A Florida judge wants attorneys to get out of bed and get dressed for video conference hearings—maybe an argument for skipping the video portion of BlueJeans. [Las Vegas Sun]
Zoom credentials are being sold on the dark web and may trigger your duty to disclose a breach to clients. [Suasor]
While I understand the publicity side of the wedding filing, the right to marry is a fundamental right that carries legal rights and consequences and is essential and subject to protection. The right to have Elvis conduct a wedding is not essential and should be subject to shutdown.
If I remember my studies for the bar, it is subject to strict scrutiny. (This doesn't really add anything to the conversation, just wanted to let you know what I remembered.)
If a "right to marry is a fundamental right" and "is essential and subject to protection" yet individuals cannot choose to have their marriage conducted in a way that is legally provided for in their state using Elvis, then how is that right "essential and subject to protection" ? Is it only if it is done in a traditional church instead of a civil ceremony?
Marriage is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny. If a religious interference is involved in free exercise of faith, and is an incidental burden then a rational basis test is applicable.
All hail the church of Elvis!
Any religious interference is incidental and unintended. And there is
a compelling state interest(the pandemic), and the restriction seems to be as proportionately drawn as it can be–restricting the fundamental right only to the point necessary to serve the compelling state interest.
And as suggested below, these judges should really step forward in this time of need, and create a program wherein judges will take turns marrying people free of charge(with social distancing restrictions observed). This will result, hopefully, in people still receiving the fundamental right to marry, even if not quite in the fashion and manner they hoped for.
10:48…. Marriage is fundamental. Weddings are not. The right to legally seal your relationship does not include the right to a big party. Separate the concepts of wedding ceremony from marriage.
To tack on to what 12:23 said. Sisolak is also saving you a boatload of cash now that you don't have to throw a massive party for a bunch of acquaintances.
Guest
Anonymous
April 15, 2020 6:23 pm
Presumably, even a fundamental or basic right can be modified or restricted to an extent to serve a compelling state interest.
First, the pandemic seems to clearly qualify as a compelling state interest. Secondly, the restriction in question will probably be viewed by the NSC as the most reasonable and limited manner of restricting this essential right, while still serving the compelling state interest.
Two things will presumably be noticed by the court. First, this is mainly an appeal by affluent companies losing business, and the argument that the little guy is being denied the right to marry is really just an attempt at a noble-sounding distraction. Secondly, the little guy or gal is not really being denied the right to marry, but just the right to use these cheapie, quickie wedding chapels. There are still, of course, other options, for those wanting to marry.
And to make these other options more apparent, it should be arranged that a program is created where sitting judges take turns(like each assigned an afternoon or morning each week)to conduct these simple, quick marriages, with very few quests(beyond required witnesses), and social distancing requirements observed.
That said, I'll leave it to our constitutional lawyers to address the validity of this appeal. So, constitutional lawyers, what are you thoughts?
BTW, if some people do wind up being denied the right to marry, that could serve as a real blessing to them in the long run, but I digress.
"First, the pandemic seems to clearly qualify as a compelling state interest."
Please forgive me if I do NOT concede this point. The damn flu strikes every year, and kills a lot of people. Has anyone seriously thought that a bad flu is enough of an emergency to close down the country and destroy our entire economy?
"Secondly, the little guy or gal is not really being denied the right to marry, but just the right to use these cheapie, quickie wedding chapels. There are still, of course, other options, for those wanting to marry."
They have also closed down the churches, which are traditional wedding venues. I personally was married in a church which is closed by guvmint fiat.
I'm 11:23. When I indicate that the pandemic qualifies as a compelling state interest, that does not mean that I believe this dramatic societal shut down should have occurred. In fact, I tend to agree with 5:24 that there were some real over-reactions across the board.
But since it has occurred, and the social distancing has been mandated, then it does appear that the pandemic, as currently addressed by the government(even though I don't largely agree with that approach)constitutes a compelling state interest.
Guest
Anonymous
April 15, 2020 6:26 pm
11:23-actually, the complaint is filed in District Court, not the NSC. But either way it turns out, it will presumably wind up in the NSC.
Guest
Anonymous
April 15, 2020 7:04 pm
The story is interesting about the Florida judge who expects attorneys to get out of bed for video conferencing.
I've had a few video hearings already, and although no one was in bed wearing their jammies or undies, attorneys did take this opportunity to dress a lot more casually than they would in court.
