WFH looks set to become the default mode of working while going to the office will become either optional or obligatory under certain circumstances until the coronavirus crisis is resolved or settles into a predictable pattern.

Unsurprisingly, 100 per cent of our 192 respondents said their workplace had made use of WFH during the crisis.

A mere 8.9 per cent think this trend will not continue after the restrictions are eased, while 91.1 per cent are convinced it will.

As for preference, 77.6 per cent of respondents would like to WFH more often while just under a quarter, 22.4 per cent, would not.

The majority of comments acknowledged the benefits of WFH and many of the commenters were WFH zealots who are now resistant to a return to the old ways.

“I don’t miss being hunted down in person by partners because you’ve taken more than five minutes to respond to an email!” said one lawyer.

Another said that law firms that do not allow it will simply be “left behind” and added that it may reduce “bad behaviour” such as bullying of staff.

They said: “It’s hard to shout at someone when the noise gets distorted and there is a fractional delay. And the shouting might be being recorded. WFH may lead to increased civility and increased productivity.”

Councils, one reader explained, “have been offering WFH for years”.

“There is no need to place so much emphasis on bricks and mortar and presenteeism. It is an archaic sentiment. By all means, if there are client meetings best done in person, then do them in person (post-COVID, of course), but surely this should all show that professional life can work very well remotely.”

Indeed presenteeism was a running concern of lawyers. One said that the “old guard in the firm (55 and older) is still pretty strong on presenteeism, face-time and think that real work is only done in the office and people won’t pull their weight at home”.

They also suggested a divide could emerge between the WFHMers and their office counterparts: “I worry about people who want to work more from home being overlooked when it comes to promotions and bonuses.”

In contrast, many readers were eager to return to the office, especially those with children, many of whom, it has been reported, are not doing their homework – something none of us will be surprised to learn.

A disgruntled parent said: “Working from home is a nightmare whilst the schools are closed. It may be better when the little monsters are back where they belong.”

Others described the existential angst that plagues the worker who finds themself in a single environment for work and play.

Said one lawyer: “I hate WFH. I miss the office and I miss my colleagues. I miss being able just to grab a book or print something off to read properly. There is no escape from the office, it’s permanent – it’s horrible and I hate my dining room being full of their computer and papers.”

“WFH is grim. No boundaries between work and home and horrible not to have the support and camaraderie of colleagues around you,” wrote another.

Readers also raised concerns about mental health and the development of junior colleagues.

“While we have made the best of working from home, I would not wish to see this as a permanent five day a week working arrangement. It is detrimental to the interaction I have with colleagues, and particularly those that I line manage. I also think that in the long term this would be detrimental to the mental health of staff given the loss of that interaction and the support it brings.”

For commuters, the benefit of WFH is obvious: “I commute for two hours every day to get to and from Edinburgh to my office. It seems absolutely ludicrous to me now to spend so much time doing that.”

Finally, one eminently sensible reader summed up the compromise that will undoubtedly be required.

“Some people do feel like they can’t switch off when they’re at home; they can also feel a little bit left out or a little bit lonely if they’re doing it permanently. The legal profession would be advised to adopt a blended approach to home working for the long term.

“Have the option available to staff members. I think that projects a level of care from the employer. Being a lawyer or working in that profession can be intense. Some of that intensity might be reduced if flexible working is adopted and the right processes are put in place to monitor work being completed.”