Open floor plans the way of the future

August 27, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an effort to encourage mobility and collaboration and save money, walls are coming down in offices and work spaces are becoming more open.

A U.S. probation office in Chicago is the first in a pilot project of the Integrated Workplace initiative – a federal judiciary program to re-imagine and downsize the traditional office layout. The initiative seeks to cut office space, which in turn cuts rent bills, by using mobile technology.

Instead of having an assigned desk, people are able to use their smartphones, tablets or laptops to work anywhere in an IWI office. This open design will also promote more staff interaction.

The U.S. Courts says after the project is finished in 2015, the Chicago office redesign will reduce office space by 55 percent and save a projected $1.4 million in rent each year.

This same open-concept office is touted as the “law firm of the future,” according to architectural firm Gensler. It created a 5,000-square-foot exhibit as part of the Association of Legal Administrator’s annual conference and expo this past May.

Gensler’s website on the project, www.redesign-law.com, says in the future, legal work will be done differently so the office of the future needs to address these changes. The company believes law firms will need to be faster, more agile, transparent and client focused, and better managed.

“The law office of the future will be smaller, flexible, more collaborative, and technology enabled. It will look more like a business consulting firm than a law firm,” the site says.

The firm touts six key points for the law firm of the future:
-    Less is more – saving space while increasing efficiency;
-    Choice & balance – give employees a choice of where to work within the office;
-    Future proof – making your office today easily adaptable to future work styles;
-    Ubiquitous technology – portable technology is key;
-    Connect the dots – encourage face-to face and virtual engagement;
-    One size does not fit all – make sure to create a strategy that is best for your firm.

Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects LLP principal Sue Kerns in February 2013 also discussed how the company believes the next generation of law firms will look. ZGF’s future law firm also includes collaboration space (and nice, upscale lounges instead of break rooms. Goodbye, plastic chairs and horrible florescent lighting while eating lunch.)

Has your firm or office already gone to the law firm concept of the future? Does this design really work for a profession in which confidentiality is important? If your office is more open, have you seen greater savings in rent and more productivity among staff? 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT