An anonymous lawyer reportedly logged 64.56 hours of personal research on the company internet, prompting discussions about work practices and billable hours. The article questions the legitimacy of these hours, suggesting they may not reflect actual legal work. Additionally, the context in which this research took place—whether over a month or a year—affects perceptions of the attorney's bonus eligibility. The ambiguity of the lawyer's identity highlights the unpredictable nature of workplace dynamics in the legal field, where remote work has paradoxically benefitted productivity for some.
This supposed lawyer's ability to churn out 64.56 hours of personal research raises eyebrows about whether he is genuinely engaging in billable legal work.
The duration of 64.56 hours triggers serious questions about bonus eligibility, especially if it’s taken over a short period rather than spread out.
The ambiguity around the lawyer's identity and employer, as well as the nature of the research, adds layers to an already intriguing narrative.
The situation points to a broader issue: remote work environments have allowed lawyers to thrive, potentially increasing their productivity.
Collection
[
|
...
]