LoginSubscribe Now
Follow Us
Sign up to our free newsletter
Solicitors Journal LogoInforming the legal profession since 1856

Find the knowledge you need from the SJ library of over 20,000 legal articles

Search now
Solicitors Journal Logo
  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports
  • AI Search
  • Digital Edition
  • Subscription Options
  • Advertise with Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
Solicitors Journal

Informing the legal profession since 1856.

Follow us

Topics

  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports

About

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • FAQ
  • Guide to Authors

Subscribe

  • Subscription Options
  • Digital Edition
  • Free Newsletter

Editorial

editorial@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Subscriptions

subscriptions@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Advertising

Advertise with usadvertising@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

© 2026 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal

ISSN 0038-1047  ·  Images: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors

Terms and ConditionsCookie PolicyPrivacy PolicyPLS Clear logoCopyright & permissions
Marcin DurlakMarcin Durlak

CEO, IMD Solicitors

Quotation Marks
… a four-day working week in the legal profession could … cause extra stress and potentially scupper what we should really be striving for, which is flexibility.

A four-day working week: myth or reality?

31 May 2022|Opinion|Add your comment
Share:
A four-day working week: myth or reality?

By Marcin Durlak

Marcin Durlak reflects on whether flexible working hours can work for all..

Nothing sounds better than clocking off for the weekend at 5pm on a Thursday – except, perhaps, the realisation as you set your alarm that you won’t actually need to go to work the next day.

Companies are starting to take the idea of a four-day week seriously – and a pilot scheme is underway in the UK as we speak. Run by researchers from Oxbridge and Boston college, the 4-Day Week Campaign, and think tank Autonomy. Equivalent trials to the scheme – which is assessing the possibility of employee productivity functioning at 100 per cent for 80 per cent of the time - have already occurred in a number of countries across the globe, and the results point to various benefits, including improvements in productivity and satisfaction.

Sceptics, however, might argue if your employees are being paid and accomplishing the same amount for a day less each week, it’s likely they were very inefficient beforehand. This may seem overly cynical, but really, we must acknowledge that each sector will be impacted by the four-day week differently. For lawyers, the deadlines, the caseloads and the responsibility all culminate to make our jobs pretty stressful at times. It is likely that cramming all of this into fewer days could elevate our stress rather than quash it. So, what do lawyers need to consider?

Your clients might not be on board

A key factor in whether a four-day working week could be successful is the nature of client relationships. Take, for instance, those working customer-facing roles in retail or hospitality: their client’s experience is expected to be of the highest level, but it is short-lived, and the relationship itself is transient and temporary – meaning it wouldn’t be adversely impacted by a four-day week. For lawyers, however, client relationships are expected to last for a long time, during which it’s fundamental the client remains satisfied that the service they’re being provided goes above and beyond – and, most importantly, is available five days a week. Lawyers may find their relationships with clients are impacted if their working days don’t line up, and it would be particularly tricky to explain to an existing client that their main point of contact will no longer be available on a Friday, for example.

Many lawyers already find themselves working weekends to keep up with client demands. If their weeks are made shorter this could increase the likelihood of them working a fifth day (their weekend) and make them unhappy at work.

Arranging cover becomes constant

We must also consider what extra resource is required for a firm to continue operating for the full five days - as will be expected by the courts and most of your clients - if the lawyers themselves are only working for four. Practice managers may find that the task of arranging absence cover becomes constant, and diary management could develop into even more of a pain than it is at present. We’re all strapped for time, and it’s likely that extra budget will need to be set aside to hire extra support staff to assist with this.

Latest Articles

Nothing sounds better than clocking off for the weekend at 5pm on a Thursday – except, perhaps, the realisation as you set your alarm that you won’t actually need to go to work the next day.

Companies are starting to take the idea of a four-day week seriously – and a pilot scheme is underway in the UK as we speak. Run by researchers from Oxbridge and Boston college, the 4-Day Week Campaign, and think tank Autonomy. Equivalent trials to the scheme – which is assessing the possibility of employee productivity functioning at 100 per cent for 80 per cent of the time - have already occurred in a number of countries across the globe, and the results point to various benefits, including improvements in productivity and satisfaction.

Sceptics, however, might argue if your employees are being paid and accomplishing the same amount for a day less each week, it’s likely they were very inefficient beforehand. This may seem overly cynical, but really, we must acknowledge that each sector will be impacted by the four-day week differently. For lawyers, the deadlines, the caseloads and the responsibility all culminate to make our jobs pretty stressful at times. It is likely that cramming all of this into fewer days could elevate our stress rather than quash it. So, what do lawyers need to consider?

