Orit: Speaking from my own experience, hybrid work has been transformative. With a spouse who travels frequently for work and two very active young daughters, flexibility is essential for me to remain present for my family while maintaining a demanding career. At the same time, I have seen firsthand the challenges hybrid work creates for training, mentorship, and career visibility.

As Head of Employment at Gowling, Andrew Bratt has a front row view of how hybrid work is reshaping workplace expectations, both from the employer and employee perspective.

Andrew: In practice, the question of whether hybrid work is a “blessing” or a “curse” is overly simplistic. The reality is that it can be both – and often is.

Different lawyers work differently, and their needs evolve over time. For some, the flexibility to work from home is critical to managing family responsibilities and sustaining a demanding legal career. For others, particularly more junior lawyers, in-person time is invaluable for learning by osmosis, developing practical skills, and building the relationships that underpin long-term success in the profession.

From an organizational perspective, hybrid work also presents competing considerations. It can enhance engagement, retention, and well-being, but it may also create challenges around mentorship, collaboration, and maintaining a cohesive culture.

The takeaway is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Law firms and legal departments need to be thoughtful and intentional in how they design hybrid arrangements – balancing flexibility with the developmental and cultural needs of their people, and recognizing that what works for one lawyer may not work for another.

The Junior Lawyer Perspective: Flexibility vs. Development

Orit: On paper, hybrid work is an easy sell for junior lawyers. Less time spent commuting, lower day to day expenses, and greater flexibility to manage personal obligations all contribute to improved work life balance. For many, particularly those early in their careers, these benefits are meaningful.

In practice, however, the trade offs are significant. Junior lawyers learn by being around the work. They benefit from overhearing conversations, asking quick questions, and receiving immediate, informal feedback. These moments are difficult to replicate in a virtual setting. Training becomes more structured and, often, less frequent. The organic exposure to files, clients, and senior lawyers can quietly diminish.

Visibility remains a critical concern. When junior lawyers are not physically present, they are less likely to be top of mind for new assignments or stretch opportunities. Over time, this can materially impact both their development and career progression. In conversations with partners, a consistent theme emerges: those who are regularly in the office are more readily recognized, remembered, and ultimately considered when opportunities arise.

Andrew: From my perspective, the starting point is that the early years of practice are formative, and there is no real substitute for being physically present in the office. Junior lawyers learn by immersion – through observation, informal interactions, and real-time exposure to how more senior lawyers think, communicate, and solve problems. Those opportunities are difficult, if not impossible, to fully replicate in a virtual environment.

What makes this more challenging is that many junior lawyers simply have not experienced a fully in-person model of practice. As a result, they may underestimate what they are missing, whether it is sitting in on a difficult call, participating in an impromptu working session, or even absorbing the day-to-day rhythms of practice through proximity. Those moments, while often unstructured, are critical to development.

If I were advising a junior lawyer today, I would encourage them to be in the office as much as possible, regardless of the convenience of working remotely. The return on that investment, in terms of development, visibility, and relationship-building, is significant.  The practice of law is a long-term career, not a short-term job.  It requires early, intentional investment in learning, relationships, and craft.

That said, this is not solely the responsibility of junior lawyers. Firms and senior lawyers have an equally important role to play. There is little value in juniors being present if the lawyers they work with are not. To make hybrid models effective, firms need to be intentional about creating overlap; ensuring that when junior lawyers come into the office, they have meaningful access to mentorship, collaboration, and hands-on learning. Without that alignment, the benefits of in-person attendance are lost, and the development gap only widens.

The Mid Level Lawyer: Autonomy vs. Plateau Risk

Orit: Mid level lawyers often experience the benefits of hybrid work most clearly, at least at the outset. By this stage, they have developed the skills and confidence to work more independently. The added flexibility can improve both productivity and overall quality of life.

That said, there is a more subtle risk at this level, which is the risk of plateauing. Advancement for mid level lawyers is not only about technical ability. It is also about exposure. Being included in strategic discussions, observing senior lawyers in client interactions, and gradually stepping into those roles are all critical to progression. These opportunities are often unstructured and more likely to occur in person.

