Your Law Firm Doesn't Need More Policies. It Needs Better Management.
A couple of employees abuse the firm's work-from-home flexibility.
So everyone has to come back to the office.
One person takes advantage of a generous PTO policy.
So leadership adds restrictions to PTO.
An employee consistently shows up late.
So the firm creates a detailed attendance policy.
Someone exercises poor judgment with flexible scheduling.
New approval requirements appear for everyone.
I've seen some version of this over and over again in law firms.
One person—or a very small number of people—creates a problem.
Leadership responds by creating a rule for the entire organization.
And every time I see it, I want leadership to ask one question:
Am I solving a system problem—or avoiding an individual performance conversation?
Because those are two very different things.
And too many law firms are trying to manage individual employees through firmwide policies.
Policies Feel Easier Than Difficult Conversations
I understand why this happens.
A policy feels objective.
It's not personal.
You don't have to sit across from someone and say:
"You're taking advantage of the flexibility we've given you."
Or:
"Your performance when you're working remotely isn't acceptable."
Or:
"The amount of PTO you're taking isn't the issue. The problem is that your responsibilities aren't being handled."
Or simply:
"You're not meeting expectations."
Those conversations are uncomfortable.
A policy isn't.
Leadership can send an email to the entire firm announcing a change.
Nobody has to be singled out.
Nobody has to become defensive.
Nobody has to push back directly.
Problem solved.
Except it usually isn't.
Because the employee who wasn't performing may still not perform.
Now you've just changed the rules for everyone else too.
The RTO Mandate Is a Perfect Example
I've seen this exact scenario.
A law firm offers flexibility.
Most employees handle it well.
They work from home appropriately.
They're responsive.
Their work gets done.
Clients are taken care of.
Deadlines are met.
Then a couple of employees abuse it.
Maybe they're difficult to reach.
Maybe their productivity drops.
Maybe work isn't getting completed.
Maybe they're clearly treating a work-from-home day differently from a workday.
Leadership gets frustrated.
And the conversation becomes:
"We need everyone back in the office."
Why everyone?
If 20 people are exercising appropriate judgment and two aren't, why are we redesigning the workplace around the two?
That's not necessarily a remote-work problem.
It may be a two-employee performance problem.
Changing Where Someone Sits Doesn't Fix a Performance Problem
This is the part that gets missed.
If an employee isn't accountable while working from home, bringing them into the office may make their lack of productivity more visible.
It doesn't necessarily make them productive.
If they don't meet deadlines, you still have a performance problem.
If they aren't responsive, you still have a performance problem.
If they aren't producing enough work, you still have a performance problem.
If they require constant supervision to do the job they're being paid to do, you still have a performance problem.
You may have changed the location.
You haven't necessarily changed the behavior.
And eventually, someone still has to manage it.
Meanwhile, Your Best Employees Just Lost Something They Valued
This is where the collateral damage begins.
Imagine you're one of the employees who handled flexibility exactly as intended.
You were productive.
Responsive.
Reliable.
Maybe working from home one or two days per week helped you manage your commute, family responsibilities, appointments, or simply your quality of life.
You earned trust.
Then a few coworkers abused the privilege.
Leadership's response?
Everyone loses it.
What message did you just receive?
It probably wasn't:
"We value your judgment."
It was closer to:
"We don't trust the group because we don't want to deal individually with the people who broke that trust."
That's frustrating.
And for top performers with other employment options, it can become more than frustrating.
It can become a reason to leave.
Antiquated Thinking Has a Talent Cost
This matters especially now because law firms aren't making employment decisions in a vacuum.
Talented attorneys and professional staff have options.
Many of those options include:
remote or hybrid work
generous PTO
flexible schedules
greater autonomy
modern parental-leave policies
workplaces built around outcomes rather than physical presence
That doesn't mean every law firm has to offer every benefit.
Different firms have different business needs.
Some roles genuinely require more physical presence than others.
Some practice areas benefit substantially from in-person collaboration.
There are legitimate reasons for structure.
But a firm should understand the difference between a business-driven policy and a reactionary one.
"We need people physically present because the work requires it" is one thing.
"Two people abused flexibility, so nobody gets flexibility anymore" is something else entirely.
Your Policies Are Part of Your Recruiting Strategy
Firms sometimes think about policies as an internal HR issue.
Candidates think about them as part of the job.
How much PTO?
Hybrid or fully in-office?
How flexible are the hours?
How much autonomy will I have?
How does the firm treat professionals?
Those answers affect whether someone accepts your offer.
They also affect whether your current employees answer a recruiter's call.
You can pay competitive compensation and still make yourself unnecessarily difficult to work for.
And if another firm offers comparable work and compensation with more flexibility, your policy decisions become part of the competitive equation.
Antiquated thinking can absolutely kill growth when it prevents you from attracting or retaining the people necessary to support that growth.
A law firm has to keep evolving—not only in technology and business development, but in how it manages and retains talent.
