"Who are we to tell employers what they should or shouldn’t do?" Rethinking Employer–Employee Dynamics in the Legal Profession

By Annie Tyson

The Comment That Got Me Thinking

After I wrote about a law firm partner shaming associates for taking their full vacation time, one response stood out:

“Who are we to tell employers what they should or shouldn’t do? We have to choose the best options available to us, and every employee is doing the same.”

It’s a fair question. Who are we to say what employers should do?

The instinct behind that comment is one many of us have absorbed, often without realizing it: the belief that the employer’s authority is beyond critique, that the employee’s role is simply to adapt, and that pointing fingers is “useless.”

But what if that mindset is less about practicality and more about culture?

A Global Anecdote: When the Employee Apologizes

There are parts of the world where workplace culture is so employer-centered that if an employee falls off a ladder while changing a light bulb, the employee is the one who apologizes profusely, for the inconvenience, for the lost productivity, for making work harder on the team.

Instead of the employer showing concern after an injury, the employee is the one apologizing—for slowing things down.

That’s not “efficiency.” That’s culture. It reflects an ingrained belief that the employer’s time, resources, and convenience are worth more than the employee’s health or dignity.

And while we might shake our heads at that example, the truth is the same pattern shows up in more subtle ways in U.S. workplaces, especially in law firms.

The Silent Rule of Culture in the Legal Profession

In the legal profession, the unwritten rule often sounds like this:

• “Your personal life is secondary to the firm’s needs.”

• “Taking all your PTO means you don’t prioritize the work.”

• “Being always available is proof of loyalty.”

It’s the same ladder-fall logic in different clothes. Associates burn out, miss holidays, and sacrifice health because they believe that questioning the culture is off-limits.

Meanwhile, employers often reinforce it (intentionally or not) by rewarding overwork and penalizing balance.

Who Gets to Decide?

So back to the commenter’s point: who are we to say what employers should or shouldn’t do?

Here’s the reality:

• Employers will always optimize for profitability, client service, and efficiency.

• Employees will always optimize for survival, growth, and well-being.

If we leave it at that, nothing changes. Burnout continues. Turnover increases. Clients lose continuity. Firms bleed money on recruitment.

But here’s the problem: when we act like employers are beyond critique, when we internalize the idea that “it’s useless to question them”, we reinforce the very system that’s breaking us.

The Cost of Silence

Silence doesn’t protect employees. It doesn’t even protect employers.

• For employees: silence means enduring unhealthy cultures until burnout forces an exit.

• For employers: silence means missing opportunities to innovate, adapt, and reduce costly turnover.

It’s the corporate version of the ladder story: the people who get hurt are the ones apologizing, while the system rolls on unchanged.

Moving Beyond Blame to Solutions

Now, the commenter wasn’t wrong to say constant accusations can be useless. If employees just shout “toxic!” and employers just shout “lazy!” nothing moves forward.

But the answer isn’t silence. The answer is strategy.

Instead of “who are we to tell employers what to do?” the better question is: what can both sides do differently to make the system work better?

Outsourcing as a Strategic Middle Ground

One practical step that sidesteps the blame game is outsourcing.

• For employers (law firms): Outsourcing paralegal drafting and discovery work reduces pressure on in-house staff. It cuts costs, prevents burnout, and keeps deadlines moving without demanding 90-hour weeks from associates.

• For employees (attorneys and paralegals): Outsourcing gives breathing room. It means you don’t have to apologize for needing rest, you can delegate routine drafting to a reliable freelance partner.

Outsourcing doesn’t require a cultural revolution. It’s a tactical choice that benefits both sides.

Reframing Authority

The anecdote of the employee apologizing after a ladder fall makes us cringe because it exposes a truth: unquestioned authority creates unhealthy dynamics.

In the legal profession, it’s not about toppling employers or demonizing firms. It’s about recognizing that culture isn’t fixed.

Employers can choose to invest in sustainability instead of short-term sacrifice. Employees can choose to protect their time and advocate for healthier systems.

Both can choose tools—like outsourcing—that ease the pressure without endless accusations.

Final Word

So who are we to tell employers what to do? We’re the people who live inside the consequences.

We’re the ones who fall off ladders, who miss holidays, who burn out under endless deadlines. And we’re also the ones who keep the system running: drafting, filing, advocating, and keeping cases alive. Most importantly, we're the ones that decide whether a law firm is a good place to work. Firms that bleed money on recruitment, or find themselves in a revolving door situation, are usually the firms that legal professionals leave and tell other legal professionals what it's like to work there. Employers do notice when few quality legal professionals are queuing up to get a position, and more importantly, so does their revenue.

Acknowledging that balance matters isn’t useless. It’s necessary.

And if outsourcing virtual paralegal services helps create that balance, then it’s not just a business decision, it’s a cultural one. One that says: your health, your time, and your humanity matter just as much as the firm’s convenience.