"It's so out of tune with the rest of the market – a complete outlier", a finance partner at a U.S. firm in London says. "When I saw that, I thought he was tone deaf."

"If [investment banks] cannot even give us freedom on where to work, they may as well hire robots," the partner adds.

They also argue that the stance does not match up with the reality of working with the bank. That partner recently advised the bank on a cross-border transaction, with the matter entirely conducted via Zoom and email.

They say that there were no hints of any unhappiness with where they worked on the mandate, and as a result, they doubt "anybody is taking this seriously."

A London private equity partner agrees, questioning: "If Morgan Stanley is calling me, how is it any different if I'm at my London office or home office?"

The expectation puts the bank at further odds with the industry, as the majority of outfits internationally have already embraced some degree of remote working. Major firms to have formalised hybrid working policies include Linklaters, DLA Piper and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Even Slaughter and May chipped away at its conservative reputation recently by rolling out a flexible policy.

However, some of the investment bank's key recent advisers have yet to finalise a position on remote work.

Shearman & Sterling, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Latham & Watkins, which have all advised the bank recently, are yet to announce firmwide formal working policies (Latham has been operating on a one week on, one week off basis in its London office). Meanwhile, Davis Polk's New York office is currently trialling a policy whereby lawyers must return to the office at least seven out of every 10 business days from September while Clifford Chance rolled out a U.K. policy earlier this year.

So Grossman's approach is already at odds with some of the bank's advisers, and several in the market are also questioning the appropriateness of the client taking any sort of stance on how its outside counsel work.

The London private equity partner adds that they are "surprised that [Morgan Stanley] feel they have the mandate to require that".

Clients have been expecting more and more from their law firms in recent years, including laying out expectations for the make-up of their teams. But one partner thinks this latest expectation is a step too far: "It's one thing when a GC says they require diverse teams, but it's another when they say we have to be in the office to deliver work. It makes no sense," they say.

A Spanish partner at a U.S. firm that regularly works with the bank agrees that it is not for the client to decide a law firm's working policy. "It's on the firms and firms are doing it already with hybrid policies", they explain.

Several partners do agree with Grossman's reasoning that the development of young lawyers needs to be a focus, and the issue has been raised by the market previously.

In 2020, partners worried about a "generation of lawyers missing out on training and professional development" as remote working left juniors isolated and feeling neglected. Since then, stress levels for junior lawyers have risen amid a continuous flow of mandates. Corporate lawyers in particular have described the unprecedented workloads as "unsustainable", but despite best efforts by law firms to alleviate mental health concerns, several junior lawyers feel that client demand and workloads trump their wellbeing.

However, a number of partners don't accept that the solution is to put those junior lawyers back in the office full-time.

The finance partner at the U.S. firm says: "I appreciate that the older generation thinks it's fine but that's not what the younger talent wants. They want more flexibility, they want employers to see what's happening on the market – especially if they want hard work in return".

In general, law firms have come round to new ways of working in recent years, and the unprecedented 18 months has only served to ramp that up. Earlier this year, Slaughters launched a pilot for its London and Brussels associates that allows them to work reduced hours via a variety of options, for reduced pay.

Meanwhile several senior lawyers are leading by example: U.K.-headquartered Simmons & Simmons' incoming senior partner, Julian Taylor, will continue to work part-time when he takes on the role in August.

As a result of the conflicting stance, some believe that Morgan Stanley could unintentionally trigger a negative reaction within its own legal ranks. The private equity partner says that it is "quite possible people will leave", especially associates, if they are held to the same expectation of solely in-office work.

"Forcing people in is not helpful. I know lots of people who have really benefited from [remote working]. People's well-being has improved, they've looked after themselves better and are going to bed at midnight, instead of 2am," the partner adds.

But will these anonymous stances match up to how law firms respond to such an important client?

For the large part, partners say they and their peers who work with the bank will push back to the request, or risk alienating their ranks.

"I can't tell my lawyers to come in full time because that's picking on a subsection of the firm", the private equity partner says. "Telling them to come in for five days while everybody else in the firm can work flexibly? Law firms won't accept it".

The London finance partner agrees, predicting that the market "won't be receptive."

Morgan Stanley is not the first major bank to share a less-than-impressed view of remote working. In May, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon dubbed the concept an "aberration", while the private equity partner believes other banks may share the same viewpoint.

Though many are happy to bemoan such stances anonymously, one finance partner at an elite Italian firm who acknowledges the letter as "pretty arrogant" says there is only so much push-back that partners can give.

"In the end, the client is the master. We might complain but it is the client who decides what they'll do in the next few months. If they say we're going back to the old way and they want physical meetings, how can we resist that?"