Connecting...
Australia has been slower than other jurisdictions to embrace the four-day workweek, even as mounting evidence shows its potential to improve employee wellbeing and retention. For the legal profession, where client demands, billable hours, and prestige culture collide, the conversation is particularly fraught. Could a shorter week work in law – and, if so, should the priority be client expectations, lawyer flexibility, or mental health?
Law remains a service industry first and foremost, and clients expect availability. In litigation, commercial transactions, or regulatory disputes, clients rarely accept “I don’t work Fridays” as an answer. For this reason, any move towards a four-day week would need to be structured around continuity of service. Some firms could rotate teams so that coverage remains constant, much like hospital rosters. Others may explore “buddy systems” – ensuring each matter has two lawyers across it so that one can take leave without jeopardising responsiveness.
The reality, however, is that clients pay not only for expertise but also for immediacy. Any perception that service levels are compromised could be fatal in a competitive market. For the four-day week to gain traction in law, firms would need to demonstrate that output remains steady – or better yet, that refreshed and healthier lawyers produce sharper, more reliable advice.
The evidence from sectors such as marketing and consulting suggests the four-day model works best when treated flexibly, not rigidly. Australian workers, and particularly legal professionals, are increasingly wary of blanket mandates. Just as forced returns to the office backfired, so too could a rigidly applied four-day week.
In law, flexibility might mean something different for each practitioner: compressed hours for one, remote work for another, or an additional day off when workload allows. A firm insisting on a strict “Monday to Thursday only” model risks alienating both clients and lawyers. Instead, a hybrid approach – where lawyers can bank time off when files permit – may prove more palatable.
Flexibility also reflects the diverse stages of legal careers. A senior partner with established clients may prioritise constant availability, while a junior lawyer with caregiving responsibilities might value time sovereignty more highly.
Perhaps the strongest case for a four-day workweek in law lies in mental health. Burnout, depression, and substance misuse remain endemic across the profession. Long hours are still treated as a rite of passage, and many lawyers leave private practice precisely because of the relentless grind.
If one less day in the office can reduce burnout, improve retention, and make law a sustainable career path, firms should pay close attention. This is especially true in the war for talent: younger generations are already resistant to outdated models of presenteeism. For Gen Z and future Gen Alpha recruits, the promise of meaningful work-life balance could prove more attractive than an extra five or ten thousand dollars in salary.
Ultimately, no firm can ignore client needs – without them, there is no business. But client expectations are not immovable. If sectors like banking and accounting adapt to shorter workweeks without collapse, law will follow.
The real balance lies in marrying flexibility with mental health imperatives. A strict four-day week may not suit every lawyer or every practice group, but a culture that genuinely respects rest and designs workflows around it could transform the profession.
For Australian law firms, the question isn’t simply whether to adopt a four-day week. It’s whether they’re prepared to evolve from measuring hours at the desk to measuring the quality of outcomes delivered. And that cultural shift – more than the mechanics of an extra day off – is what will ultimately decide the future of legal work.
