James Lavan speaks to Law360 about UK firms risking losing talent by cutting back flexibility.
Extract:
James Lavan, executive director at Buchanan Law, said he sees an even clearer stratification emerging in the domestic market. The “super-elite” have settled on a norm of four days in the office, although enforcement can vary by partner despite the central policy. A wider set of U.S. firms in London have landed on between three and four days, and U.K. firms based in London – including the Magic Circle – offer more flexibility, typically requiring three days and in some cases two.
But Lavan said that a universal return to a five-day requirement is unlikely, adding that “those days are dead.”
Lavan added that flexible-working policies have become a major point of distinction in the recruitment market. “Nine out of 10 candidates ask about the in-office requirement;’ he said, describing it as one of the first questions the recruiter receives. “That’s why, outside the super-elite, flexibility is becoming a tool firms can use to attract talent.”
He warned that non-elite firms risk losing lawyers if they tighten office requirements: many candidates would move to competitors that offer higher pay and greater prestige. For U.K. firms unable to match those enticements, Lavan said, flexibility is becoming a “unique selling point” that helps them recruit strong lawyers they might not have attracted before.
Lavan said the tension is largely a question of seniority. Junior lawyers still value being in the office in their first few years, but mid-level and senior associates, who are more autonomous and often juggling wider life pressures, are less willing to give up flexibility.
“That’s when we’re seeing a pinch point,” he said.
That pattern is not repeated in the segment of the market dominated by elite U.S. firms.
Lavan, of Buchanan Law, urged firms to resist that trend. They could even move in the opposite direction by becoming “far more flexible than the norm. It will be interesting over the next few years to see whether certain firms really lean into that, because I genuinely think it’s an underutilized tool:’
Employers could cut salary and office space costs while attracting high-caliber lawyers by offering greater flexibility until “somebody fixes the talent crisis in law, Lavan argued.
Ultimately, he said, the issue comes down to what lawyers value. Some prioritize higher salaries, while others would trade pay for flexibility – a question that law firms will have to confront as pay rates for newly qualified lawyers climb.
“There’s definitely a market there, because if they did that they would find themselves quite popular,” Lavan said. “But it requires someone to be brave, and the first one through the door often gets a little bit bloody.”