This is a far more nuanced issue than the simple question of should staff work form home, or should they be required to appear.

The type of firm one operates can make a big difference. Firms that have a limited number of cases, but they tend to be more intense and valuable litigation cases, perhaps don't necessarily have to be in the office at all times. Many commercial cases, significant personal injury litigation, business contract matters, and a myriad of other type matters, may lend themselves more to a working from home formula.

But many firms emphasize high volume, with most of the cases not being great fee generators by themselves. This could be practices that emphasize lower end family law cases, criminal misdemeanor cases, and other high volume matters.

For these firms, to attract new cases, and effectively work the many cases the firm already has, it is necessary to be there–at the office. These type of practices have not changed much over the last few decades in that being there at the office, and being available is the key. No one is going to sign up with your firm to handle their upcoming family court matter if no one is available to speak to the client and everything is to be handled remotely. The lack of the human element and lack of personal service scares off these types of clients–clients who are the life-blood of most higher volume practices.

Also, examine you are permitting to work at home. Many attorneys will be in arrangement where they need to produce, and to bill, so it is assumed they will sufficiently be self-starters. And your better, more conscientious paralegals and other high-performing support staff can probably be relied on to be productive form home as well.

But more marginal support staff(such as mediocre performing secretaries and office workers) who never seem to establish much longevity at any place they work, and are people who just view the job as a pay check, are the kinds of people who may try to do as little as possible if permitted to work from home.

10:27–and those marginal employees are the ones to watch out for.

Some blowhards will claim that they don't have any marginal support staff and how they always demand excellence from everyone, and blah, blah.

But that is usually false. Most firms don't fire mediocre employees since if mediocrity is being maintained, the essentials are being performed, and thus it is highly disruptive to business operations to constantly fire people who are just kind of average.

The way these people are usually dealt with is they are not promoted, receive minimal raises if any, and they then either improve or quit to work elsewhere(usually the latter, not the former).

But, yes, these are the kinds of people who cannot be trusted to be productive if working remotely, as they are barely productive when they are at work.

And who are these employees? These are the folks who are on their third job in two years, and whose education ended with the 12th grade over two decades ago but they never sought any further education or training, and the only thing they are really conscientious about is to make certain they take every minute of every day off they are entitled to, as well as every second of every cigarette break.

10:53 and 11:16–I don't want to discuss individual attorneys but there is a certain irony in that people who, in your estimation, bring down the level of professionalism, tend to be the people who have a business model that really makes money for them in the Family Law arena.

On the other hand,attorneys who maintain high volume, and charge a very reasonable rate, have to work very hard to generate any meaningful degree of income beyond meeting their over-head. But the people who have fewer cases, and bill the living hell out of those cases, tend to be very financially successful.

And if you believe they are bringing down the level of professionalism, the irony is that they tend to be professionally much better received than the "hack" who just takes a reasonable fee for a certain project, and relies on high volume as he/she does not bill hourly on each case.(I certainly don't consider such people "hacks" but that is how they are viewed by many high billing, successful attorneys).

The ruthless, successful biller, in addition to being well-received by other similar attorneys due to being financially successful, also tend to get involved in the inner circle of the upper echelon of Family Court practitioners. They wind up in the Family Law organizations, write Family law articles for State Bar and County Bar publications, present at seminars, get noticed for successful appellate decisions, their input is sought as to proposed statutory changes, etc.

Many people simply equate excellence with financial success. I recognize that can be myopic and unfair. But it is particularly true in the shark-infested legal profession. You will never succeed in getting too many colleagues, and prospective clients, to condemn and reject the highly successful attorneys in favor of the ones who charge much less and who you view as more professional and more ethical.

And these people you condemn will usually be able to bill whatever they want. as to the person who, let's say billed the $50,000.for a project which perhaps should have been fully handled for a fraction of that amount, the Bar will do nothing to these attorneys as all the billing tends to be itemized. The Bar will generally not make qualitative or quantitative value judgments as to what should have been charged. If the charges are itemized, and there is a sound attorney-client agreement that has been signed, these attorneys charge whatever they want with no repercussions.

BTW, as to the attorney you specifically name, I have not heard anyone share an opinion similar to yours concerning her and her practice. In fact, I see her name on some very important appellate decisions. Usually she is on the winning side. But since your postings do bring to mind a "type" of attorney that does exist in this arena(and are in fact fairly plentiful)I wanted to offer my view that, even if you are right in an ideal world, the profession works differently than you think. The types of attorneys you seem to dislike tend to succeed, in part for some of the reasons I mentioned.

12:11 takes far too long to make their point, but they are essentially right.

The attorneys who earn the most money, and get the most involved with law-related matters within their field of practice,will always be far more highly regarded(in general) than someone who charges a lot less, seeks and achieves no real name-recognition within the field, and who do not get involved in law-related matters, don't rub elbows with the more prominent attorneys in their field of practice, etc.

And this is true even when that more unknown yeoman attorney does pretty good work.

12:25–is it encrusted, or more of the moist variety?