any guesses to the firm ?

Agree with this. My firm has lowered standards to be woke, fakes retention data and is becoming a laughing stock. The latest few rounds of trainees are more entitled than ever, taking the hickey with deliveroo and uber, complaining about doing actual work and expecting the firm to bend over for them rather than raise their own standards

Your analogy doesn’t work. I also wouldn’t want to go to a doctor who is completely exhausted and overwhelmed on the point of burnout. Having well looked after staff who are treated like humans not machines will be what creates the best workers. I think that’s all this article it trying to say.

This article, with all respect to authors, seems to put the cart before the horses. It isn’t for a firm to pay particular attention to, and to adapt to how a new generation thinks or works best (beyond considering some general allowances and current working practices and trends e.g. working from home). It is instead for the new generation, who are at the entry level of their careers, to learn about how things are done by the firm, and by those who lead it. This is how the firm, sector and industry work. The firm has a successful track record in what it does, and the leadership, many of whom will have been where the trainees are today, have grafted, and adapted to new ways of working, they have put aside their own views on what works best and fallen into step with how the firm’s then leadership deemed best. It is therefore proper for a firm to expect trainees to adapt to the firm’s current way of working (whatever model that is), and actually, one might say the article would have been more useful if it had focused on providing helpful tips to Gen Zs on how to better prepare themselves to deal with the expectations of law firms. e.g. work-life balance yes, but if you’re in a corporate law seat, you might have to deal with an imbalance for a few months as that is the nature of transactions.

When Gen X and the millennials do retire and Gen Z starts to lead, they will then be in a position to change the firm to work in a way they see best – so if their view is that a genuine work life balance is the highest priority, they can make changes to effect that. The future post Gen Z generations who will be trainees at that time, should then make every effort to adapt to how that firm works, whether they agree or not with the Gen Z leadership’s views on how the firm should work.

“Firms must adapt”.

With respect to the authors, let’s be real. Firms SHOULD adapt as there are numerous benefits to employees to be gained. but MUST they? Why?

As long as City firms continue with this (ridiculous) inter-firm NQ pay competition, they will continue to attract talent on the money factor alone. They don’t stand to lose talent, or risk failing to attract talent, because despite everything else that employees might value in a job, pay is in the majority of cases, the supreme factor that often makes employees put up with all the other less attractive aspects of the job.

My two cents.

What absolute garbage. The mechanisms must be entrenched for everyone’s benefit.

Can you imagine going to see your doctor with a cut, and have him pass out because he can’t stand the sight of blood? Would you trust that doctor, or indeed the health system that employed him?

Being a lawyer requires hard work and long hours. If you can’t cope with that, please do us all a favour and don’t diminish everyone else by remaining in our profession.

Exactly the entrenched defence mechanisms we’re up against.

You’d likely also be surprised at the long hours worked by lawyers doing legal aid who spend their days suing the government for things like civil rights violations or abuse of power. There is meaning but no getting around the long hours. If you are committed to your work, it won’t matter so much. Former human rights lawyer.