Experiences of remote working by 

South African Lawyers during the 

COVID-19 lockdown  

 

 

Dineo Modibedi-Manentsa 

2507430 

 

A research article submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, 

University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the 

degree of Master of Business Administration 

 

Johannesburg, 2023 

 

Protocol number: WBS/BA2507430/416 



1 

DECLARATION 

I, Dineo Modibedi-Manentsa, declare that this research article is my own work except as 

indicated in the references and acknowledgements. It is submitted in partial fulfilment of 

the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration at the Graduate 

School of Business Administration, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It 

has not been submitted before for any degree or examination at this or any other 

university. 

 

DINEO MODIBEDI-MANENTSA.  

 

Signed at Centurion on the 17th day of April 2023 

 

  



2 

DEDICATION 

This research is dedicated to my husband, Thando, who supported me throughout my 

studies and without whom none of this would have been possible. Thank you for your 

unwavering support and love throughout this journey.   



3 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Dr Drikus Kriek. Thank you for your 

invaluable guidance, supervision, and assistance with this research study. 

To all the Advocates, Attorneys and Legal Counsel who participated in this research 

study and agreed to be interviewed, I thank you for your time and willingness to speak 

openly and frankly.  

My unending gratitude goes out to my husband for his help, support, meals, the late 

nights, and early mornings, and also to my wonderful mother for her unwavering love 

and support throughout this journey. 

Lastly, my dearest friend, Mpho Dzhivhuwo, who in the final months, weeks and days 

provided refuge from loadshedding, multiple homecooked meals and unwavering 

friendship, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you.  

  



4 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

Nominated 

journal: 

South African Journal of Human Resource Management  

Supervisor: Dr Drikus Kriek  

Word count †:  15296 

Supplementary 

files: 

Research instrument 

Results of the demographic survey 

† Including abstract, references, etc. 

  



5 

ABSTRACT 

Orientation: This study was aimed at understanding South African lawyers’ experiences 

with remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Research purpose: In examining lawyers’ experiences with remote working during the 

COVID-19 lockdown period, this research considered the internal and external factors 

that may have affected that experience using the grounded theory approach The study 

assessed the degree to which the lawyers felt prepared for remote working and whether 

they felt productive. It also explored factors that may have affected their working 

experience and considered how these factors affected their mental health and physical 

well-being. To this end, it looked at internal factors, such as family and children, the 

nature of their work and their living standards measures, and external factors, such as 

loadshedding and internet access. 

Motivation for the study: The researcher did not find any evidence of research 

regarding the remote working experiences of South African lawyers during the COVID-

19 lockdown. Given that the legal profession functions differently from other professions, 

the researcher sought to determine the extent to which remote working may have had a 

negative effect on lawyers’ mental health and physical well-being. Further, the 

researcher wanted to gauge the need for a mental health intervention, as well as 

assistance from employers and the government.  

Research approach/design and method: A qualitative research design was applied 

through two focus group discussions and individual interviews with 25 South African 

lawyers. The data was analysed through thematic analysis using ATLAS.ti. 23 (Version 

4.11.1-2023-02-23).  

Main findings: The participants were largely unprepared for remote working during the 

COVID-19 pandemic and reported varying levels of productivity, intermingled with 

overworking and burnout. The findings also revealed that certain internal and external 

factors, such as family and children, the nature of work, their living conditions, 

loadshedding and internet access, affected their mental health and physical well-being.  

Practical implications: Working remotely during the COVID-19 lockdown exposed 

lawyers to a range of experiences, including stress, anxiety, and unproductivity. These 

experiences point to the need for a mental health intervention by employers and the 

government.  



6 

Contribution: The research provided knowledge in the field of study on the remote 

working experiences of lawyers in South Africa.  

Keywords: Remote working, experiences, lawyers, internal and external factors, 

COVID-19, national lockdown, grounded theory approach  

  



7 

1. INTRODUCTION  

Orientation  

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel 

coronavirus (COVID-19) a worldwide pandemic (WHO, 2020). At the time of this 

announcement, approximately 118 000 COVID-19 cases had been reported in 114 

countries, with approximately 4 291 fatalities (WHO, 2020).  

Unfortunately, this was only the beginning, as the pandemic proceeded to disrupt and 

change every aspect of daily living, including how people work. On 26 March 2020, South 

Africa went into level 5 lockdown and, with the exception of a select few essential 

workers, many South African workers were required to stay at home and work remotely 

(South African Government, 2020).  

For the purposes of this research, working from home and remote working are deemed 

to have the same meaning and are used interchangeably, as reflected in the literature. 

As stated by Budnitz and Tranos (2022, p. 894), “the terms telecommuting and working 

from home are used interchangeably… the COVID-19 crisis was carried out in the homes 

of individual employees rather than any other location”. The concept of remote working—

also referred to as telecommuting—has been around since 1973, when NASA engineer 

Jack Nilles introduced the concept (Nilles,1975, as cited by Messenger & Gschwind, 

2016).  

Although not a new concept, the pandemic presented the first opportunity for many 

employees to work remotely. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, people chose to work from 

home for a variety of reasons, such as the need for spatial mobility and temporal flexibility 

(Hardill & Green, 2003; Wheatley, 2012). The move towards the feminisation of the 

workforce has naturally increased the participation of mothers in the workplace and, 

therefore, the need for flexible working hours (Felstead & Henseke, 2017). However, for 

many employers and employees, the introduction to remote working started during the 

COVID-19 lockdown, which was used to curb the spread of the virus (Nagel, 2020).  

In 2018, approximately 23.7% of the American population worked remotely some of the 

time, increasing to approximately 50% during the COVID-19 pandemic (Duszynski, 

2021). A study of 200 professionals found that only 26% of those surveyed reported 

having the freedom to work remotely before the pandemic (Page, 2020). However, during 

the pandemic, the percentage of employees working remotely rose to 79%. The 



8 

remaining 21% surveyed were either unemployed or held jobs that were not conducive 

to remote working (Page, 2020).  

In Europe, approximately 56% of employees who were required to work remotely during 

the pandemic had some experience in this mode of work before the pandemic (ILO, 

2020). The International Labour Organization estimated that this figure increased by at 

least 24% at the start of the pandemic, with every four in 10 employees in Europe working 

from home. In stark contrast, only 13% of Japanese workers were able to work from 

home during the pandemic (Foreign Press Center Japan, 2020). However, the reason 

for this low number in Japan had less to do with prohibiting remote working, but rather 

the ancient tradition of the ‘Hanko Stamp’, which requires that an employee’s 

personalised seal be stamped on all paper documents, thus making remote working 

impractical (Foreign Press Center Japan, 2020).  

Studies conducted in Italy by Bolisani et al. in 2020 found that employees were affected 

by several factors while working remotely, depending on the nature of the job and the 

employees’ personal circumstances. Studies in the US by Alon et al.  (2020) and in the 

US, Germany, and Singapore by Reichelt et al. (2021) showed that remote working had 

a more severe effect on women, particularly single mothers, owing to the gender roles 

women are expected to fulfil. Research by Oakman et al.  (2020) in 10 countries, 

including South Africa, found that remote working affected physical and mental well-

being, with employees reporting stress, depression, and an impact on their happiness 

and general well-being. A study by Posel et al. (2021) revealed that those who retained 

their employment suffered significantly lower depression rates than those adults who lost 

their employment (Posel et al., 2021). Nguse and Wassenaar (2021), reported that the 

pandemic had not only had an enormous impact on human life but also a negative effect 

on the public’s mental health, against the background of an already failing mental health 

care system in South Africa (Nguse & Wassenaar, 2021). A study conducted by Kim et 

al. (2022) found that adults who reported a history of childhood trauma experienced 

increased depressive symptoms (Kim et al., 2022).  

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework  

Theoretical Framework 

Grounded theory is a theoretical framework developed in 1967 by sociologists Barney 

Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). According to Khan (2014), the 

theory is research method and data analysis tool, largely applied in qualitative research, 

where the theory is developed by collecting data rather than the other way around (Khan, 



9 

2014). This inductive approach seeks to identify patterns from observation and is a 

bottom-up approach (Khan 2014).  

Grounded theory formed the basis of this study, which was conducted by following the 

steps involved in the theory, which are 1) Data collection, 2) Opening coding 3) Axial 

coding, 4) Selective coding, 5) Theoretical saturation and 6) Theory development.  

Conceptual Framework 

A conceptual framework of the research project appears below and was used to explain 

the experiences of remote working by South African lawyers during the COVID-19 

lockdown. It identifies the internal and external factors which may affect this experience 

and acknowledges the impact on the physical and mental well-being and mental health 

considerations from these experiences.   