I dressed for these hearings in a suit and tie, same as if the hearings were in person. I did not do so because I am a formal guy, but only because the rules still require such, and that is the method that everyone seems to pretty much traditionally comply with.
But most of the other attorneys on these videos, both male and female, are for the most part dressed in their grubbies. One judge actually made sort of a negative comment about that, but let it go.
But the fact is a hearing is a hearing, whether in person or on video, and the same rules and protocols should apply.
These attorneys in questions, who were really casually attired,were always dressed appropriately for prior in court hearings.
I don't know if they are dressing down because they view the in court vs. on video distinction as allowing them to do so, or because they believe they may not be too visible on the video.
As to that last part, not being visible on the video, it really seems to vary. I've been told by judges and court personnel, that sometimes a video will show both attorneys, including movement, while in other departments, although both attorneys can be heard, the screen is fixed on a frozen image of just the one attorney.
What are other attorneys experiences with these videos, and do you believe that attorneys should dress the same as they would in open court? I believe they should, but perhaps I'm being too much of a rigid stickler.
When the EDCRs were recently amended, the specific dress requirements (tie and jackets for men) of EDCR 7.72 were eliminated.Now all it says is "persons appearing in open court must be properly attired as befits the dignity of the court." I think this was to address the fact that men and women were treated differently by the rule. Does this mean men still have to wear a tie and jacket to befit the dignity of the court? Don't know. Does a Zoom appearance qualify as "open court"? Don't know. I just remember that James Dean Leavitt never used to wear a tie in court, and I don't recall anyone ever saying anything.
Sisolak v. Cupid. Imagine you catch the Covid. It's too late. You are going to die. Before you go, you want to be united forever with your one true love. Nope, die alone, you peasant.
@3:03 – Yeah. What a great "Act". $2 Trillion dollars we don't have filled with Nancy Pelosi's wish list like $25 million to the Kennedy Center and $75 Million to the National Endowment for the Arts, then $75 Million to the National Endowment for the Humanities,etc… I'm talking meaningful legislation.
The issue was whether it was Congress who created the payments. They did.
And you just listed $175 million out of 2 fucking trillion dollars. You can do the math. How much will go to the oil and airline industries who have had many billion dollar profits every year for years. But keep complaining about $175M too keep some of the nation’s main arts foundations afloat who are also experiencing declining revenues.
He's demanding his signature on these checks as a way to make them some sort of free campaign flyer, and out of pure narcissism, and as a way to make voters feel indebted to him personally. The same sort of "quid pro quo" this man has engaged in his whole life, and for which he was recently impeached.
Guest
Anonymous
April 15, 2020 7:48 pm
Any one else super excited for the end of Season 5 of Better Call Saul?
For those in the insurance defense game, you're either the client contact or you're the one taking orders. The title of "partner" doesn't matter. Best of luck to the newly anointed super senior associates.
Yep – two attorneys there, Krieger and the same associate listed as an associate on H&K's website. Maybe they did split.
Guest
Anonymous
April 15, 2020 10:03 pm
Although I am in no way taking up for Alverson Taylor, I fail to understand why they are such a favorite whipping boy on this blog.
Best I can gather, posters paint the firm as one that hires young associates, and does not pay them a great deal, and uses them up within two or three years after having exploited them as billing machines who must meet a rigorous hourly quota each month, and then spits them out, without giving them any real chance of advancement, and then the associates need to quit and go elsewhere.
But even if that all be true, that is true of many larger firms who handle insurance defense, commercial and business matters, etc.
Also, let's say a young associate(hopefully who is single and without a family to support) does get used there for two or three years, and works themselves to the bone as a billing machine, does not all that drafting, research, and gaining legal skills under intense and demanding conditions, make them a better lawyer when they proceed to their next job?
I'm not suggesting that young associates should be treated in that fashion, and that it is always good for them. But they do usually have choices of other places they can work, and a lot of these other places are often of similarly demanding nature(or fairly close to it).Plus, again, although I am not advocating that these young lawyers be used and abused, but it is a baptism by fire that sometimes makes them better attorneys, and better equipped to produce decent product under strict time deadlines(a basic hallmark of the professions of Law, as well as Journalism).
Again, I understand why people are critical of this model, but keep in mind that quite a few firms are fairly similar in approach.
Myself, and most attorneys I know who started out by working for larger firms that practice in similar araes to A.T., report very similar experiences.
