Work-life balance on trial
THE phrase “work-life balance” dominates workplace conversations and the legal profession is no exception. Young graduates search for it, mid-level associates crave it, and even senior lawyers like myself wonder whether it is truly achievable.
The answer, however, depends almost entirely on the nature of the work performed. While some legal roles come with predictable hours, the reality is far more sobering for those who handle complex litigation or high-stakes corporate transactions.
Not all legal work is equally intense. Lawyers who focus on standard, commoditised, or routine tasks, such as simple conveyancing, uncontested divorces, wills, or straightforward commercial agreements, often enjoy more control over their schedules.
Their work follows familiar templates and the timelines are predictable. For these practitioners, work-life balance is not just possible, it is often built into the rhythm of the work itself.
However, the picture changes dramatically for lawyers working on complex matters. High-stakes litigation and sophisticated corporate deals operate in an entirely different universe.
These are not merely “jobs.” They are intensive problem-solving exercises conducted under tight deadlines, high pressure and unpredictable circumstances.
Take complex litigation. A lawyer may spend months working on a trial strategy that must be rewritten at the last minute because a new piece of evidence surfaces.
Court timelines are not easily negotiable. Judges do not reschedule hearings to accommodate a family vacation, and opposing counsel certainly will not delay their filings just because there is a holiday.
Litigation, by its very nature, is adversarial and reactive. It demands swift responses, long nights of research and extensive preparation to handle the unpredictable.
The same holds true for lawyers engaged in major corporate transactions which move at incredible speed. Negotiations shift within hours, term sheets evolve overnight, drafts change repeatedly throughout the day, and clients revise their positions at the last minute.
Regulatory issues can emerge unexpectedly and must be addressed immediately. When a deal is “live,” timing becomes everything.
Clients expect instant, precise advice. A single mistake can derail months of work or jeopardise a multimillion-dollar transaction.
For the lawyers involved, sleep becomes optional, personal plans evaporate and entire weekends can disappear under the weight of an urgent negotiation.
Paradoxically, as lawyers become more senior, work-life balance becomes even more elusive. Senior practitioners are expected to operate at the pace of chief executive officers, founders and investment bankers, people who work at high speed and expect their advisers to be available whenever needed.
A delayed response can slow a deal and damage trust built over years. As a result, senior lawyers are perpetually reachable, whether by email, WhatsApp or late-night calls, and are routinely required to review and fine-tune work long after the rest of the team has logged off.
Compounding this is the economic reality of legal practice: lawyers depend heavily on recurring work and client referrals. Turning away a matter may cause a client to take their business elsewhere and they may not return.
For partners whose revenue depends on loyal relationships, the decision to decline work is rarely straightforward.
Given these pressures, young lawyers often wonder why partners in these demanding areas do not simply expand their teams. Wouldn’t adding more headcount ease the workload?
In many industries, the intuitive solution to heavy workloads is to hire more people. But in high-end corporate practice, particularly in mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings, private equity and cross-border transactions, the opposite is often true.
The reasoning is practical and rooted in the nature of the work. Clients paying premium fees expect expert teams that operate quickly, decisively and with minimal supervision.
A five-person deal team where every member is highly competent is far more effective than a 10-person team filled with observers and juniors who require constant guidance.
Complex corporate work resembles a surgical operation more than a factory process.
In an operating theatre, you do not improve outcomes by adding extra hands. You improve them by ensuring the hands you have are the very best.
At the top end of the corporate market, legal work demands nuanced issue-spotting, commercial and regulatory judgment, precise drafting and the ability to absorb and react to rapidly evolving information.
One highly capable associate often contributes more meaningfully than three juniors who have not yet developed these instincts.
Larger teams also create their own challenges. Communication becomes harder, alignment requires more time, and the risk of errors increases.
More internal briefings, more version control issues, and more supervision demands mean that adding headcount can slow the team down rather than accelerate it.
For partners handling fast-moving negotiations, explaining fundamental concepts at midnight or reviewing numerous junior drafts is simply not feasible.
While firms recognise the importance of training, the reality of high-end practice is that excellence, accuracy and speed often outweigh every other consideration. As a result, partners prefer lean, highly trained teams they trust implicitly.
For lawyers in these complex areas, managing burnout is necessary, but achieving true work-life balance remains aspirational. At the highest levels of legal practice, the pursuit of excellence almost inevitably comes at the expense of a perfectly balanced life.