Like laws, policies must evolve. Just as statutes are amended to meet the demands of a changing society, HR policies in law firms must also evolve to reflect the realities of modern professional life. Law firms, perhaps more than most institutions, understand the importance of precedent, but do they also understand the value of reform?

Over the years, HR frameworks in law firms have helped maintain a structure, professionalism and standards of how lawyers conduct themselves at the workplace. Yet ,in times shaped by hybrid work, generational change and new expectations around trust and autonomy, some of these long-standing policies may need a serious reconsideration.

This article explores a selection of workplace policies that may be past their prime. It offers suggestions on how firms can rethink them thoughtfully, progressively and with a win-win mindset for both the law firms and their members.

The legal sector, especially law firms, is at a crossroads. For the first time in history, many law firms now include professionals from four distinct generations working side by side - baby boomers, generation X, millennials and generation Z. HR policies that were designed for earlier generations may feel restrictive or demotivating to younger professionals. At the same time, the older generations may feel destabilised if the structure vanishes completely. The multi-generational workforce carries different expectations around time, communication, feedback, dress, work styles and even the meaning of "professionalism".

In a situation like this, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach could lead to friction. This article highlights a few specific HR policies not because they are the only ones that merit discussion, but because they represent daily touchpoints of culture – how we manage time, relationships, autonomy and trust. They are, in many ways, symbolic of the broader need for periodic HR policy review.

Sandwich leave is a concept where if a member applies for leave on both sides of a weekend or public holiday, the intervening non-working days are also counted as leave. This policy discourages members from taking the kind of extended, meaningful breaks that help recharge and prevent burnout, something particularly important in the context of law firms. Ironically, sandwich leave policies may punish those who plan short breaks responsibly, while unintentionally rewarding more disruptive patterns of leave-taking. If a work-shirking member truly wanted to miss more days, they'd just apply for four working days off instead of applying for leave on Friday and Monday (and getting the weekend counted as leave). The latter results in more lost productivity, but is treated identically, or even more favourably, under the sandwich policy logic.

Law firms and workplaces in general should count only the days a member has formally applied for leave, regardless of whether weekends or holidays fall in between. Instead of penalising the structure of a leave:

• Encourage members to plan in advance and communicate their absence clearly. Visibility is far more productive than punitive measures.

• For transparency, align this to a leave management system, tracker or digital leave tools, which make it easy to see who’s out when and plan work accordingly.

In today’s fluid, tech-enabled work environments, productivity is not married to the clock. Yet, there is a prevalent practice in law firms to deduct partial or full paid leave or remuneration for arriving beyond a fixed grace period or beyond a certain number of instances in a month. Such deductions for brief delays in arrival are a blunt tool in an increasingly nuanced world of work. While punctuality has its place, especially in the context of showing up in court or in client-facing contexts, these policies risk punishing isolated incidents while ignoring the bigger picture – consistent performance, availability and accountability.

Let’s first aim to understand why this practice was possibly implemented. Law firms want lawyers to maintain discipline in showing up in court, client-facing roles or structured teams. Showing up late to work has a cascading effect where a few frequent latecomers disrupt morning syncs or team rhythm. Can the same objectives be achieved without rigid time penalties? Absolutely.

Law firms could explore the evolved and data-based flexible options like:

• Time banding - offering a flexible arrival window (for example 9:30–10:30 am) with a corresponding end-of-day adjustment.

• Core hours concept - defining core collaboration hours (say, 11 am to 4 pm), and let members manage the rest of their schedule independently.

• Intervening only when there's a noticeable pattern that affects work or clients, not isolated incidents.

• Empowering team leads to manage attendance contextually, rather than enforcing blanket deductions through penalties.

Few policies feel as out of place today as outright bans on consensual workplace relationships. Often framed as “no dating” or “no office romance” rules, these policies were originally created to avoid conflicts of interest, power imbalances, or reputational issues. But in today’s working world. especially in high-intensity environments like law firms, where professionals spend long hours together, these rules can come across as overreaching, outdated and even invasive. Policing personal lives rather than managing the professional impact is both ineffective and resented. It can lead to a culture where members feel they must hide legitimate, consensual relationships out of fear, which is far more damaging than addressing the situation transparently.

Instead of reacting with suspicion or blanket bans, law firms can:

• Require disclosure only when a relationship involves reporting lines or could influence work evaluations.

• Create a respectful, private process and avoid sensationalising disclosures. In such matters, there’s a greater need to emphasise confidentiality and respect for boundaries.

• Train leaders to manage with empathy, professionalism and compassion when team dynamics shift due to personal developments.

Office romances aren't inherently unprofessional, but unmanaged ones can become problematic. Rather than banning them outright, progressive law firms are choosing to manage risk through disclosure protocols and power-dynamic safeguards.

As hybrid and remote work models gain popularity, some law firms have turned to digital surveillance tools to ensure productivity. These include random screenshot capturing, webcam photos during logins or periodically, mouse and keyboard tracking and monitoring active/inactive status. While these may appear to offer a sense of control, they raise fundamental questions about trust, autonomy and professionalism of the members.

Lawyers are professionals, not shift workers. Constant surveillance signals distrust in their ability to manage time and deliver results. Members may feel micromanaged, disrespected or even anxious. Over a period, such measures lead to reduced morale and long-term disengagement - the very opposite of what the policy intends. Moreover, random screenshots or webcam captures may expose confidential documents, home environments or sensitive client data, raising ethical and data protection concerns.

It's about time law firms focus on:

• Outputs, deadlines and quality of work; and look beyond constant presence.

• Regular check-ins, matter updates, or milestone reviews offer far better insight into contribution.

• Encourage transparent workflows via shared task boards, project trackers, or collaborative tools that support real-time progress updates. Let team members feel trusted. This is especially critical for mid-level associates and juniors, who often need autonomy to grow.

• If someone isn't delivering, engage them in a conversation; don’t rely on screenshots to tell the story.

Today’s law firms are no longer shaped solely by baby boomers or gen X. Millennials and gen Z members are now core contributors and they bring with them new expectations around flexibility, transparency, autonomy and respect. What worked in 1995 doesn’t always translate in 2025. Hybrid work, increased mental health awareness and digital collaboration have transformed what “being at work” means. Traditional policies built around physical presence or hierarchical oversight often fall short, or worse, create dissonance and disengagement.

The legal sector faces real competition for skilled talent. Firms with progressive, human-centric policies don’t just attract top lawyers; they retain them. And retention equals continuity, loyalty and long-term firm value. Legal professionals, trained to interpret the spirit behind the law, understand that rules must not only provide structure but also reflect fairness, proportionality and relevance. Workplace policies are no different.

Nipun K Bhatiaa is the CEO of Legal League Consulting.