So, I pose the question: What makes them so much worse than other large firms practicing in the same areas of law as AT, and do they in fact treat the associates a lot worse, in general, than these other firms?
They are a sweat shop. They, Alverson Taylor, provide an unsafe work environment during a pandemic. They don't pay their bills, so what else do you need?
Sure, lots of ID firms work associates to the bone while underpaying them. I don't think it makes sense to compare this to higher end firms. Good firms here pay $125k-$140k starting with lower billable requirements than AT. The attorneys at those firms do more sophisticated work and they do it better. You can find associates in major markets who work as hard as they do at AT, but those firms pay $190k to first year associates and do far more sophisticated work far better than at AT.
People here drag AT because they are an average firm in a relatively unsophisticated practice areas whose business model relies on underpaying and overworking desperate law school graduates who couldn't find anything better.
There are a lot of disgruntled, beaten down former AT attorneys who can paint the picture. Bruce has torn apart and left more carnage of the young unwittings than Joe Exotic.
25 plus year local attorney. You need to ask everyone who has worked at A-T to raise your hand if they would every go back. Seeing none, question answered. Ask any "partner" not named Bruce, what they get for being a "partner"? They were evicted from a building they owned the minute the PG ran out. What am I missing? Oh wait, that really cool xmas eve party in the basement.
How many support staff and attorneys were sexually harassed while working at Alverson Taylor? I was, I was accused of sleeping with Eric Taylor. I love being a female attorney in this profession.
Love to see AT associates attempt to go toe to toe on serious matters. They put in the "requisite" effort because they are overstretched (not necessarily overworked) and it ends up being a one-way romp. We should all hope to see A-T on the other side.
Guest
Anonymous
April 15, 2020 10:27 pm
How do you know that your employees and associates are really "working" when they are not in the office to be supervised? Anyone else notice quality of production is way down?
My firm requires every billing employee to enter and release their time daily so the firm can monitor productivity. We've all been working remotely for a month. I personally haven't experienced any dip in my production.
A colleague of mine made a similar comment within the first week or so of this situation – implying that some people won't work. If productivity is low – WTF, no kidding. Many of us are struggling billing hours, being a spouse, being a parent, trying to be healthy…worrying about the news, so yes, for many of us humans productivity might be low initially. Others in my firm have totally excelled – and I could speculate as to why (they don't have kids, they have less responsibilities if they do have kids/spouse, they ignore their kids/spouse – or they're just super human), but I won't. Doesn't matter. To ignore the crisis is to be a liar. Hours will go back to normal for most of us responsible adults. When they don't for others – or there is some sort of weirdness going on – the firms should take action against that one person – not punish the firm as a whole. Also- if you have people in your firm who need to be monitored, they should not be in your firm. In terms of support staff, give me a break on the monitoring – we expect our assistants to sit at home clued to the computer with no distractions? IF that's true – WHY HAVE OFFICES in the first place? If we can be more productive at home – WTF do service businesses have a business "location." Aside from fostering affairs, traditionally people are more productive away from their home responsibilities and distractions. So to expect people to be in their home with their other responsibilities and distractions to all of a sudden perform perfectly is to have unreasonable expectations. I for one have always loved working from home and have always been more productive – that was until my spouse, kids, pets – all of them with all their baggage (yes I'm calling school baggage) all of a sudden were home with me. Let's chill people. It's been one month. Let's judge productivity in terms of lawyers over a good 90 to 120 days.
While I understand the publicity side of the wedding filing, the right to marry is a fundamental right that carries legal rights and consequences and is essential and subject to protection. The right to have Elvis conduct a wedding is not essential and should be subject to shutdown.
If I remember my studies for the bar, it is subject to strict scrutiny. (This doesn't really add anything to the conversation, just wanted to let you know what I remembered.)
If a "right to marry is a fundamental right" and "is essential and subject to protection" yet individuals cannot choose to have their marriage conducted in a way that is legally provided for in their state using Elvis, then how is that right "essential and subject to protection" ? Is it only if it is done in a traditional church instead of a civil ceremony?
Marriage is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny. If a religious interference is involved in free exercise of faith, and is an incidental burden then a rational basis test is applicable.
All hail the church of Elvis!
11:24–I agree with you, and 11:23 as well.
Any religious interference is incidental and unintended. And there is
a compelling state interest(the pandemic), and the restriction seems to be as proportionately drawn as it can be–restricting the fundamental right only to the point necessary to serve the compelling state interest.