 

The South African Lawyer Perspective  

This research study focused solely on the experiences of South African lawyers. The 

legal fraternity in South Africa is deeply traditional and rigid. Careers are made on billable 

hours, and presenteeism, which will be discussed further in this article, still exists. The 

concept of remote working has never been a part of the profession’s culture and before 



10 

the pandemic, working remotely was “incredibly rare” for lawyers, as it was deemed 

ineffective and inefficient (Foster, 2021).  

2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 

Research Purpose 

The purpose of this research  was to investigate the remote working experiences of 

South African lawyers during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, by highlighting the 

challenges and benefits associated with remote working and determining the internal 

(specific to them) and external (not specific to them) factors that could have affected their 

experience. The research aimed to examine the effect of these experiences on them 

while remote working during lockdown period insight into their mental health and physical 

well-being. 

Research Objectives 

The study addressed the following objectives: 

• To explore what the remote working experiences were for South African lawyers 

during the COVID-19 lockdown period. 

• To explore the internal and external factors that affected their remote working 

during this period. 

• To explore the impact of the internal and external factors on their experience 

while remote working during the COVID-19 lockdown.  

3. LITERATURE REVIEW  

In 2006, many years before the COVID-19 pandemic and before the subsequent 

lockdowns forced the masses into their homes and remote working, Cartwright & Homes 

(2006) had already started noting how changes in the workplace were placing 

significantly increased demands on employees, which detrimentally impacted on their 

health and personal lives. These changes to their workplace raised the levels of mistrust 

and cynicism amongst employees (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). 

The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably had the most drastic and rapid impact on the 

workplace in history, forcing large numbers of employees out of the office, into their 

homes, and into remote working (Ozimek, 2020). For many of these employees, their 



11 

homes were transformed, not only into their places of work, but also into schools or 

crèches for their children, and were no longer just places of entertainment and relaxation 

for the family (Oakman et al., 2020). Wheatley (2012) remarked that, while remote 

working had the potential to provide employees and employers with great benefits, it also 

raised significant challenges (Wheatley, 2012). 

However, looking inward towards employees and their experiences, successes, or 

challenges with working from home, Bolisani et al. (2020) noted that several factors 

influenced them, some of which were out of the employees’ control and others that were 

personal and specific to them. Matli (2020) referred to these as intrinsic (internal) and 

extrinsic (external) factors. He defined the intrinsic factors as those over which a remote 

worker may have had some level of control, which would be specific to them and would 

hinder them in their remote working arrangements (Matli, 2020). Extrinsic factors are 

described as those over which remote workers would generally have little control, and 

would not necessarily be specific to them, such as electricity supply or internet access 

(Matli, 2020). 

Challenges and Advantages of Remote Working  

There is no doubt that remote working offers a win-win situation for both employees and 

employers, given the many benefits that can be derived from the arrangement (Wheatley, 

2012). In his report on the Future of Remote Work, Ozimek (2020) analysed the direct 

impact of remote working, based on data collected from 1 500 hiring managers prior to 

the pandemic in November 2019 and during the pandemic in April 2020. The results from 

the hiring managers revealed that 40% found that the greatest perceived benefits of 

remote working were the absence of a lengthy commute for employees to the office and 

a reduction in unnecessary meetings and distractions at work (Ozimek, 2020; Wheatley, 

2012).  

Filardi et al. (2020) found that the reduced costs associated with commuting and food, 

and the increase in employees’ sense of safety in that they were less exposed to violence 

and pollution, were also reported as advantages of remote working. Other advantages 

reported included increased employee privacy, a greater sense of employee autonomy, 

increased productivity, an opportunity to spend more time with loved ones, and a better 

quality of life (Filardi et al., 2020; Tietze & Musson, 2005, as cited by Wheatley, 2012). 

The increase in job satisfaction and reduced burnout were also reported as advantages 

by both Ferreira et al. (2021) and Oakman et al. (2020), with less fatigue, lower turnover 

rates, and greater openness reported by Kurland and Bailey (1999). Ferreira et al. (2021) 



12 

also reported increased productivity, morale, and reduced costs related to commuting, 

as well as a greater sense of work-life balance (Oakman et al., 2020). 

However, the literature reveals conflicting views regarding the benefits or drawbacks of 

remote working. Hardill and Green (2003) for one, noted that the weakening or breaking 

of “temporal and spatial boundaries both within the household and around the home 

separating it from the outside world” (p 216), blurred the lines between home and work 

(Hardill & Green, 2003), negatively affecting employees’ mental and physical health 

(Oakman et al., 2020). The recasting of these boundaries—perceived availability at all 

hours, and not restricting work to a specific place—resulted in overworking, not only in 

the evenings but also at the weekend (Hardill & Green, 2003).  

Internal and External Factors 

The literature revealed that the internal and external factors affecting lawyers’ ability to 

work remotely were varied. They included technical support, productivity levels, 

presenteeism, gender roles, organisational support, the availability of electricity, and 

access to the internet, as well as their mental health and physical well-being.  

Technical support  

Although new technologies have fundamentally changed people’s working patterns, 

including making remote working possible for the masses (Oakman et al., 2020), 

technological issues were one of the biggest challenges revealed by Ozimek (2020) in 

his study. This is because so many employers and companies were not prepared for the 

drastic and sudden shift to remote working. Filardi et al. (2020) found that technological 

infrastructure issues, especially the absence of prior training of employees on remote 

working before the pandemic, created various challenges. Added to this was the fact 

that, for many companies, the pandemic was their first ever attempt at adopting a remote-

working lifestyle (Budnitz & Tranos, 2022). 

Productivity levels while remote working 

In Ozimek’s 2020 study, two-thirds of the hiring managers surveyed reported decreased 

productivity because of remote working during the pandemic. Ferreira et al. (2021) noted 

that other challenges during remote working were around communication, proper 

management, and transparency, as well as maintaining cohesion and unity amongst 

workers.   



13 

Despite the challenges highlighted by Ozimek (2020), most of the hiring managers he 

surveyed remained in favour of remote working in the future. He stated that “the sudden 

shock of COVID-19 represents an unexpected and massive trial run for many workers 

and companies”, adding that this so-called “remote work experiment” was more 

successful than anticipated (Ozimek, 2020, p. 1,2).  

Ozimek (2020) also observed that certain factors affected employees’ ability to work 

remotely, and indicated that, if addressed, they would allow working from home to 

function optimally. These factors, while not exhaustive, included issues regarding gender 

inequalities, support from the organisation, technical support, boundary management 

support, and support amongst co-workers (Ozimek, 2020). A study by Grant et al. (2013) 

also identified factors, such as communication and support from colleagues, as affecting 

individual’s ability to work remotely. 

Presenteeism 

Presenteeism refers to the practice of being physically in one’s seat at work, just to 

appear dedicated, irrespective of how unproductive. This concept is not new and has 

been part of office life since before the pandemic, with 80% of workers in the UK reporting 

that it existed in their workplace (Lufkin, 2021). A study by Shimura et al. (2021) found 

an increased risk of presenteeism with remote working. 

Gender roles and remote working 

Gender roles refer to the social roles with which people typically identify. Their gender 

identities are often based on cultural expectations of what it means to be a man or woman 

and the set of conditions ingrained within that culture (Helsel, 2014). Alon et al. (2020) 

determined that the effects of remote working during the COVID-19 lockdown had a 

larger impact on industries where the proportions of female employees were higher than 

males, suggesting that women may have been more severely affected by remote working 

than men (Reichelt et al., 2021).  

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 

estimated that around 1.37 billion children were affected by school closures during the 

COVID-19 lockdown period (UNESCO, 2020). Consequently, parents were required to 

become full-time primary caregivers to their children, with mothers more affected than 

fathers in this situation (Alon et al., 2020). Those most affected by these gender roles 

were single mothers (Alon et al., 2020). This added responsibility that women 



14 

experienced because of their roles as wives and mothers was aptly referred to by 

Wheatley (2012) as the “double shift” during COVID-19.  

Before the pandemic, Eddleston and Mulki (2017) had already studied the work-family 

boundaries remote workers had to manage, and determined that remote working 

presented unique challenges, as there is little or no separation between work and the 

family domain. Ultimately, work becomes embedded into home life to such an extent that 

home life becomes associated with the work role. This situation intrudes physically and 

mentally into people’s homes and habits, and remote workers would invariably be 

preoccupied by work when at home. The study also showed how the lack of boundaries 

ultimately increased conflict between work and family. A healthy integration between 

work and family was found to be more harmful to male remote workers, whereas the 

inability to disengage was found to be more harmful to women. Eddleston and Mulki 

(2017) concluded that working from home had the effect of encouraging remote workers 

to overwork and to allow their work to erode their family and home lives. 

