between home and the office. It’s seamless, and as a result, we have a happy and engaged workforce, as well as happy clients – both of whom champion the firm,” she said.
“As a matter of practicality, it wouldn’t work to insist that our staff work exclusively or even more frequently from the office. Knowing that, we invest a lot of time and energy into making sure that we have systems in place to keep everyone feeling connected and supported. I think that does make us, and other firms who might be working with similar models, attractive to job candidates.”
Moving forward, Musgrave added, smaller firms where flexibility is “part of the culture” are also likely to become a more attractive option for many lawyers – particularly Millennials and Gen Z – as the trade-off between “prestige and lifestyle is becoming more finely balanced”, with flexibility often tipping the scales.
“The firms that will win the war for talent are those who balance in-person collaboration with meaningful flexibility,” she said.
“A blanket ‘back-to-the-office’ approach risks alienating skilled lawyers in a market where candidates still hold much of the power. Conversely, a considered, flexible approach will help firms retain talent and stand out as employers of choice.”
Lauren is the commercial content writer within Momentum Media’s professional services suite, including Lawyers Weekly, Accountants Daily and HR Leader, focusing primarily on commercial and client content, features and ebooks. Prior to joining Lawyers Weekly, she worked as a trade journalist for media and travel industry publications. Born in England, Lauren enjoys trying new bars and restaurants, attending music festivals and travelling.