And as suggested below, these judges should really step forward in this time of need, and create a program wherein judges will take turns marrying people free of charge(with social distancing restrictions observed). This will result, hopefully, in people still receiving the fundamental right to marry, even if not quite in the fashion and manner they hoped for.
10:48…. Marriage is fundamental. Weddings are not. The right to legally seal your relationship does not include the right to a big party. Separate the concepts of wedding ceremony from marriage.
To tack on to what 12:23 said. Sisolak is also saving you a boatload of cash now that you don't have to throw a massive party for a bunch of acquaintances.
Presumably, even a fundamental or basic right can be modified or restricted to an extent to serve a compelling state interest.
First, the pandemic seems to clearly qualify as a compelling state interest. Secondly, the restriction in question will probably be viewed by the NSC as the most reasonable and limited manner of restricting this essential right, while still serving the compelling state interest.
Two things will presumably be noticed by the court. First, this is mainly an appeal by affluent companies losing business, and the argument that the little guy is being denied the right to marry is really just an attempt at a noble-sounding distraction. Secondly, the little guy or gal is not really being denied the right to marry, but just the right to use these cheapie, quickie wedding chapels. There are still, of course, other options, for those wanting to marry.
And to make these other options more apparent, it should be arranged that a program is created where sitting judges take turns(like each assigned an afternoon or morning each week)to conduct these simple, quick marriages, with very few quests(beyond required witnesses), and social distancing requirements observed.
That said, I'll leave it to our constitutional lawyers to address the validity of this appeal. So, constitutional lawyers, what are you thoughts?
BTW, if some people do wind up being denied the right to marry, that could serve as a real blessing to them in the long run, but I digress.
"First, the pandemic seems to clearly qualify as a compelling state interest."
Please forgive me if I do NOT concede this point. The damn flu strikes every year, and kills a lot of people. Has anyone seriously thought that a bad flu is enough of an emergency to close down the country and destroy our entire economy?
"Secondly, the little guy or gal is not really being denied the right to marry, but just the right to use these cheapie, quickie wedding chapels. There are still, of course, other options, for those wanting to marry."
They have also closed down the churches, which are traditional wedding venues. I personally was married in a church which is closed by guvmint fiat.
I'm 11:23. When I indicate that the pandemic qualifies as a compelling state interest, that does not mean that I believe this dramatic societal shut down should have occurred. In fact, I tend to agree with 5:24 that there were some real over-reactions across the board.
But since it has occurred, and the social distancing has been mandated, then it does appear that the pandemic, as currently addressed by the government(even though I don't largely agree with that approach)constitutes a compelling state interest.
11:23-actually, the complaint is filed in District Court, not the NSC. But either way it turns out, it will presumably wind up in the NSC.
The story is interesting about the Florida judge who expects attorneys to get out of bed for video conferencing.
I've had a few video hearings already, and although no one was in bed wearing their jammies or undies, attorneys did take this opportunity to dress a lot more casually than they would in court.
I dressed for these hearings in a suit and tie, same as if the hearings were in person. I did not do so because I am a formal guy, but only because the rules still require such, and that is the method that everyone seems to pretty much traditionally comply with.
But most of the other attorneys on these videos, both male and female, are for the most part dressed in their grubbies. One judge actually made sort of a negative comment about that, but let it go.
But the fact is a hearing is a hearing, whether in person or on video, and the same rules and protocols should apply.
These attorneys in questions, who were really casually attired,were always dressed appropriately for prior in court hearings.
I don't know if they are dressing down because they view the in court vs. on video distinction as allowing them to do so, or because they believe they may not be too visible on the video.
As to that last part, not being visible on the video, it really seems to vary. I've been told by judges and court personnel, that sometimes a video will show both attorneys, including movement, while in other departments, although both attorneys can be heard, the screen is fixed on a frozen image of just the one attorney.
What are other attorneys experiences with these videos, and do you believe that attorneys should dress the same as they would in open court? I believe they should, but perhaps I'm being too much of a rigid stickler.
I agree with you.
When the EDCRs were recently amended, the specific dress requirements (tie and jackets for men) of EDCR 7.72 were eliminated.Now all it says is "persons appearing in open court must be properly attired as befits the dignity of the court." I think this was to address the fact that men and women were treated differently by the rule. Does this mean men still have to wear a tie and jacket to befit the dignity of the court? Don't know. Does a Zoom appearance qualify as "open court"? Don't know. I just remember that James Dean Leavitt never used to wear a tie in court, and I don't recall anyone ever saying anything.