However, conflicting evidence suggests that remote working resulted in greater levels of 

satisfaction for employees, especially working mothers, as it provided the spatial and 

temporal flexibility that working mothers needed and desired (Wheatley, 2012). 

Organisational support 

The effects of organisational support—which refers to “an employee’s perception that 

the organisation values his or her work contributions and cares about the employee’s 

well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 2016, p. 3)—could not be overestimated and were found 

to have had important benefits for both the employee and employer. Organisational 

support, generally, has had positive outcomes on employees’ well-being and has 

reduced their social isolation while remote working, while also increasing job satisfaction 

and reducing mental strain (Bentley et al., 2016).  

Availability of electricity and internet access 

Loadshedding is a concept with which every South African is all too familiar and, since 

2007, has become an unfortunate reality for everyone living in the country. According to 

a study conducted by Matli (2020), loadshedding affected employees’ ability to work from 

home. During 2020, in the first year of the pandemic, the country experienced an 

unprecedented 859 hours of loadshedding (Creamer, 2021). This represents about 9.8% 

of the total 8 760 hours that make up a year (Calitz & Wright, 2021; Steyn, 2021). The 

following year, 2021, proved to be a record-setting year for Eskom, as the country was 

plunged into darkness for 1 100 hours (Calitz & Wright, 2021; Creamer, 2021), 



15 

amounting to 46 out of the 365 days that make up a year. The bulk of this was limited to 

stage 1 loadshedding.  

The COVID-19 pandemic and remote working gave rise to a greater reliance on internet 

access, to stay connected and be productive (Briggs, 2021). Because the switch to 

remote working happened so rapidly, it left many employers unprepared (Galanti et al., 

2021). Therefore, for the most part, the burden of ensuring connectivity and paying for 

data fell on employees, a vast majority of whom used mobile subscriptions to access the 

internet (Briggs, 2021). 

Mental health, physical well-being, and socialisation 

The mental and physical effects of remote working on employees’ well-being are highly 

complex (Oakman et al., 2020). Although employees may have felt safer working from 

home because it reduced their exposure to the COVID-19 virus (Filardi et al., 2020), a 

study conducted by Nijp et al. in 2016 found that remote working gave rise to certain 

physical problems.  

Oakman et al. (2020) reviewed studies on the mental and physical health effects on 

people working from home, and found that individuals’ experiences ranged from the 

negative, such as feelings of pain, self-diagnosed health problems, safety issues, stress, 

depression, and fatigue, to the positive, such as quality of life, well-being, and happiness 

(Oakman et al., 2020). The review by Oakman et al. (2020) revealed that one reason for 

the negative impact of remote working on employees’ mental and physical health was 

the lack of clear delineation of hours between work and home (Oakman et al., 2020).  

It is well documented that the workplace and work environment provide important 

opportunities for socialisation among colleagues, which is integral to knowledge sharing, 

knowledge management, and training (Bolisani et al., 2020). Humans are social 

creatures and social interactions, or lack thereof, at work can affect their ability to work 

effectively and produce a high standard of work (Galanti et al., 2021).  

A lack of socialisation and interaction has left many employees feeling lonely and isolated 

(Bolisani et al., 2020), which has affected their mental health (Xiao et al. 2021). A study 

conducted by Xiao et al. (2021) on the impact of working from home during the COVID-

19 pandemic found that an overwhelming number of workers experienced a decline in 

overall mental and physical well-being, attributable to, amongst other things, a lack of 

communication or socialisation with colleagues (Oakman et al., 2020; Wheatley, 2012).  



16 

Conclusion 

The literature reviewed highlighted how remote working affects women and men 

differently, as well as how various factors and their presumed benefits and drawbacks 

can affect people’s experiences positively or negatively. The research also revealed the 

impact of remote working on the mental and physical well-being on employees and how 

it can be both positive and negative. The remote working experiences of employees have 

been well researched, although there is a lack of comprehensive research/literature 

examining the remote working experiences of South African Lawyers during the COVID-

19 lockdown, through the determination of the internal and external factors and examine 

the impact of these factors on their remote working experiences during the COVID-19 

lockdown. 

4. RESEARCH DESIGN  

Research Approach  

A qualitative research approach was adopted, conducted through focus group 

discussions (FGDs) and individual interviews to collect data from the research 

participants using the research objectives and literature review. The qualitative method 

is rooted in interpretivism, the opposite of positivism, which lends itself to quantitative 

research (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Interpretivism is aimed at the in-depth research of 

society and how and why humans feel and behave in certain ways. This depth of 

information and the richness it often provides cannot be achieved through the simple 

analysis of numbers, as in quantitative research (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). 

Research Strategy  

The strategy for this research was to identify the relevant participants through references, 

personal contacts, and networking on the LinkedIn platform. A demographic survey was 

sent to all identified participants, followed by two focus group discussions and in-depth 

interviews with eight participants. The literature review and research objectives formed 

the basis of the themes for analysis and was confirmed and expanded upon through the 

interviews with the participants. 



17 

Research Methods  

Research setting 

The study was conducted in Gauteng province, with both the researcher and most of the 

participants living in and around Johannesburg. All the participants were living in 

Gauteng during the time relevant to this study.  

Gauteng is the wealthiest of South Africa’s nine provinces and Johannesburg, its capital, 

is the country’s financial hub. Johannesburg generates 16% of South Africa’s gross 

domestic product and employs 12% of the country’s workforce (South African History 

Online, 2023). With approximately 5.6 million of Gauteng’s population of 15.9 million, 

Johannesburg is South Africa’s largest city by number of inhabitants (Statista, 2022). 

The research setting was online and after hours or at a time convenient to the 

participants. It was not in their normal working setting, as the participants worked full 

time. One participant requested that the researcher meet them at their place of 

employment located in Centurion, Pretoria, which the researcher agreed to, meeting the 

participant within their normal work hours.  

Entrée and establishing researcher roles  

The researcher personally contacted each of the prospective participants for the FGDs 

and in-depth interviews, and explained the objectives, context, and purpose of the 

research study before requesting their participation and obtaining their consent. Written 

and verbal consent were obtained from each participant by the researcher prior to 

conducting the FGDs and individual interviews.  

The researcher had to fulfil the role of an “insider researcher”—someone who has a deep 

level of understanding and is knowledgeable about the topic (Fleming & Zegwaard, 

2018). However, the influence that a researcher’s presence has when collecting data 

cannot be ignored (Cadena, 2019). In the case of this study, some of the participants 

were within the researcher’s own personal network as an attorney, and some had been 

colleagues in the past. Therefore, the researcher could not ignore the fact that some of 

her biases may have been known to the participants and that some of the participants’ 

characteristics were known to the researcher (Cadena, 2019), which may have affected 

the responses given by participants.  



18 

Research participants and sampling method 

The study applied a purposive sampling method, as the opportunities to work from home 

are not equally distributed across workforces (Budnitz & Tranos, 2022). Following the 

research and views of Peters et al. (2004), and Singh et al. (2013) that remote workers 

are almost always employees who are wealthier and better educated and who hold 

professional, managerial, and technical occupations, the participants of the study were 

pre-selected according to the criteria that were relevant to this study. The participants 

are all admitted as legal practitioners in South Africa, either as attorneys or as advocates, 

as prescribed by the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014. They ranged in age from 25 to 65 

years, and all worked remotely during the period from March 2020 to December 2021. 

The researcher reached out to the participants on LinkedIn and via email by sending 

them an information leaflet about the study and an invitation to participate in either the 

FGDs or the individual interviews. The researcher also benefitted from snowball 

sampling, in that several of the research participants helped to identify other potential 

participants from their networks (Nikolopoulou, 2022). Once identified, the researcher 

sent the potential participants an information leaflet advising how the researcher was 

referred to them and invited them to participate in the research study. A total of 32 people 

were approached and 25 agreed to participate in the research study, representing a 78% 

positive response rate. 

According to Marshall et al. (2013), data saturation occurs at 30 interviews per study. In 

line with the technique adopted by Marshall et al. (2013), the researcher ascertained that 

the research study had reached saturation after two FGDs and eight in-depth interviews, 

as they provided the same responses to the interview questions and no new insights 

were being provided. 

Tables 1–3 below summarise the demographic information of the participants that took 

part in the research study, divided into the focus groups and individual interviews.  