Your clients might not be on board

A key factor in whether a four-day working week could be successful is the nature of client relationships. Take, for instance, those working customer-facing roles in retail or hospitality: their client’s experience is expected to be of the highest level, but it is short-lived, and the relationship itself is transient and temporary – meaning it wouldn’t be adversely impacted by a four-day week. For lawyers, however, client relationships are expected to last for a long time, during which it’s fundamental the client remains satisfied that the service they’re being provided goes above and beyond – and, most importantly, is available five days a week. Lawyers may find their relationships with clients are impacted if their working days don’t line up, and it would be particularly tricky to explain to an existing client that their main point of contact will no longer be available on a Friday, for example.

Many lawyers already find themselves working weekends to keep up with client demands. If their weeks are made shorter this could increase the likelihood of them working a fifth day (their weekend) and make them unhappy at work.

Arranging cover becomes constant

We must also consider what extra resource is required for a firm to continue operating for the full five days - as will be expected by the courts and most of your clients - if the lawyers themselves are only working for four. Practice managers may find that the task of arranging absence cover becomes constant, and diary management could develop into even more of a pain than it is at present. We’re all strapped for time, and it’s likely that extra budget will need to be set aside to hire extra support staff to assist with this.

Covering for other team members would be a daily expectation, as there will always be a day where someone is off – handovers would constantly be flying around and need divvying up between the remaining staff. Circling back to the point on employee satisfaction, lawyers won’t be best pleased to find that they’re having to cram not only their own work into four days but that of their team members too.

Also, team working could become a problem if people are working on different days – it’s much harder to collaborate if the team is never fully complete. Talking things through with a colleague and using a ‘hive mind’ can sometimes be the best way to overcome a mental block when dealing with a tricky project or caseload, but your lawyers might find there are fewer people to put their heads together with.

Enforcing it – but how?

Also, those adopting a four-day working week will need to think about how to enforce it. Are you going to say employees must work the same four days each week, or will you allow them to pick their days on an ad hoc basis and as they see fit? If the latter, it’s important to think about the impact this will have – it can be problematic if you don’t know who is working when. It’s also likely most people will want to take either a Monday or Friday off (who doesn’t love the sound of a three-day weekend?), but we know this couldn’t work in practice. Employers will need to figure out how to balance the individual requests of their staff and allocate their days off fairly – this is easier said than done!

Conclusion

All in all, a four-day working week in the legal profession could – even with the best of intentions – likely cause extra stress and potentially scupper what we should really be striving for, which is flexibility. By providing flexible working, employees will still have the time to do all their work on a busy week without rushing through it and potentially making errors as a result. Meanwhile, it gives them the option to take a four-day week when it’s quieter – but on their own terms, which alleviates the pressure not only on them but also their employer.

Marcin Durlak is managing partner at IMD Solicitors: imd.co.uk

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|PLS LogoCopyright & permissions

Covering for other team members would be a daily expectation, as there will always be a day where someone is off – handovers would constantly be flying around and need divvying up between the remaining staff. Circling back to the point on employee satisfaction, lawyers won’t be best pleased to find that they’re having to cram not only their own work into four days but that of their team members too.

Also, team working could become a problem if people are working on different days – it’s much harder to collaborate if the team is never fully complete. Talking things through with a colleague and using a ‘hive mind’ can sometimes be the best way to overcome a mental block when dealing with a tricky project or caseload, but your lawyers might find there are fewer people to put their heads together with.

Enforcing it – but how?

Also, those adopting a four-day working week will need to think about how to enforce it. Are you going to say employees must work the same four days each week, or will you allow them to pick their days on an ad hoc basis and as they see fit? If the latter, it’s important to think about the impact this will have – it can be problematic if you don’t know who is working when. It’s also likely most people will want to take either a Monday or Friday off (who doesn’t love the sound of a three-day weekend?), but we know this couldn’t work in practice. Employers will need to figure out how to balance the individual requests of their staff and allocate their days off fairly – this is easier said than done!

Conclusion

All in all, a four-day working week in the legal profession could – even with the best of intentions – likely cause extra stress and potentially scupper what we should really be striving for, which is flexibility. By providing flexible working, employees will still have the time to do all their work on a busy week without rushing through it and potentially making errors as a result. Meanwhile, it gives them the option to take a four-day week when it’s quieter – but on their own terms, which alleviates the pressure not only on them but also their employer.