Don't Build Your Workplace Around Your Least Responsible Employee
This is the larger principle.
Every organization has employees who exercise different levels of judgment.
If you build every policy around preventing the least responsible person from making a bad decision, you'll eventually create an incredibly restrictive workplace.
Everyone needs approval for everything.
Nobody has discretion.
Every exception requires leadership.
Every possibility has a rule.
The handbook gets longer.
Morale gets worse.
Management gets more bureaucratic.
And ironically, your strongest employees—the people who require the least management—are often the ones who resent it most.
They're professionals.
They want to be treated like professionals.
I think that's reasonable.
Law Firms Employ Professional Adults. Treat Them That Way.
My general philosophy is pretty simple.
Set clear expectations.
Give people reasonable autonomy.
Trust them to exercise judgment.
Measure results.
Then manage the exceptions.
If someone repeatedly demonstrates that they cannot exercise appropriate judgment without a detailed rule telling them exactly what to do, that's useful information.
Maybe they need coaching.
Maybe expectations weren't clear.
Maybe they need more structure individually.
Maybe they need a performance-improvement plan.
Maybe they're simply not a fit for the organization.
But I don't believe the automatic answer should be to reduce everyone else's autonomy.
If It Can Be Solved With a Conversation, It Probably Doesn't Need a Policy
This is a test I wish more leadership teams would use.
An employee does something inappropriate.
Before drafting a policy, ask:
Can I solve this by talking to the employee?
If yes, start there.
Maybe the conversation is:
"This isn't acceptable, and here's what I expect going forward."
Maybe it needs to be documented.
Maybe it rises to the level of a formal write-up.
That's okay.
Individual accountability is not inherently unfair.
In fact, it's often considerably fairer than imposing consequences on everyone else.
If one employee is creating the issue, address the one employee.
A Write-Up Is Sometimes Better Than a Policy
Law firm leaders sometimes dislike formal performance documentation because it feels harsh.
So instead, they change a rule for 30 people.
Think about that.
Which is actually harsher?
Telling one employee:
"You haven't met this expectation. We're documenting it, and here's what needs to improve."
Or telling 29 employees who did nothing wrong:
"We're taking away flexibility because somebody isn't handling it appropriately."
Performance management exists for a reason.
Use it.
A handbook should not become a substitute for holding an individual accountable.
When One Person Takes Too Much PTO
PTO is another classic example.
Suppose you have a reasonably flexible PTO policy.
Most people use it appropriately.
They plan ahead.
They coordinate with their teams.
Their work gets done.
Then one person starts taking substantially more time than everyone else.
Leadership becomes frustrated.
The instinct may be:
"We need a stricter PTO policy."
Maybe.
But first I'd ask:
What's actually wrong?
Is the employee violating the existing policy?
Is their work not getting done?
Are deadlines being missed?
Are coworkers repeatedly having to cover for them?
Is client service suffering?
Are they failing to communicate?
Because if none of those things are happening, perhaps the PTO itself isn't actually the problem.
And if those things are happening, address those things with the employee.
The problem may not be the number of days.
It may be performance and accountability.
Be Careful About Creating Rules to Fix Feelings
This is another trap.
Sometimes leadership isn't dealing with an objective performance problem.
Something simply feels unfair.
"She works from home more than everyone else."
Okay.
Is her performance good?
"Yes."
Is she responsive?
"Yes."
Is there a business reason she needs to be physically present more frequently?
"Not really."
Then what exactly are we solving?
Policies should address legitimate organizational needs.
They shouldn't exist simply because leadership is uncomfortable with employees exercising flexibility differently.
Fair doesn't always mean identical.
Use Policies for System Problems
None of this means I don't believe in policies.
Of course law firms need them.
There are areas where consistency is essential.
Legal and regulatory requirements.
Harassment and discrimination.
Confidentiality.
Information security.
Leave administration.
Compensation practices.
Expense reimbursement.
Core employment expectations.
And sometimes a pattern of behavior across multiple employees demonstrates that expectations genuinely aren't clear.
That's a system problem.
Clarify it.
Create the policy.
Train people on it.
Enforce it consistently.
Policies are useful when they establish organizational expectations.
They're less useful when they're created to avoid telling one person they're doing something wrong.
Use Management for Individual Problems
Here's the distinction:
If multiple reasonable people keep making the same mistake, look at the system.
If one person repeatedly creates a problem everyone else seems capable of avoiding, look at the person.
That's not an absolute rule.
But it's a very good starting point.
A system problem might require:
clearer expectations
better training
a redesigned process
improved technology
a new policy
An individual problem might require:
coaching
feedback
a direct conversation
documented expectations
a write-up
a performance-improvement plan
ultimately, separation
Don't use the system solution simply because the individual solution is uncomfortable.
More Rules Can Actually Create More Management Work
There's another irony here.
Law firms often create policies because they want more control.
But every new rule has to be:
communicated.
interpreted.
approved.
tracked.
enforced.