19 

Data collection method  

The data was collected in person by the researcher between December 2022 and 

February 2023, using an interview schedule comprising 13 opened-ended questions 

(See Appendix A) and a demographic survey. These were presented to two focus 

groups, comprising 10 participants and seven participants, respectively, and eight in-



20 

depth interview participants. The interview schedule was designed to yield the most 

information by addressing the aims and objectives of the research study and giving them 

prominence (Gill et al., 2008).  

This semi-structured method was supplemented by additional probing questions that the 

researcher asked to elicit further insights and answers from the FGDs and the individual 

interviews. A multifaceted approach was taken, which, for the purposes of this study, 

included video and audio recording, note-taking, and participant observations (Stewart 

et al., 2007, as cited by Nyumba et al., 2018), and no one method took prominence. 

Participant observation allows a researcher to study the social setting, by revealing the 

participants’ reality of daily life or their natural setting, and helps to build rapport with 

them (Kawulich, 2005). Therefore, the participant observations, collected via the 

demographic survey presented to them and by taking notes, assisted the researcher in 

analysing data that the participants may have been unable to share (Kawulich, 2005). 

The data collected from the participants comprised video and audio recordings and 

transcripts from the semi-structured interviews and FGDs, demographic survey 

information, and observation notes.  

Data recording  

All the responses to the demographic survey were captured on the platform Jotform.com 

(See Appendix B for full survey responses). No manipulation of survey data was done, 

and the data was downloaded as a PDF document to be analysed. The FGDs and 

individual interviews were captured electronically using Microsoft Teams and other 

recording devices, with the explicit consent of all participants involved. Each interview 

was then transcribed by the researcher and a third-party transcription service, having 

signed a confidentiality agreement. The data was collected and entered into the 

qualitative software package ATLAS.ti (Version 4.11.1-2023-02-23) for analysis 

purposes.  

Strategies employed to ensure data quality and integrity 

It is essential that any research study that is undertaken has rigour, i.e. trust and 

confidence in the findings of a research study (Cypress, 2017). The authors Guba and 

Lincoln (1981 as cited by Morse et al., 2002), were the first to introduce the concept of 

trustworthiness in qualitative research.  

The concept of neutrality refers to research that is free of any bias and the researcher’s 

perspective (Given, 2008). The findings of this research study are based only on the data 



21 

collected by the researcher through the FGDs and individual interviews, including data 

from the demographic survey. No other biases or perspectives are considered (Guba, 

1981 as cited by Krefting,1991). 

The data collected from the FGDs and individual interviews was audio and video 

recorded. These recordings were transcribed verbatim, and thereafter, a thematic 

analysis of the data was conducted. This process—the analysis and the methods used 

to ensure the quality of the work—ensured the trustworthiness and the degree of 

confidence in the data (Morse et al., 2002). 

The researcher’s analysis of the data is rooted in interpretivism. The researcher spent 

an extended length of time conducting the interviews (between one and one-and-a-half 

hours), before analysing the data using thematic analysis. Dependability influences the 

confidence of findings in qualitative research (Munn, 2014), and tests the fit between the 

author’s interpretation of the findings and the original data.  

The researcher applied the criterion of credibility by recruiting all the participants and 

ensuring that collected data, using video and audio recordings, note-taking and 

demographic surveys, and analysis, were trustworthy and believable. The researcher 

conducted two separate semi-structured FGDs (total of 16 participants) and individual 

interviews with an additional eight different participants of between one and one-and-a-

half hours each, and the data was transcribed. 

Ethical considerations 

In addition to obtaining ethical clearance for the study from the University of 

Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (Non-Medical), five ethical 

principles—informed consent, voluntary participation, anonymity, confidentiality, and 

potential for harm—were upheld in the study, as outlined below. 

Informed consent  

The researcher provided an information sheet to the participants, held a briefing prior to 

the FGDs and individual interviews, and requested the participants to sign a consent 

letter.  

Voluntary participation 

The participants were informed that their participation in the research study was 

completely voluntary, and that they could withdraw from the study at any stage, without 

explanation or consequence of any kind.  



22 

Anonymity and confidentiality  

All steps were taken by the researcher to ensure that the participants were not 

identifiable in the report. Their names were coded using a participant number and will be 

referred to this way in the data and any publications. The researcher managed the 

participants’ confidentiality, and in the case of the two FGDs, the researcher strongly 

advised the participants to treat the information confidentially, while being mindful that 

there would be no guarantee that the other participants in the focus group would treat 

the information confidentially.  

Potential for harm 

The participants were advised that some of the questions had the potential to raise 

negative emotions. The researcher ensured the confidentiality of the information shared 

and advised the participants to not disclose any personally sensitive information in the 

FGDs (Fleming & Zegwaard, 2018).  

Data analysis  

As part of the qualitative research paradigm, thematic analysis was used to analyse the 

data collected (Smith & Osborn, 2015). This method is for identifying and arranging data 

into identifiable themes to analyse the research data and gain insight into the meanings 

of the patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The research study examined the lived 

experiences of the participants by considering the commonality and idiosyncrasies of 

these experiences. Thus, the thematic method was appropriate (Braun & Clarke, 2012). 

According to Clarke and Braun (2013), thematic analysis has six different phases: 

1) Familiarising oneself with the data; 2) Generating codes; 3) Constructing themes; 

4) Reviewing potential themes; 5) Defining and naming themes; and 6) Producing the 

report (Clarke & Braun, 2013). The data was collected, studied by the researcher, 

entered, and analysed using the qualitative software package ATLAS.ti (Version 4.11.1-

2023-02-23).  

Reporting style  

The qualitative data findings are reported through the various themes that emerged from 

the use of the thematic analysis of the demographic survey, FGDs, and individual 

interviews. Where appropriate, verbatim quotations and paraphrases have been used as 

part of the reported findings.  



23 

5. RESULTS  

Participants’ Characteristics 

Participants’ characteristics, such as age, gender, marital status, household size, living 

standards measure (LSM) and number of years in practice, were collected using a 

demographic survey.  

Gender and age 

The research study comprised 25 participants, ranging in age from 25 to 65 years, with 

a median age range of between 25 and 34. The participants included 14 females and 11 

males, with four legal advisors/counsel (all female), 14 attorneys (seven females and 

seven males), and seven advocates (four females and three males).  

Marital status and household size 

Nineteen participants responded to the marital status item on the demographic survey. 

Of those, 10 listed their marital status as “single” and nine as “married”. Five participants 

indicated that they were the only one in their household, eight participants had two 

people, including themselves, three participants had three people, two had four people 

and one participant had five people in their household.  

Living standards measure (LSM)  

The participants were also asked to share their livings standards measure (LSM) level, 

which is a segmentation tool commonly used to group South Africans according to their 

living standards. Those with higher income enjoy higher living standards, which is 

reflected in their scores of between 8 and 10 (van Aardt, 2008). Individuals who occupy 

LSM levels 8–10 have access to the most wealth and can afford the lifestyle they desire 

(USDA, 2020). When surveyed about their LSM status, three participants responded with 

“prefer not to say”, while the remaining 16 participants all had an LSM status of between 

8 and 10, with 10 being the highest level.  

Number of years in practice 

When responding about their years in practice, eight participants indicated that they had 

been in practice less than five years, eight indicated that they had been in practice 

between five and 10 years and three participants between 10 and 15 years. 



24 

Qualitative data  

The data collected from the focus group discussion (FGD) and individual interviews 

provided several insights into the remote working experiences of South African lawyers. 

The themes and subthemes that have been extrapolated from this data are discussed in 

Table 4 below.  

Table 4: Themes and subthemes 

Themes Subthemes 

Preparedness Unpreparedness to work remotely 

 Preparedness to work remotely 
  

Productivity vs unproductivity of remote working Productivity while remote working 

 Productivity leading to overwork 

 Unproductivity while remote working  

 Presenteeism 
  

Internal factors affecting participants  Household size and the presence of children 

 Nature of work/law practised 

 Living standards measure (LSM) status of 
participants  

 Participants’ finances 
  

External factors affecting participants Loadshedding and internet access while remote 

working 
  

Mental health and physical well-being Physical effects of remote working 
  

The future of remote working Hybrid working model 

 Personal choice model 

 Fully remote vs fully in the office 

Unpreparedness vs Preparedness to Work Remotely 

The theme of preparedness can be divided into two subthemes: those participants who 

felt unprepared to work remotely and those who were prepared to work remotely. The 

subthemes are discussed below and include participants’ comments from the individual 

interviews and FGDs (indicated by indented, italicised text).  