At the same time, mid level lawyers are increasingly expected to mentor junior colleagues while maintaining their own performance. Doing so effectively in a hybrid environment can be challenging, particularly when they themselves may feel somewhat removed from firm leadership.

Andrew: By the time lawyers reach the mid-level stage, they have typically invested the time to build a strong technical foundation and develop meaningful relationships within their firm. That foundation can afford them a degree of flexibility, including the ability to work remotely on occasion without the same developmental impact seen at more junior levels.

That said, I would still strongly encourage mid-level lawyers to be in the office regularly, ideally three to four days a week. The learning curve in law remains steep at this stage, and continued growth depends not just on doing the work, but on being exposed to how more senior lawyers approach complex issues, manage clients, and make strategic decisions. The more present you are, the faster you continue to develop.

These are also critical years as lawyers begin positioning themselves for partnership. Advancement is not solely a function of technical competence; it is also about visibility, trust, and being top of mind when opportunities arise. While firms strive to allocate work and opportunities equitably, proximity still matters. Those who are present are more likely to be included in key conversations, to build stronger internal relationships, and ultimately to be seen as ready for the next step.

Hybrid work can absolutely be part of a successful mid-level practice, but it needs to be approached with intention. Used well, it supports productivity and balance. Used passively, it can slow progression at a stage where momentum matters most.

Senior Lawyers and Partners: Efficiency vs. Culture

Orit: For senior lawyers and partners, hybrid work presents both advantages and challenges. On one hand, many report increased efficiency. There are fewer interruptions, more focused time for complex work, and greater control over demanding schedules. On the other hand, maintaining firm culture becomes more difficult. Collaboration can feel more transactional, and the informal relationship building that underpins strong teams is harder to replicate.

There is also a longer term consideration. A generation of lawyers trained largely in hybrid environments may miss out on the experiential learning that has traditionally shaped strong practitioners. Questions around engagement and accountability also arise when teams are not consistently together in person.

Andrew: I agree with these observations. Hybrid work can undoubtedly enhance efficiency for senior lawyers and partners, but it also brings with it a heightened responsibility. At this stage of practice, there is an obligation to give back; to mentor, to train, and to actively invest in the development of more junior lawyers.

That responsibility becomes even more important in a hybrid environment. Left unchecked, there is a real risk of a growing skills gap, where junior lawyers simply do not develop at the same pace as prior generations who benefited from consistent in-person exposure and mentorship. Development in law is cumulative and experiential, and it depends heavily on access to more senior practitioners.

From an employer perspective, this raises important considerations around accountability and expectations. Senior lawyers cannot view hybrid work solely through the lens of personal efficiency. There needs to be a deliberate commitment to being present, accessible, and engaged with their teams. Maintaining a strong culture and ensuring continuity in training requires more intentional effort in a hybrid model than it did in a fully in-person environment.

Ultimately, hybrid work does not diminish the leadership role of senior lawyers.  If anything, it amplifies it.

Parents and Caregivers: A Clear Win with Considerations

Orit: For lawyers with caregiving responsibilities, hybrid work has been transformative. Speaking personally, this is where the benefits are most clear. I have two young daughters who are incredibly active in competitive dance, basketball, soccer, hockey, and soon softball. Without flexibility, it would be extremely difficult to be present for their activities in the way I want to be. Hybrid work has made that possible.

It has also helped retain talented lawyers who might otherwise have stepped away from private practice or the profession entirely. In that sense, it has broadened what a sustainable legal career can look like.

That said, there are still considerations. Some lawyers remain concerned that taking full advantage of flexibility may impact visibility or access to opportunities, or create a perception, whether accurate or not, about their level of commitment. This tension continues to shape how hybrid work is experienced.

Andrew: From an employment law perspective, this is where hybrid work has had one of its most meaningful impacts. Flexibility is no longer simply a perk, it is, in many cases, a key component of retaining talent and supporting a more diverse and inclusive workforce. For lawyers with caregiving responsibilities, it can be the difference between remaining in private practice and stepping away altogether.

That said, flexibility needs to be implemented thoughtfully. Employers have legal obligations to accommodate family status to the point of undue hardship, but beyond the legal framework, there are broader equity considerations at play. If access to flexibility is uneven, or if those who take advantage of it are perceived—fairly or not—as less committed, organizations risk creating a two-tiered culture.

