Foreward by Andrew Chilvers
Businesses across the world are undergoing the biggest remote working experiment since Europeans first sailed from their home ports to set up trading posts in Asia 500 years ago.
This time around, however, companies are moving colleagues out of their plush city centre locations to set up offices at home. What was unthinkable only a few months ago is now the new modus operandi for professional services firms and their clients. Crisis management and business continuity have indeed come of age thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic.
All this may be difficult for businesses that prefer traditional ways of operating, but most are changing their habits of a lifetime out of necessity. The old adage of preparing for the worst while expecting the best has never been more apt.
Will the professional service business model change as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Before COVID-19, there was already an active discussion in the professional service industry questioning whether prime downtown locations and paying premium rent price tag that accompanied them were necessary. Gone are the days when law firms would need to be situated next to the courthouses or key government offices for easy access. That convenience factor is no longer essential. For the last few years, most pleadings and key documents are filed electronically and most court hearings are held telephonically or by video conferencing.
Typically, an attorney from my firm will need to be physically present in court an average of 2-4 times a month. It is easier to commute to the downtown location during those rare occasions. This easy commute is why my firm is located in a suburb of the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Our firm is located in a modern professional building with all the amenities and easy freeway access, so our clients avoid the traffic and downtown commute as well.
In addition, most of the firm’s business clients are spread throughout Arizona, the US and the world. Clients are rarely physically present at the firm’s offices. As a result, we have already been utilizing electronic options to communicate for several years. Clients do not care whether the firm is in a modern office building in a suburb or a high-rent Phoenix high rise. The clients appreciate the fact that the firm offers lower rates because we do not have the higher overhead a downtown law firm carries.
The ability to remotely access files and client material is important and has already been in place for years. What COVID-19 has emphasized is the need to upgrade secure client communication. The ability to securely speak to a client by telephone or video conferencing and the ability to share documents during these meetings will become more important.
Remote working is being seen as the new normal, how will this affect the culture of professional services firms?
I believe the term ‘business culture’ is often vague and involves several factors that evolve over time. In this specific setting, I think of this issue primarily in terms of finding, hiring, and retaining the best employees. If a business’s goal is to hire and retain employees who are diligent, professional, self-motivated, and honest, whether the employee is working remotely or in an office down the hall, it will not matter. In the current COVID-19 environment, having diligent employees work remotely has not led to a drop-off in work product. Instead, it has allowed flexibility beyond the typical 8-5 job setting. As these restrictions are being lifted, I can see more opportunities for certain employees to work remotely than before.
I do not see the entire current remote access scenario as a permanent fixture to my practice. Allowing certain personnel to work remotely because of issues with travel, family obligations, or looking after school-aged children has been relatively successful during this period and will somewhat remain. However, this situation is not as efficient as having firm personnel present at the office. There are certain scenarios where being able to quickly gather key personnel together to work a problem or the ability to just walk a few feet to speak to a colleague about an issue is not as efficient when handled remotely.
Since the majority of the firm’s clients are businesses, and those who own and operate them, their concern remains the same: legal work should be provided as effectively and efficiently as possible. As long as the quality of the work remains the same, and the client is not experiencing an increase in fees and costs because of employees working remotely, a client does not care whether the work is performed in-office or by an employee sitting next to his or her computer at home
With so many people now working from home using unsecure internet networks, should there be updated rules for data protection compliance? If so, should they be more relaxed given the crisis wrought by the pandemic?
The importance of electronic data privacy and protecting client files has been present in the legal industry for several years. Fortunately, my firm already had in place the safeguards needed to safely allow for remote access to information from non-firm locations. The only change in this area, post COVID-19, is that we have utilized these procedures and protections more than ever before. In addition, during these recent events, certain clients have inquired about these protections for the first time and have been well-pleased to learn these protections had been in place for several years.
The issue beyond client files and securing data is the use of video conferencing and similar forms of communication. The firm has established policies on what forms of video conferencing can be utilized for firm work and those that cannot. For example, because of the data privacy issues concerning utilizing the Zoom platform, use of this platform within the firm is prohibited. However, there are similar programs that have the same features that are allowed.
I always become concerned when a government entity becomes heavily involved in privacy protection matters because of their tendency to make a situation worse. There already exist secure networks and a multitude of options to protect privacy. Having the government micromanage a situation rarely leads to a more favorable result. In addition, because of health records and employee protections already established for several years, I do not see a scenario in the US where a health event would act as a waiver of these protections. In fact, an attempt by a government entity to waive personal privacy protections would probably not survive judicial review.