Marcin Durlak is managing partner at IMD Solicitors: imd.co.uk

Related Topics

  • Leadership

Comments

Why AI governance for lawyers needs judgement, not rules
Solicitors Journal

Why AI governance for lawyers needs judgement, not rules

Static AI policies fail legal teams; cultivating professional judgement is what actually reduces risk while capturing AI's competitive advantage
Business26 Jun 2026
A fairer end? Navigating the new cohabitation proposals
Solicitors Journal

A fairer end? Navigating the new cohabitation proposals

The Ministry of Justice's landmark consultation promises vital baseline protections, but creates a complex, highly contested landscape for family practitioners
Opinion26 Jun 2026
High Court rules on Ford Dieselgate claims
Solicitors Journal

High Court rules on Ford Dieselgate claims

The High Court has allowed amendments to the Dieselgate claims against Ford, enhancing consumer litigation rights
News26 Jun 2026
Re Beth [2026] EWFC 156 (B): Family Court identifies perpetrator of non-accidental injuries in infant fact-finding proceedings
Solicitors Journal

Re Beth [2026] EWFC 156 (B): Family Court identifies perpetrator of non-accidental injuries in infant fact-finding proceedings

HHJ Case finds Intervenor caused femoral fracture and bruising to infant in sole care; threshold met against mother.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
The Local Authority v The Mother [2026] EWFC 166 (B): Resolutions assessment refused and special guardianship order made in non-accidental injury proceedings
Solicitors Journal

The Local Authority v The Mother [2026] EWFC 166 (B): Resolutions assessment refused and special guardianship order made in non-accidental injury proceedings

HHJ Hesford refuses Resolutions assessment and makes SGO for paternal grandparents in NAI care proceedings.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
PSA v General Dental Council and Rahman: six-month suspension quashed in dentist sexual misconduct appeal
Solicitors Journal

PSA v General Dental Council and Rahman: six-month suspension quashed in dentist sexual misconduct appeal

Sweeting J allows PSA appeal after finding Committee failed to evaluate repeated sexual misconduct holistically.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
Musst Holdings v Astra Asset Management: ATE premiums and litigation funding fees not recoverable as damages
Solicitors Journal

Musst Holdings v Astra Asset Management: ATE premiums and litigation funding fees not recoverable as damages

Leech J dismisses novel claim to recover ATE premiums and litigation funding fees as damages.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
A1 v Home Secretary: Court of Appeal allows revocation appeal in terrorism refugee status case
Solicitors Journal

A1 v Home Secretary: Court of Appeal allows revocation appeal in terrorism refugee status case

Singh LJ finds logical inconsistency in FTT's section 72 danger assessment; case remitted for redetermination.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
High Court refuses Tate brothers permission for judicial review over complainants' identity disclosure
Solicitors Journal

High Court refuses Tate brothers permission for judicial review over complainants' identity disclosure

Chamberlain J finds neither irrationality nor Article 6 breach arguable in extradition disclosure challenge.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
Wild Justice v Natural England: High Court refuses advisory declaration in badger cull licensing challenge
Solicitors Journal

Wild Justice v Natural England: High Court refuses advisory declaration in badger cull licensing challenge

High Court rejects environmental NGOs' bid for hypothetical guidance on badger cull licensing irrelevancies.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
High Court makes declaration of parentage against former BATUK soldier in Re YZ DNA case
Solicitors Journal

High Court makes declaration of parentage against former BATUK soldier in Re YZ DNA case

DNA evidence proving 99.9999999% paternity probability defeats respondent's challenge to chain of evidence.
Court Report26 Jun 2026
R (EXR) v Home Secretary: High Court rules reasonableness governs age assessments for UK-France Treaty removals
Solicitors Journal

R (EXR) v Home Secretary: High Court rules reasonableness governs age assessments for UK-France Treaty removals

High Court rules reasonableness standard governs SSHD age decisions for UK-France Treaty removals. 
Court Report26 Jun 2026
Sentencing guidelines updated after consultation
Solicitors Journal

Sentencing guidelines updated after consultation

The Sentencing Council has announced amendments to sentencing guidelines following an annual consultation that received 76 responses, with changes coming into effect on 13 July...
News26 Jun 2026
SJ Interview: Chris Spelman
Solicitors Journal

SJ Interview: Chris Spelman

Chris Spelman is a partner in DWF's London dispute resolution team, specialising in financial services litigation and investigations, whistleblowing matters, and class action, securities and...
Interview1 Jun 2026
When the rules can't keep up
Solicitors Journal

When the rules can't keep up

From Westminster to the courts, the rules are being written faster than they can settle
Foreword1 Jun 2026