Exactamundo
Steve Stein wears jeans, polo shirts and tennis shoes to open court, and no one messes with him.
JDL wore pajama bottoms.
Steve Stein is a legend.
Sisolak v. Cupid. Imagine you catch the Covid. It's too late. You are going to die. Before you go, you want to be united forever with your one true love. Nope, die alone, you peasant.
I am interested in reading about this matter but I’m unable to find it on the NSC website. Could you please provide a case number? Thank you.
And what are facts to the Nevada Supreme Court?
This is still in District Court. The hearing is set for late May. Hopefully the state will be at least partially open by then.
Place your Rothschild with Discover bank. They are the best.
Roths
Got my $2400 today. Thanks Trump.
Thanks Congress, but what do facts matter.
Congress hasn't done jack in the last 2 years except endless investigations and impeachment attempts, but what do facts matter.
Ahem…https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr748/BILLS-116hr748enr.pdf
There's no $2400 without Trump's signature. He's not only your president, but also your sugar daddy.
@3:03 – Yeah. What a great "Act". $2 Trillion dollars we don't have filled with Nancy Pelosi's wish list like $25 million to the Kennedy Center and $75 Million to the National Endowment for the Arts, then $75 Million to the National Endowment for the Humanities,etc… I'm talking meaningful legislation.
The issue was whether it was Congress who created the payments. They did.
And you just listed $175 million out of 2 fucking trillion dollars. You can do the math. How much will go to the oil and airline industries who have had many billion dollar profits every year for years. But keep complaining about $175M too keep some of the nation’s main arts foundations afloat who are also experiencing declining revenues.
@ 7:26 pm, enough with the trolling. Checks from the US Treasury don't bear the President's signature. See, e.g.,
.
Presidents haven't signed these checks because it's too political, and U.S. Treasury isn't some bank account that the President owns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/coming-to-your-1200-relief-check-donald-j-trumps-name/2020/04/14/071016c2-7e82-11ea-8013-1b6da0e4a2b7_story.html
He's demanding his signature on these checks as a way to make them some sort of free campaign flyer, and out of pure narcissism, and as a way to make voters feel indebted to him personally. The same sort of "quid pro quo" this man has engaged in his whole life, and for which he was recently impeached.
Any one else super excited for the end of Season 5 of Better Call Saul?
Kim Wexler is going to wind up dead, isn't she?
Kim should have left Jimmy a long ago. but yea, but which cartel will do it?
She betrayed her client!! Let her death be just a bit painful, to cleanse her of sin.
Judicial campaign disclosures due today…
Good, I have more money to give. Waiting for the other contributions I made to clear my account as well.
Any new layoffs this week? Seem like the longer this goes, firms are going to have to make some hard decisions.
Word is A-T named 2 new partners last week and endures in bullying the toadies into being at the office daily. Business-as-usual.
I want to be an Alverson partner, and I want to take out a mortgage to be one.
Didn't LS make a bunch of attorneys partner before going under?
For those in the insurance defense game, you're either the client contact or you're the one taking orders. The title of "partner" doesn't matter. Best of luck to the newly anointed super senior associates.
Since when did Haines and Krieger get a divorce?
Their website still lists them as H&K. Are you saying that they, as a legal partnership split and are operating separate firms now?
State Bar lists Krieger at his own address with his own firm.
Yep – two attorneys there, Krieger and the same associate listed as an associate on H&K's website. Maybe they did split.
Although I am in no way taking up for Alverson Taylor, I fail to understand why they are such a favorite whipping boy on this blog.
Best I can gather, posters paint the firm as one that hires young associates, and does not pay them a great deal, and uses them up within two or three years after having exploited them as billing machines who must meet a rigorous hourly quota each month, and then spits them out, without giving them any real chance of advancement, and then the associates need to quit and go elsewhere.
But even if that all be true, that is true of many larger firms who handle insurance defense, commercial and business matters, etc.
Also, let's say a young associate(hopefully who is single and without a family to support) does get used there for two or three years, and works themselves to the bone as a billing machine, does not all that drafting, research, and gaining legal skills under intense and demanding conditions, make them a better lawyer when they proceed to their next job?