Unpreparedness to work remotely 

The research findings revealed that a majority of the participants felt that they were not 

prepared to work remotely. The factors that affected them included the lack of space and 

equipment, having their children around them instead of being in crèche, and also being 

physically and emotionally unprepared. In this regard, most of the participants in both 

the FGDs and the individual interviews reported how working remotely required a huge 

adjustment. Not having the necessary equipment or facilities added to their frustrations, 



25 

whether it be the correct computer set-up, desk, or chairs, or not having enough space, 

such as a dedicated room to work remotely. The participants stated the following: 

“… was I prepared? No. My setup at home was not, my computer set up at home 

was not complete.” (Participant 22, Male, Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“… it was a bit difficult to work because the toddler knew where I would be, and would 

constantly come and try and talk to me or have my attention. So, I found that I was 

not as prepared, because of that. Our living space was not conducive to working at 

home. I would work at home occasionally, and it would help when he was in pre-

school, but he was not even going to pre-school then. So, it was a bit of an issue.” 

(Participant 16, Female Advocate, FGD 2) 

“So, I think we were prepared from a technology perspective, but I do not think any 

of us were prepared emotionally, and the toll that that year took. And I think we are 

going to feel the effects of it going forward.” (Participant 11, Male, Attorney, FGD 2) 

“I think the lack of preparedness from a physical perspective, or not realising that if 

you do not have an office desk or whatever at home that you could, if you work for 

long extended periods of time on your bed, or on your couch, that physically your 

body will take a toll. And now I find myself going to chiropractors every other month, 

just to, working on adjusting my back, or something or the other. Like there are 

physical ailments that have come from working from home and not having those 

proper office structures that you have at the office.” (Participant 2, Female, Legal 

Advisor/Counsel, FGD 1) 

Preparedness to work remotely  

A small number of the participants reported that they were prepared to start remote 

working during the COVID-19 lockdown period, as they had the necessary equipment 

and laptops to work remotely: 

“Well, generally, the only thing that a lawyer needs is a laptop in order to work. And 

when COVID hit and the last days before lockdown; you saw this mass exodus out 

of the office with people with desktop computers under their arms, and taking them 

home, but I was quite ready to work remotely.” (Participant 12, Female, Attorney, 

FGD 2) 

“Yes, fortunately for me, I was prepared. My company gave me a laptop because I 

was already travelling, so I had that anyway.” (Participant 23, Male, Attorney, 

Individual Interview) 



26 

Productivity vs Unproductivity of Remote Working 

The findings revealed that the levels of productivity while working remotely varied 

between the participants. The findings regarding productivity applied to the FGD 

participants and individual interview participants equally. Both groups reported having 

been productive or working longer hours without many breaks. Alternatively, they were 

less productive, because they found it difficult to get any work done while working 

remotely. Some reported that they felt driven to overwork so that they would be viewed 

as valuable.  

Productivity while remote working 

The findings revealed that a few participants felt they were as productive or more 

productive while remote working. They attributed this to fewer interruptions, not having 

to contend with heavy traffic, and not having to make small talk in the office, all of which 

take up time. Some participants indicated that they were very productive to the point of 

overworking, while others indicated that they did not feel as productive as they did 

working in the office: 

“Yes, so, I think I was also very productive. In fact, more productive than I am at 

Chambers, working from home. I found that during lockdown, I could wake up early 

hours and just work right throughout… There are no interruptions. There is no getting 

stuck in traffic. So, I think I was way more productive working from home, despite 

the other challenges that I spoke about.” (Participant 16, Female, Advocate, FGD 2)  

“Well, I would say my productivity was very high. I think it is probably because when 

you are at chambers, even though those social niceties are delightful, it does take a 

lot of time to chat with people in corridors and people are popping into your office. 

So, I think in the absence of that, we were very focused on work, and I think because 

of the uncertainty of the pandemic and people freaking out and losing their jobs, you 

almost felt this absolute drive to work and to prove yourself to your attorneys to feel 

valuable and to continue feeling valuable.” (Participant 19, Female, Advocate, 

Individual Interview) 

Productivity leading to overwork 

Some participants stated that, although they were productive, they found they were 

working longer hours to the point of overwork and staying up late: 



27 

“This time I found that I was working long hours. I would just wake up in the morning 

and just work throughout the day.” (Participant 20, Female, Advocate, Individual 

Interview)  

“Your laptop is right there; it is open; you are always checking your emails. You are 

always doing something, even in the middle of the night, whatever. So, I think then 

that is when it actually started being a problem, and creating a monster. I would think, 

because now when we went back into the office, and the transition going back into 

the office and productivity levels were seen to be quite high at the time when we 

were working from home. Because, as I said, you never really sign out.” (Participant 

2, Female, Legal Advisor, FGD 1) 

Unproductivity while remote working 

Some participants found that they could not be as productive as they wanted and found 

it difficult to adapt to remote working and the lack of face-to-face engagement: 

“So, it was very difficult at that point to get any work done, to do anything. And then 

at home with the work situation, everyone is trying to adapt to this new system where 

we need to start getting our service on track at the office, trying to get everything 

sorted out.” (Participant 18, Female, Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“There were quite a few gaps. Things like, you know, not being given second 

screens, and third screens and things like that and unfortunately, I am also someone 

who is resistant to change. So, I needed things like that, and I had to source them 

myself in order to be productive. And then I also had to figure out ways around the 

lack of face-to-face time, so that was quite the challenge as far as transitioning…” 

(Participant 8, Female, Legal Advisor/Counsel, FGD 1) 

Presenteeism 

Of note in the FGDs and individual interviews, was the subject of presenteeism and how 

some participants, especially those who are junior professionals, felt that they needed to 

appear to be productive for the sake of presenteeism:  

“No, definitely like you said, the game for us is more what is seen to be done above 

what is being done. So, when you're at home, your boss cannot tell how busy you 

are, even though you send off a lot of emails, but they don't know when those emails 

were done, what it took to get to that e-mail, the discussions before.” (Participant 23, 

Male, Attorney, Individual Interview) 



28 

“I am a junior advocate, so you need your seniors around obviously to see you and 

to give you work. So, you are going to chambers because you are told that visibility 

is important, but the people you are trying to be visible to are not there. So, most of 

them are working at home.” (Participant 4, Female, Advocate, FGD 1)  

“Say as a junior counsel, you want to be there because there might be a senior 

counsel who needs a junior. And if they see you around, they might actually call you 

to ask you to assist them with something…” (Participant 20, Female, Advocate, 

Individual Interview) 

Internal Factors Affecting Participants 

The research findings revealed that a number of internal factors—personal to the 

participants in both the FGD and individual interviews—affected their experience while 

remote working. Some of the internal factors revealed were the number of people in the 

participants’ household, including spouses, roommates, and siblings, the presence of 

children, the nature of their work or law practiced, their living standards measure status 

and personal finances. 

Household size and the presence of children 

A small minority reported having to adjust their working hours because of their children, 

as their children needed their attention, which created difficulty when trying to work 

remotely. Some participants reported trouble with remote working owing to the presence 

of a spouse/significant other, sibling or housemate, which made it difficult to work, and 

led to some irritation and friction, especially when they needed to have meetings. 

“My husband happens to be an advocate as well. So that was a different ball game 

because we were obviously both working from home. So, we had to coordinate 

schedules as well so we would not disturb each other…” (Participant 19, Female, 

Advocate, Individual Interview) 

“So, I live in an apartment, and my flatmate was, of course, also working at home. 