Exceptions have to be evaluated.
Employees ask questions.
Managers need guidance.
Leadership gets pulled into disputes.
The organization becomes more bureaucratic.
A policy created to solve one employee problem can generate ongoing administrative work across the entire firm.
Sometimes the simpler management solution really is:
"John, this isn't working. Here's what needs to change."
Policies Don't Create Accountability
This is perhaps the biggest misconception.
You can write the clearest policy imaginable.
Someone still has to enforce it.
If an employee ignores the policy and leadership won't address it, the policy accomplished nothing.
I've seen firms with extensive handbooks and weak accountability.
I've also seen firms with relatively simple policies and strong cultures of performance.
The difference is management.
People understand what's expected.
Leaders notice when expectations aren't met.
They address it.
Consistently.
That's accountability.
You can't write your way around the need for it.
Overly Restrictive Policies Can Punish the People You Most Want to Keep
Your best employees generally don't require 47 rules to make them perform.
They're responsible.
They care about their work.
They use judgment.
They solve problems.
They take ownership.
Those are exactly the people I want to give appropriate autonomy.
When you continuously tighten rules because of weaker performers, you're designing the employee experience around the wrong population.
You're making life more restrictive for your strongest people because your weakest ones require more supervision.
That makes very little strategic sense.
Trust Should Be the Default—Until Someone Gives You a Reason to Change It
I don't think leaders should be naive.
Trust doesn't mean ignoring performance.
It doesn't mean unlimited flexibility without expectations.
It doesn't mean every employee gets to do whatever they want.
It means starting from the assumption that professional adults can behave like professional adults.
Then measure outcomes.
If someone violates that trust, respond.
And importantly:
Respond to them.
Not necessarily everyone around them.
Different Employees Can Earn Different Levels of Autonomy
This sometimes makes leaders uncomfortable because they want everything to be perfectly uniform.
But management doesn't always work that way.
A brand-new employee may require more oversight than someone who's consistently performed for five years.
Someone who's struggling may need more frequent check-ins.
An employee who has repeatedly failed to communicate appropriately while remote may temporarily need different expectations.
That's management.
Not every performance issue requires a permanent policy change for the entire organization.
You can create individualized accountability within reasonable and lawful boundaries without turning every corrective action into a new section of the employee handbook.
Don't Let One Bad Actor Define Your Culture
Culture isn't only what you say.
It's also what you reward, tolerate, and restrict.
If one employee abuses flexibility and your response is to eliminate flexibility for everyone, that employee just influenced the culture of the entire firm.
Think about that.
Your least responsible employee effectively helped design your workplace.
I'd rather let my strongest employees have more influence over the culture I'm trying to create.
What environment helps responsible, talented professionals do their best work?
Build toward that.
Then deal directly with the people who demonstrate they can't operate successfully within it.
Management Requires Judgment. Policies Can't Replace It.
This may be one reason firms gravitate toward rules.
Rules simplify decisions.
The policy says X.
Therefore, we do X.
Management is messier.
You have to understand context.
Look at performance.
Evaluate behavior.
Have conversations.
Make judgment calls.
Document things appropriately.
Sometimes make difficult decisions.
That's the job.
A 100-page handbook cannot manage your employees for you.
Neither can a rigid RTO mandate.
Neither can a detailed PTO formula.
At some point, leaders have to lead.
Before You Create Your Next Policy, Ask Five Questions
The next time something happens and someone says:
"We need a policy for this,"
I'd slow down and ask:
How many people are actually creating this problem?
Are expectations already reasonably clear?
Is the problem the behavior itself—or the employee's underlying performance?
Could this be solved with a direct conversation, coaching, or individual documentation?
What will this new rule cost the employees who weren't creating the problem?
That last question matters.
Policies have consequences too.
Sometimes those consequences are absolutely justified.
Sometimes they aren't.
Don't Punish Your Best Employees Because You Don't Want to Manage Your Worst One
That's ultimately the issue.
If the organization genuinely has a system problem, fix the system.
If expectations aren't clear, clarify them.
If a policy is necessary, create one.
But if one employee is underperforming, manage the employee.
If someone abuses flexibility, address it.
If someone isn't getting their work done, address it.
If someone can't exercise reasonable professional judgment, address it.
Don't automatically take flexibility, autonomy, or trust away from everyone else because an individual conversation feels harder.
Your strongest employees notice.
And in a competitive talent market, they have options.
A law firm can't successfully evolve if every employee problem results in another layer of restriction.
Sometimes the answer isn't another policy.
It's better management.
If your law firm keeps responding to employee problems with more rules, more approvals, and less flexibility, it may be worth asking whether you're solving organizational problems—or avoiding individual ones.
I help law firms build practical management structures that create clear expectations, appropriate autonomy, meaningful accountability, and direct performance management without unnecessary bureaucracy.
Because policies have an important role in a growing law firm.
But they can't do the manager's job.