I'm not suggesting that young associates should be treated in that fashion, and that it is always good for them. But they do usually have choices of other places they can work, and a lot of these other places are often of similarly demanding nature(or fairly close to it).Plus, again, although I am not advocating that these young lawyers be used and abused, but it is a baptism by fire that sometimes makes them better attorneys, and better equipped to produce decent product under strict time deadlines(a basic hallmark of the professions of Law, as well as Journalism).
Again, I understand why people are critical of this model, but keep in mind that quite a few firms are fairly similar in approach.
Myself, and most attorneys I know who started out by working for larger firms that practice in similar araes to A.T., report very similar experiences.
So, I pose the question: What makes them so much worse than other large firms practicing in the same areas of law as AT, and do they in fact treat the associates a lot worse, in general, than these other firms?
They are a sweat shop. They, Alverson Taylor, provide an unsafe work environment during a pandemic. They don't pay their bills, so what else do you need?
They also do not have soap or masks for ees.
Sure, lots of ID firms work associates to the bone while underpaying them. I don't think it makes sense to compare this to higher end firms. Good firms here pay $125k-$140k starting with lower billable requirements than AT. The attorneys at those firms do more sophisticated work and they do it better. You can find associates in major markets who work as hard as they do at AT, but those firms pay $190k to first year associates and do far more sophisticated work far better than at AT.
People here drag AT because they are an average firm in a relatively unsophisticated practice areas whose business model relies on underpaying and overworking desperate law school graduates who couldn't find anything better.
There are a lot of disgruntled, beaten down former AT attorneys who can paint the picture. Bruce has torn apart and left more carnage of the young unwittings than Joe Exotic.
Bruce Alverson is a horrible person, who will get exactly what he deserves.
25 plus year local attorney. You need to ask everyone who has worked at A-T to raise your hand if they would every go back. Seeing none, question answered. Ask any "partner" not named Bruce, what they get for being a "partner"? They were evicted from a building they owned the minute the PG ran out. What am I missing? Oh wait, that really cool xmas eve party in the basement.
Not true. LeeAnn had some good things to say.
How many support staff and attorneys were sexually harassed while working at Alverson Taylor? I was, I was accused of sleeping with Eric Taylor. I love being a female attorney in this profession.
Love to see AT associates attempt to go toe to toe on serious matters. They put in the "requisite" effort because they are overstretched (not necessarily overworked) and it ends up being a one-way romp. We should all hope to see A-T on the other side.
How do you know that your employees and associates are really "working" when they are not in the office to be supervised? Anyone else notice quality of production is way down?
My firm requires every billing employee to enter and release their time daily so the firm can monitor productivity. We've all been working remotely for a month. I personally haven't experienced any dip in my production.
We have case management software that tracks productivity. Surprisingly, it's been higher than it was when we were in the office.
I'm billing way more. I'm bad at work/life boundaries and this isn't helping.
A colleague of mine made a similar comment within the first week or so of this situation – implying that some people won't work. If productivity is low – WTF, no kidding. Many of us are struggling billing hours, being a spouse, being a parent, trying to be healthy…worrying about the news, so yes, for many of us humans productivity might be low initially. Others in my firm have totally excelled – and I could speculate as to why (they don't have kids, they have less responsibilities if they do have kids/spouse, they ignore their kids/spouse – or they're just super human), but I won't. Doesn't matter. To ignore the crisis is to be a liar. Hours will go back to normal for most of us responsible adults. When they don't for others – or there is some sort of weirdness going on – the firms should take action against that one person – not punish the firm as a whole. Also- if you have people in your firm who need to be monitored, they should not be in your firm. In terms of support staff, give me a break on the monitoring – we expect our assistants to sit at home clued to the computer with no distractions? IF that's true – WHY HAVE OFFICES in the first place? If we can be more productive at home – WTF do service businesses have a business "location." Aside from fostering affairs, traditionally people are more productive away from their home responsibilities and distractions. So to expect people to be in their home with their other responsibilities and distractions to all of a sudden perform perfectly is to have unreasonable expectations. I for one have always loved working from home and have always been more productive – that was until my spouse, kids, pets – all of them with all their baggage (yes I'm calling school baggage) all of a sudden were home with me. Let's chill people. It's been one month. Let's judge productivity in terms of lawyers over a good 90 to 120 days.
That's a wall of text no one will read.
I read it, I agree.
3:39 is gaslighting.
3:39 is having a managing partner's fantasy.