And the space was incredibly tight. And I think that caused a bit of friction, and a bit 

of irritation on both sides. Particularly when he was in a meeting, and, or, I was in 

the meeting, and then the worst-case scenario was when we were both supposed to 

be in a meeting. So, I think living in a small space, particularly with somebody else 

who is also working at home; that was probably my biggest continual frustration over 

the lockdown period.” (Participant 15, Male, Advocate, FGD 2) 



29 

“… it was a bit difficult to work, because the toddler knew where I would be, and 

constantly come and try and talk to me or have my attention.” (Participant 16, 

Female, Advocate, FGD 2) 

“I had to do it with my fiancé at the time, who is also an attorney. And two attorneys 

who both are in litigation, shouting and screaming on the phone in a small 

environment, is not conducive to a healthy work environment.” (Participant 13, Male, 

Attorney, FGD 2) 

Nature of the work/law practiced 

A few participants believed that the type of law that they practiced or the nature of their 

work affected their ability to work remotely, indicating that not all types of law are 

conducive to remote working, while some, such as intellectual property, are:  

“… I think it really depended on the nature of your work. I see we have quite a wide 

gambit of practitioners here, both in-house and internal, external and the like. I have 

noticed that it depends really on the nature of your work, personalities, and facilities 

I guess that you have at home. And again, like we said, your station, be it senior or 

junior, or somewhere in between.” (Participant 9, Male, Attorney, FGD 1) 

“IP [Intellectual Property] is very much a legal field that lends itself to being able to 

work remotely, provided that you do have certain devices… IP is very much a field 

where there's a lot of remote interaction that's taking place… but a lot of fields don't 

lend itself to that, and I'm very much aware of it. So yeah, we can speak about remote 

work and the benefits and all, but reality is all fields don't lend itself to it.” (Participant 

25, Female, Attorney, Individual Interview)  

Living standard measure (LSM) status of the participants 

A few participants spoke about their LSM status and how their privilege helped shape 

their experience. They added how they felt they could afford to cushion themselves 

against some of the effects of working remotely, such as loadshedding:  

“I want to link this is more also in so far as the LSM discussion… I think that for me, 

what I realised during the lockdown was the immense privilege I had. Every obstacle 

that came, whether it was loadshedding… When loadshedding came I was in a 

position to buy a generator and I bought myself an iPad, and that type of stuff… I 

mean, I remember distinctly thinking about it, how privileged I am to be going through 

something like this in a situation where I can essentially afford to deal with setbacks. 

But that was not really the position of a lot of the people in my team, in the firm, 



30 

especially the secretaries and paralegals. And I mean, as a firm, we try to do our 

best, but there are certain realities that they could not deal with. There is the 

loadshedding obviously. Sometimes it might be an issue of paper. Sometimes it is 

airtime and data to be calling people, to be speaking to your boss and that type of 

stuff. So, I think what I picked up from an LSM perspective is how the pandemic 

actually magnified that. And I think the reality also is that the office is the ultimate 

mitigator of the discrepancies between LSMs, because essentially, when you come 

into the office, you are dressed professionally, and everybody’s coming there, and 

so. And you all have the same equal resources.” (Participant 11, Male, Attorney, 

FGD 2) 

Participants’ Finances 

Some participants reported being concerned about their finances and income at the time. 

These concerns were voiced mainly by participants who were advocates and not 

necessarily the attorneys or legal counsel. A few reported that remote working during the 

pandemic lockdown affected their careers, opportunities for growth, promotions, and 

bonuses:  

“You know, because you technically work for yourself, the biggest issue is even if 

you do not make money, you still have bills to pay. And not only your personal 

expenses, but the cost of keeping chambers, the cost of, yes, just running a practice, 

generally. And I found that as soon as COVID hit, people were reluctant to even pay 

you. So, I do not know if attorneys were sitting with our money, or clients were just 

not paying or what was happening, but there were just no payments even coming in. 

I think that everybody was just in a panic mode, and just holding on to what they had. 

So that was difficult, in that sense, chasing payments. And I think also, just 

departments, or government entities just not paying because… Also, yes withholding 

that money, or money being directed in government to other, to maybe COVID relief, 

and those sorts of things. So it really did put a strain on you trying to hit target, or 

you trying to make a living.” (Participant 4, Female, Advocate, FGD 1) 

“We just came straight out of pupillage. So, I did not have a very high expectation of 

a salary back then, but I think what did cause me a bit of anxiety is when I heard 

colleagues who apparently were still getting quite a lot of work at that point, and so I 

thought everybody in practice would take a bit of a downturn. And when I heard other 

people were doing perfectly fine; I think that, initially, caused me a bit of anxiety…” 

(Participant 15, Male, Advocate, FGD 2) 



31 

“As many probably can attest to when you are working in a big firm, the most 

important thing to deliver on is fees… And, yes, you know that has certainly had 

some severe negative impacts on me, my place in the firm. Promotions are generally 

fee-dependent. Partners look at that specifically. Certain firms, I do not think, pivoted 

when it came to fee generations. Some, kind of, steered the same course and did 

not deviate from that...” (Participant 13, Male, Attorney, FGD 2) 

External Factors Affecting Participants 

The findings, through the research instrument, revealed two external factors that affected 

the participants’ ability to work remotely: the effects of loadshedding, and participants’ 

access to the internet while remote working. The findings revealed that a majority of 

participants were unaffected or did not recall being affected by loadshedding or having 

difficulty with internet access while remote working during the COVID-19 lockdown 

period. Some participants indicated that they had access to solar electricity or 

generators, and had access to unlimited Wi-Fi at their homes because of fibre internet. 

One participant commented about how they did not have any loadshedding while working 

remotely, as their area did not have loadshedding normally, which did not change during 

lockdown. A few participants who had difficulties with internet access were able to sort 

the issue out and obtain better internet access during the lockdown. Of note is how the 

findings regarding the external factors are linked to the earlier discussion regarding LSM 

levels. It would appear that the participants’ LSM status may have cushioned them from 

the full force of loadshedding and internet access:  

Loadshedding and internet access while working remotely 

While most participants could not clearly recall whether loadshedding was a factor that 

hindered their ability to work remotely, many commented that they just knew that it was 

not as bad as it had since become. In the same way, very few participants recalled having 

internet access challenges. A few who were able to recall and comment on these factors 

stated:  

“When we bought the house, we put in solar panels, batteries, and a generator. So, 

from the loadshedding point of view, that's irrelevant to me” (Participant 24, Male, 

Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“I also had high speed Wi-Fi and I also had a generator. I live in a flat and the complex 

has a generator, and it runs everything when the power goes. Very fortunate.” 

(Participant 22, Male, Attorney, individual Interview) 



32 

“Yes, so there were no changes at home to be honest… because we do not get 

loadshedding here.” (Participant 18, Female, Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“… besides obviously loadshedding and, you know, the normal concerns of dealing 

with a business in South Africa, I think it was about the internet, and the reliance on 

it, and not having it fully available all the time.” (Participant 5, Male, Attorney, FGD 

1) 

I never had unlimited Wi-Fi at home because I never had a need for it. At the 

beginning of COVID, I was on a package that I found was running out quickly and 

because I was having online consultations most of the time, that was a problem. I 

had to spend a lot of money on that, but I eventually changed service providers and 

went onto a bigger package (Participant 20, Female, Advocate, Individual Interview)  

Mental Health and Physical Well-being  

The themes of mental health and physical well-being were derived from the research 

findings and separated into the mental health and physical effects experienced by the 

participants while remote working. A majority of participants reported feeling that their 

mental health had been severely affected as a direct consequence of being confined to 

their homes. The lack of socialisation with their colleagues and the fear of infection were 

some factors contributing to their feelings. A few participants also identified themselves 

as either introverted or extroverted and commented on how their personality traits could 

have affected their mental health and well-being. Further, some of the participants 

reported needing physiotherapy and suffering physical ailments because of having to 

work remotely:  

“To be confined to your own home and not being able to go see, you know, or meet 

a colleague, you know, in the lifts at work was a shock to the system and it was just, 

I just didn't enjoy it at all. So, on the on that level, you know, the confinement was 

just too much… You know, survive by being strong or you are going to perish. By 

not, you know, getting up to the required mental strength… there was definitely an 

impact.” (Participant 21, Male, Advocate, Individual Interview) 

When probed further on the lack of socialisation, however, Participant 21 clarified that 

while the lockdown had had an impact, he was satisfied with the lack of socialisation in 

his personal life and found that on the personal side more than on the professional side, 

he could be happy without having to be around people, although he regretted feeling that 

way:  



33 

“I think for me is just more on the personal side more than professional side. On the 

personal side, I've just been able to find that I can be happy without having to be 

around people so yeah, yeah so. But the real negative one I think is the more 

important one, and it is regretful.” (Participant 21, Male, Advocate, Individual 

Interview) 

Over and above Participant 21, the other participants stated the following: 

“… but the other things that really contributed to my mental breakdown really, was 

the fact that you lose friends and family within the hard lockdown. And sometimes 

you would be able to go to the funeral and sometimes you are not able to go to the 

funerals depending on how close you were to those people. If it is a friend, you are 

not able to go sometimes to the funeral because they had certain exceptions, 

obviously. And then also, having to live in the constant fear of getting infected. And 

then not being able to go anywhere.” (Participant 1, Female, Legal Advisor/Counsel, 

FGD 1) 

“It was tough working from home, again because I am, although introverted per se, 

I do draw my energy from people and maybe popping into someone’s office just to 

discuss a few things here and there, maybe get a few ideas, maybe walk around and 

this and that. So that was difficult definitely.” (Participant 11, Male, Attorney, FGD 2) 

“I think from a mental well-being perspective, I think I still feel like I need counselling. 