That is where the real challenge lies. It is not enough to offer flexibility on paper; firms need to ensure that those who use it are not disadvantaged in terms of work allocation, visibility, or advancement opportunities. Otherwise, the very tool designed to support inclusion can unintentionally undermine it.

Ultimately, getting this right requires more than policy. It requires a cultural commitment to evaluating performance based on outcomes, not presence, while still being mindful of the developmental and relational benefits that come from time spent together in person.

The Shift Back: Three Days or Five?

Orit: Across the market, expectations are shifting again. Many law firms and in house legal departments are now requiring at least three days in the office. Some are signaling a move toward four or even five. The reasoning is clear. In person presence supports collaboration, training, and culture in ways that are difficult to fully replicate remotely.

At the same time, pushing too far risks undermining the flexibility that many lawyers now view as essential. The result is an ongoing balancing act. Employers are reintroducing structure, while lawyers are reassessing what they are willing to accept. You’d be amazed how many lawyers reach out to us the moment they hear their employer is mandating a full five-day return to the office – they factor it into their decisions and aren’t afraid to make a move if it doesn’t suit them.

Andrew: What I am seeing across the market is a range of approaches. Many law firms are clearly moving toward four or even five days in the office, while others – ours included – remain committed to a three-day in-office model. Ultimately, each organization needs to determine what works best for its people, its clients, and its culture, taking into account all of the competing considerations we have discussed.

From an employment law perspective, these policies are generally enforceable. Employers have the right to set reasonable expectations around where work is performed, subject to any contractual terms or accommodation obligations. The greater challenge is not legal enforceability, but practical implementation.

Once a decision is made, it needs to be applied consistently. There is little value in mandating in-office attendance if it is not meaningfully enforced. Inconsistent application can quickly lead to frustration among those who comply, while undermining the very benefits (collaboration, training, and cultural cohesion) that the policy is intended to support.

At the same time, employers should expect some degree of pushback. Lawyers have grown accustomed to flexibility, and any shift back toward increased in-office requirements needs to be accompanied by clear communication around the “why.” Absent that, even well-intentioned policies can struggle to gain traction.

So, Blessing or Curse?

Orit: Hybrid work is neither purely a blessing nor entirely a curse. It is a series of trade offs that affect each level of the legal profession differently.

For junior lawyers, it offers flexibility but may slow development. For mid level lawyers, it provides autonomy but can create a risk of disconnection. For senior lawyers, it enhances efficiency while challenging culture and mentorship. For parents and caregivers, it is often invaluable, though not without its complexities.

The organizations that will navigate this most successfully are those that move beyond rigid, one size fits all policies. Intentional mentorship, meaningful in person collaboration, and clear expectations around performance and visibility will be essential. Equally important is the mindset you bring to the office. The days that you are in office, you have to make them count. Every interaction, every meeting, and every opportunity to contribute should be purposeful and impactful.

Andrew: Flexibility has a place in the practice of law, but it cannot come at the expense of development, mentorship, and connection, which still happen best in person. Those organizations that successfully thread this needle will distinguish themselves in the market, attracting and retaining top talent while fostering stronger engagement and morale.

Our Final Thoughts

Orit: At this stage in my life, hybrid work is not a perk, it is essential. The reality is that I am not working less, I am working more, just on a different cadence with a level of flexibility I deeply value. ZSA has been nothing short of exceptional in its support. It is a demanding rhythm, but one that works. Throughout it all, my commitment to my team remains unwavering. I take seriously my responsibility to show up, support them, and invest meaningfully in their growth. Hybrid work is not a trend, and certainly feels like it is here to stay.

Andrew: At this stage in my career, I see hybrid work as both a benefit and a responsibility. The flexibility it offers is meaningful, but it also comes with an obligation; to stay engaged, to remain visible, and to invest in the development of those coming up behind us. I have the benefit of having been trained in a fully in-person environment, and I am mindful that others may not have had that same experience. For me, that creates a responsibility to be present, to mentor, and to help ensure that the next generation of lawyers is set up for success.