Changing expectations, flexible working and the rise of purpose-driven careers.

The conversation in our London and New York offices has shifted. Five years ago, most associates who called us were asking about lockstep, team stability and whether a move would actually improve their prospects of partnership. Those questions still come up. What has changed is the order. Before we reach compensation or the quality of the work, people now want a clear picture of how a team actually operates day to day, whether the partners mean what the hybrid policy says, and whether the practice feels like something they can stay in for more than two or three years.

That is not a soft preference. It is showing up in who moves, who stays, and which teams are quietly struggling to hire mid-level associates even when the work is good.

In London the formal position has largely settled. Most Magic Circle and leading City firms now expect three days in the office as a baseline. Several of the larger US firms operating here have moved to three or four, and a handful have made four the stated rule. On paper the gap looks manageable. In practice it is wider. Associates consistently tell us that the written policy is only half the story. The other half is set by the partners they work for, the stage of the deal, and how visible they feel they need to be if they want the better instructions. A three-day policy that in reality means four days during a financing or an auction process is not the same as a three-day policy that is genuinely respected outside peak periods. Candidates have learned to ask the second question.

The US picture is more fragmented. New York remains the most office-centric of the major markets we cover; several elite firms there have tightened attendance expectations since 2023 and treat four days as the cultural default even where the handbook is softer. California practices, and some Washington teams, still offer more room. Associates weighing a move between the two coasts increasingly treat flexibility as a real variable alongside compensation and practice quality, not as a nice-to-have. We have seen lawyers relocate within the US specifically because a team’s actual working pattern matched what they needed, even when the headline salary was comparable.

Compensation still matters, of course. The gap between leading US firms in London and the Magic Circle at newly qualified level remains material, and that premium continues to pull strong associates across. What has become clearer in the last 18 months is that the premium does not automatically solve retention. Associates who move purely for the number often reappear 18 to 24 months later if the team culture, the staffing model or the sense of progression does not hold. Culture, in the Chambers associate data and in our own conversations, now ranks well ahead of flexible working as a stated reason

for joining. Flexible working is closer to a hygiene factor: its absence is noticed immediately, its presence is rarely enough on its own.

Purpose sits somewhere between those two. Very few associates we speak to are looking for a firm manifesto. They are looking for work that feels connected to something beyond the next closing binder, and for seniors who will actually invest time in them. That shows up in a few concrete places. Energy, infrastructure and sustainable finance teams have been consistently busy, and the lawyers in them tend to talk about the mandates differently from pure leveraged finance or public M&A associates at the same level. Technology and data-related regulatory work has a similar effect for some. Others simply want early responsibility and a partner who answers the phone rather than a formal mentoring scheme that exists mainly on the intranet. The firms that are holding onto their stronger mid-levels are usually the ones where that day-to-day experience matches the story told at interview.

None of this means the traditional drivers have disappeared. High-quality work, credible path to partnership or counsel, and pay that reflects the market still decide most moves at senior associate and partner level. The change is that candidates now treat the working pattern and the culture as part of the due diligence rather than as something they will discover after they start. Firms that are vague on both tend to lose people late in processes, or hire them and see them leave once the reality is clear.

For anyone hiring, the practical point is straightforward. State the real expectation, not the most flexible version of the policy. Associates compare notes. A team that is honest about four days when the deal requires it, and equally honest about when it does not, is easier to recruit into than one that promises three and delivers something else. For anyone considering a move, the useful questions are still the old ones (who staffs the work, how promotions have actually gone in the last three years, what the hours look like outside of closing weeks) plus two newer ones: what does office attendance look like in a normal month, and do the partners you would work for treat that as optional. The answers are usually more revealing than the handbook.