Just the adjustments and emotions that I went through during that time because, 

first, it was just very relaxed, thinking it is just going to be 21 days... So, emotionally, 

it definitely took a toll and also mentally. And you really needed to dig deep… I think 

that that human element, that’s when you know that intrinsically, as humans, we 

need that interaction. No matter how much of an introvert you are, you still need 

human interaction to feel alive. You know, after my Teams meetings with my team, 

I needed to get out and meet up with someone… because it felt right to just have 

human interaction.” (Participant 2, Female, Legal Advisor/Counsel, FGD 1) 

“My biggest challenge, I think, you know, when you are so used to being around 

people and then all of a sudden, you are not. And it almost somewhat felt like solitary 

confinement to me. At the time, I was living alone and yes, I went from having people 

around me to not. And I struggled really with that transition, and I started relying 

heavily on work and trying to keep myself busy, to kind of pass the time.” (Participant 

10, Female, Attorney, Focus Group Discission 1) 



34 

“But definitely started feeling more alienated from colleagues in chambers... but 

definitely on the social camaraderie and just feeling like you were part of a group. 

Suddenly you felt very much like almost like an outsider in your own group because 

of that lack of social niceties and interactions and coffee and lunch, those types of 

things.” (Participant 19, Female, Advocate, Individual Interview) 

Physical Effects of Remote Working 

A few participants reported that their physical health was also affected owing to the lack 

of proper tables and chairs:  

“I did get a sore back a little bit. I actually went for physio and at some stage, and 

you know, they said no, maybe you must move your screen.” (Participant 22, Male, 

Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“I struggled with, and I think what other people may have also struggled with, is 

initially not having that desk at home. So, now being forced to actually look into 

ergonomic desks and chairs and all of that. Because at some stage, at least for the 

first 21 days or so, the hard lockdown, you were working from bed if you did not have 

a desk. That was my situation. And I found that I developed a lot of backache. And I 

knew that it was because I did not have a proper structure where I can sit at a desk… 

now I find myself going to chiropractors every other month, just to, working on 

adjusting my back, or something or the other. Like, there are physical ailments that 

have come from working from home and not having those proper office structures 

that you have at the office.” (Participant 2, Female, Legal Advisor/Counsel, FGD 1) 

“I didn't have a desk or a proper chair other than the one that I had, which wasn't 

made or intended to be for long-term usage. So, my back, in fact, I did have an issue 

with my back. I had to go see a chiro.” (Participant 23, Male, Attorney, Individual 

Interview)  

“For me, the most draining part was working and having a child at home… and being 

pregnant. It was really a struggle and physically, I was already compromised with 

the pregnancy, I had a very difficult pregnancy.” (Participant 18, Female, Attorney, 

Individual Interview) 

Although overall, the findings revealed remote working affected the mental health of most 

participants, a few who reported not feeling overwhelmed, anxious, and depressed had 

strong familial bonds before the lockdown, even if the family did not all live in one house. 

The findings further revealed that the support of family or their faith assisted them in 



35 

combating the negative effects on their mental health. Some participants revealed that 

having a clear routine, discipline, work-life balance, taking part in regular exercise and 

having a hobby, such as cooking, was equally beneficial to them: 

“You need to set yourself boundaries and then stop and say OK, that's it for today. 

And also take regular breaks during the day. Whether you go get tea, go for a walk 

in the garden, go to the gym.” (Participant 24, Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“I wasn’t alone. I had someone to talk, my brother was there… we are a close-knit 

family and my whole family is here in Johannesburg… I was able to go to church, 

which was very important to me. I had my family online all the time, so I never had 

any mental issues or stress.” (Participant 20, Advocate, Individual Interview) 

The Future of Remote Work 

Lastly, the theme of the future of remote working for lawyers in South Africa emerged 

from the findings, given legal firms’ rigidity about keeping their offices, i.e. law firms for 

attorneys and chambers for advocates. Owing to their experiences with remote working 

during the COVID-19 lockdown, after the pandemic, most participants indicated that they 

were in favour of a hybrid working model, rather than full remote working or returning 

fully to the office, as they felt that this was wholly unnecessary. The choice of a hybrid 

working model was supported by the participants in the FGDs and in the individual 

interviews.  

Hybrid working model 

The hybrid model suited most participants because it allowed them to have the 

necessary interaction and meetings with their clients and colleagues, while also providing 

the flexibility they needed to align with their personal circumstances:  

“I think the dual system is best.… I work full time from home, basically, but I do go 

up to the office. And I actually see the value in it, when I am there, but when I am 

also working here from home... So, I see the value of keeping offices, even though 

you can just down-scale them, because every day is definitely not necessary.” 

(Participant 17, Female, Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“I think specifically for lawyers, I think we do need an office space because we 

interact with clients all the time. And sometimes what you can communicate over 

virtual meetings and what you can do in person is two different things… I do not think 

we need a permanent, you know, a big office where everyone must be there, but just 

something that… because I know there are a lot of people that want to be in the 



36 

office every day because they hate being at home.” (Participant 18, Female, 

Attorney, Individual Interview) 

“Although personally, I do not think we are at the stage where we would completely 

need to get rid of in-person, or being in brick and mortar, our offices. I think a hybrid 

model has definitely worked well. Sometimes you just want to be with people and 

sometimes you want more flexibility. So, I am definitely in support of a more hybrid 

model.” (Participant 9, Male, Attorney, FGD 1) 

Personal choice model 

Some participants commented that the decision on whether to work remotely should be 

left to the personal choice of each lawyer and their own circumstances: 

“I mean, there are lots of interesting technologies, and things like virtual reality, and 

things that are being worked on that have been prompted by this question. So, I 

mean, there are positives and negatives. I mean, I think, me, personally, I have really 

enjoyed going back to the office every day. I really enjoyed the interactions with 

everybody… I think everybody is mooting the hybrid working environment, but there 

are also positives and negatives to that also, and I think that it really does also 

depend at what stage you are on your career, and which one works better.” 

(Participant 11, Male, Attorney, FGD 1)  

Fully remote or fully in the office 

A few participants were in favour of either fully remote working or going back to the 

workplace completely:  

“I think for me, I am definitely leaning towards just having physical offices… And that 

is a big part to what we do, is actually having relationships with people. So, I think 

on that level, just being a junior associate now even, I can see the benefits of we are 

now back at the office more often, just on a learning and training aspect… So, I am 

definitely for having physical offices, especially just given the profession that we are 

in.” (Participant 3, Female, Advocate, FGD 2) 

“I would be in favour of full remote working personally… There's an American firm 

that went full remote working more than 25 years ago without any issues and they 

are still going strong today. They didn't disappear.” (Participant 24, Male, Attorney, 

Individual Interview)  



37 

6.  DISCUSSION 

Outline of the Results  

The findings from the research study revealed that the participants had a myriad of 

experiences from remote working during the COVID-19 lockdown period, shaped by 

factors that were present during the period. A discussion and summary of the findings 

follows below.  

The findings that the participants were grossly unprepared to work remotely during the 

time are in keeping with the findings of Galanti et al. (2021), that the sudden switch to 

remote working left many workers and employers unprepared (Galanti et al., 2021). 

Comments about the lack of equipment, such as tables and chairs, are in line with 

Ozimek’s (2020) study conducted in the US regarding the future of work, that the sudden 

and drastic shift had left many scrambling. A further study supporting this finding of 

unpreparedness was conducted by Arslan et al. (2022) amongst educators and 

instructors in Istanbul, Türkiye. It confirmed that there was very little time to adapt to 

remote working, which left most educators/instructors “unprepared and caught by 

surprise” (Arslan et al., p. 80). A study by Aigbavboaet al. (2022), conducted in South 

Africa’s construction industry amongst 825 contracting parties, seems to have cemented 

the findings of many people’s unpreparedness to work remotely, irrespective of the 

industry or the country’s economic standing.  

The findings regarding participants’ productivity and their susceptibility to overwork when 

the boundaries became blurred echoed the findings of Hardill and Green (2003) on the 

topic following their study on remote working in the UK. A study conducted in China by 

Bloom et al. (2015) amongst call centre workers found that, on average, the productivity 

and performance of these employees while working remotely increased by 13%, with 9% 

of the workforce operating longer hours while working remotely. This study also 

compared perceptions of remote working in China versus the US, where concerns 

existed about the effectiveness of remote working, referring to it instead as “shrinking 

from home” because of the lack of supervision. These findings on productivity varied 

depending on the circumstances of each study, and are in keeping with this study’s 

findings that productivity is to be determined on a case-by-case basis.  

