To assess the potential impact of the Right to Disconnect law on lawyers, Carly Stebbing, partner and head of employment law at Longton Legal; Wesley Rogers, partner and head of the workplace relations team at Marque Lawyers; Greg McIntyre, president of the Law Council of Australia and head of chambers at Michael Kirby Chambers; and Amanda Lyras, partner at Clayton Utz, offer valuable perspectives on this subject matter.

Is the RTD important for the legal profession?

Stebbing underscored how the RTD provides an opportunity for employees to assert their right to disengage from work outside of their scheduled working hours. However, she noted that the effectiveness of this legislation depends on employers’ enforcement.

“I think that the message sent by the reforms is important – that all employees have a right to be disconnected from the workplace. But laws are only as good as their adherence and enforcement,” Stebbing said.

Stebbing highlighted the limited enforcement by employers of previous regulations aimed at addressing excessive work demands and psychological risks, raising the question of how this law differs.

“Prior to this new right being introduced, we already had a positive duty for employers to eliminate psychosocial risks at work. We have seen very little enforcement of these workplace rights and no real consideration of how they apply to professional employees,” Stebbing said.

“The architect of the new workplace right, Senator Barbara Pocock, has indicated it is intended to protect aged-care workers, retail workers, casual workers, teachers and not executives or employees paid at a managerial level who have in their job description they need to be available for overseas calls or media management, where that is part of their job. So, its application to the legal profession is unclear.”

VIEW ALL

Rogers revealed how he believes that the RTD law is “best seen as a conversation starter, particularly for businesses where conversations around work hours, expectations, and work/life balance aren’t taking place”.

Acknowledging the prevalent concerns within the legal industry regarding work/life balance, Rogers argued that this law may not entirely address this issue but rather facilitate more open discussions.

“There is no disputing that the legal industry is plagued with concerns over work/life balance. Are these laws the remedy? No. However, if they are the spark that is needed for these issues to be discussed in a more open and transparent manner, then yes, they are effective in that regard,” Rogers said.

Lyras discussed how, even though these laws may not be the answer to addressing the demanding nature of the legal profession – which has been heightened by advances in technology and the ability to work from home – they prompt employees to be more mindful of the timing and methods of communication with their peers.

“While I don’t anticipate this right will fundamentally transform the way we work in the legal profession, I do think it will make us more thoughtful about the impact we have on our colleagues, which has the potential to promote a healthier work/life balance,” Lyras said.

McIntyre also articulated how even though this law may not prompt instantaneous change, “we can expect these laws to continue to evolve as our technologies and workplaces also change”.

Will RTD have an impact on the legal profession?

Stebbing explained how the RTD law should prompt employers to reassess the necessity of contacting their employees beyond official working hours and assist employees in managing such communication.

“The new right should cause employers to stop and consider whether their contact with an employee out of hours is necessary and how they can help support their employees to manage contact from the other side and clients out of hours,” Stebbing said.

She suggested practical ways in which employees implement such bordering, including “email signatures and out-of-office reminders about availability and supervisors encouraging healthy boundaries”.

However, she stressed how “things won’t change unless employers are prepared to really consider capacity, lawyers are courteous and respectful of each other’s time and boundaries are managed”.

Rogers echoed similar sentiments by expressing how these laws “operate as a dispute resolution mechanism” and don’t hold the power to “prevent a late night or weekend email from being sent”.

However, Rogers underscored that the law provides a framework for resolving disputes pertaining to the necessity and timing of post-hours communication.

“If there is any misalignment between the employee and their employer in relation to whether that email needs to be responded or attended to out of their ordinary, these laws step in an attempt to resolve the dispute,” Rogers said.

Lyras asserted that the introduction of the RTD is “unlikely to result in significant disruption” to how the legal profession operates.

“Many in the legal profession are remunerated on the basis they will be available to work ‘after hours’, and contact from employers and clients outside standard office hours is often part and parcel of the job, particularly where a matter is urgent or spans multiple jurisdictions,” she said.

Despite this, Lyras believes that the new law will prompt law firms to reassess the demands imposed on their employees and assess their practicality.

“That said, I do believe the changes will encourage firms to reflect on the demands being placed on employees and how they can limit the impact of those demands where feasible,” Lyras said.

Challenges it presents

Implementing the RTD law poses numerous challenges and hurdles for the legal profession, primarily due to lawyers’ demanding schedules and the prevalent practice of working overtime in the legal sphere.

Stebbing said: “Statutory deadlines, lean business models with reduced administrative support, client expectations and court and commission timetables/ orders are all barriers to lawyers being able to properly disconnect.”

McIntyre articulated similar concerns by highlighting the significant challenge posed by the RTD in the context of how lawyers navigate the diverse needs of their clients, courts, and staff.

“Balancing the needs and requirements of clients, courts and others, with the needs of employees can be a difficult task, and the new right-to-disconnect protections are a further element to consider,” McIntyre said.

Steps law firms need to take

To ensure that law firms comply with the RTD laws, the lawyers delineated practical measures that firms should adopt.

Stebbing advocated for law firms to “train supervisors and managers about the workplace rights to a safe workplace, free from excessive work demands, unreasonable additional hours and the right to disconnect”.

Additionally, she suggests developing clear workplace policies and revising contracts to specify expectations around out-of-hours contact and compensation.

“Introduce workplace policies about what the new right is, when contact is reasonable and when it is not and amend contracts to be clear about when an employee is remunerated and compensated for out-of-hours contact and when they are not,” Stebbing said.

McIntyre said: “Employers must assess how they are supporting their workers and how working hours can be managed so that talent is retained in organisations.”

Lyras said that to ensure that law firms are aligning their practices with the RTD law, they should “take a holistic look at their organisation and what can reasonably be expected of different roles within the business in terms of after-hours contact”.

“For example, what will amount to reasonable contact for a senior lawyer will look different for a secretary,” she noted.

“In addition, firms should prepare to have open conversations about performance expectations, how work can be managed more efficiently, and what frameworks can be put in place to support long-term job sustainability.”