The findings of presenteeism amongst the participants reflect the findings by Lufkin 

(2021) of the widespread practice of presenteeism in the workplace. One of the 

participants in Lufkin’s study referred to it as a “game we play”. However, there is data 



38 

to support that the practice of presenteeism is likely most detrimental to junior 

professionals, while those who had senior, more established careers were not as 

affected. 

The findings on the experiences of lawyers in multi-person households are supported by 

those of Eddleston and Mulki (2017) pre-pandemic regarding work-family boundaries. 

Their study, conducted in the US on gender, workplace boundaries and work-life 

balance, noted a blurring of lines, and “their work seemed to bleed” into their home lives 

(Eddleston & Mulki, 2017, p. 377). Although a distinction between the effects of remote 

working on working mothers versus fathers was outlined in Helsel (2014) and Alon et al. 

(2020), such a distinction could not be drawn from the information received in this 

research study. In keeping with the views expressed by Singh et al. (2013) and Peters 

et al. (2004), that certain types of professions lend themselves to remote work, this 

study’s results revealed that the nature of the work or type of law that the participants 

practiced affected their ability to work remotely during the lockdown period. The findings 

revealed that electricity/loadshedding and internet access posed a challenge for some 

participants, as confirmed by Matli (2020), and affected their ability to work remotely. 

However, the participants in this research study appear not to have been as severely 

affected because they could afford solar electricity or generators thanks to their LSM 

status. A clear link emerged between participants’ LSM statuses and their ability to 

mitigate or cushion some of the effects of loadshedding and electricity access. Although, 

it is noteworthy that even though the participants all occupy the highest LSM levels of 

between 8 and 10, their lack of preparation resulted in some not having adequate 

equipment or experiencing back problems.  

Finally, the findings confirmed the impact of remote working on participants’ mental 

health and physical well-being. This was reported by Oakman et al. (2020) in their study 

conducted in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Belgium, South Africa, Brazil, 

Germany, and The Netherlands, and by Nijp et al. (2016) in their study in The 

Netherlands. These studies found that the impact on individuals’ mental and physical 

health varied considerably (Nijp et al., 2016; Oakman et al., 2020). A study by Filardi et 

al. (2020) conducted in Brazil amongst 98 teleworkers and 28 managers found that the 

disadvantages to remote working included psychological problems, non-adaption to 

remote working, lack of communication amongst company employees of the company 

and a feeling of disconnection with the company.  

Contrary to the findings of Ozimek (2020) regarding the full support of remote working in 

the future, this study’s findings reveal that the participants are in favour of a more hybrid 



39 

or personal choice model, which would allow them to still consult with their clients, while 

having the choice and flexibility to work remotely should the need arise. It should be 

noted that the participants in the Ozimek study were not the employees themselves, but 

hiring managers, including executives and managers who were directly involved in the 

decision making of the business. Conversely, our participants could be largely referred 

to as employees, hence the deviation in the results.  

Practical Implications 

The findings suggest that mental health should be prioritised when employees work 

remotely and, in this regard, in the legal profession. The study highlighted the importance 

of practical and emotional support to those within the profession, especially if remote 

work is to be successful in the future. The findings also emphasised the somewhat 

isolated nature of the profession, where the participants were mostly left to their own 

devices, while the employers only wanted to see results. This, coupled with strict and 

rigid rules, proved to take a toll on the mental and physical health of many. This suggests 

that factors such as fee-generation and presenteeism should not be seen as the only 

measures in determining productivity, promotions, bonuses, and other opportunities for 

growth. Further, in light of the self-reported effects that working remotely had on the 

participants, mental health and emotional support are vital.  

Limitations 

A limitation that often arises when data is collected using focus group discussions 

(FGDs) is groupthink, which refers to the psychological phenomenon that occurs when 

the group has a desire to reach consensus (Welman et al., 2005). Thus, efforts are made 

by the participants of that group to find common ground, minimising conflict, and 

evaluating available options and solutions (Boateng, 2012). Groupthink is more prevalent 

where strong personalities within a focus group take on a “leadership” role and sway the 

group or affect how others respond (Irminger-Underwood, 2021). However, this was not 

observed by the researcher during the FGDs. 

Another limitation is that of recall bias, which occurs when an attempt is made to collect 

data retrospectively, or after the event has already happened, and is not necessarily 

reflective of the participants’ experiences (Bose, 2001). Given that the time frame to 

which this study related was between March 2020 to December 2021, and that the 

participants were requested to answer questions about events that happened in the past, 

the researcher was aware of the possibility that they may remember certain events or 

details more vividly than others. 



40 

As the data was collected mostly online via Microsoft Teams, with the participants and 

researcher physically distanced from each other, this had the potential to marginalise 

participants who may not have had access to a personal computer or an electronic 

device, or to internet access to enable them to participate in an FGD or individual 

interview. Therefore, the study results may be biased towards law practitioners who had 

the resources to participate in the study. 

The manner in which the participants were selected creates the potential for selection 

bias. The research study was conducted in a metropolitan setting with participants who 

live in and around Johannesburg, in the wealthiest province in the country. Therefore, 

the results cannot be generalised to all lawyers in South Africa who live in less affluent 

cities and provinces, and whose experiences may have differed from those of the 

participants who were selected for this study.  

7. CONCLUSION  

As outlined in the research objectives, the researcher succeeded in conducting research 

on the topic and, through the research and analysis, determined how a group of South 

African lawyers experienced remote working during the COVID-19 lockdown. The 

researcher also identified the internal and external factors that affected their experiences, 

and determined how these experiences affected them mentally and physically.  

The key takeaways of the research were that, while South African lawyers could work 

remotely during the lockdown period, they were unprepared for doing so. Their 

productivity varied from being very productive to the point of overwork and burnout, to 

struggling to be productive. Some participants were influenced by factors that made the 

experience more challenging than for others. These were mainly internal and personal 

to them, such as their household size, children, the nature of work, and finances. These 

factors affected them mentally and physically. When considering remote working for the 

future, the hybrid model would be most favoured by those in the profession. 

8. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The problem statement was to investigate the remote working experiences of South 

African lawyers during the COVID-19 lockdown, due to the lack of comprehensive 

research and literature on the subject. The research results revealed that the participants 

had a myriad of experiences, and a number of internal factors and external factors had 



41 

an effect on their experiences. Furthermore, that attorneys and advocates had somewhat 

varying experiences when it came to preparedness, productivity, and finances. As a 

result suggestions were made during follow-up research that a cross-sectional qualitative 

comparison study be conducted on the experiences of advocates versus those of 

attorneys of different ages and different seniority levels. This could include a comparison 

between legal professionals who occupy junior positions (professional assistants, 

associates, baby advocates, and junior advocates) and those who occupy senior 

positions, such as senior associates, partners, senior advocates, and senior counsel.  

The research results point to a huge impact on the mental health and well-being on the 

participants and a need for mental intervention and assistance programmes that can be 

established for workers in the future following a pandemic of this nature. Follow-up 

research should be conducted on how employers can help to mitigate or lessen the 

impact of remote working on the mental health and wellbeing on junior attorneys and 

advocates.  This would be especially pertinent for when employees are required to spend 

extended periods in their homes, isolated, and working remotely. During the last few 

years of the pandemic, the emphasis on physical and mental well-being has been 

directed towards frontline workers and healthcare workers, with a limited focus on other 

types of employees, including programmes directed at employees in the legal profession.  

There is an urgent need for the government to work proactively at putting future 

interventions in place, especially against the background of the failing mental health care 

system that already exists in South Africa (Nguse & Wassenaar, 2021).  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This article is partially based on the author’s thesis for the degree of Master of Business 

Administration at the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the 

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, under the supervision of Dr Drikus Kriek. 

The researcher extends her gratitude to all the Advocates, Attorneys and Legal Counsel 

who participated in this research study and agreed to be interviewed.  

Competing interests 

The author declares that she has no financial or personal relationships that may have 

inappropriately influenced her in writing this article. 



42 

Ethical considerations  

Ethical clearance was granted by the Wits Business School Ethics Committee, 

constituted under the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics 

Committee (Non-Medical), under ethics protocol number: WBS/BA2507430/416.   



43 

REFERENCES 

Aigbavboa, C. O., Aghimien, D. O., Thwala, W. D., & Ngozwana, M. N. (2022). 

Unprepared industry meet pandemic: COVID-19 and the South Africa construction 

industry. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 20(1), 183-200. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2021-0079 

Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A review of key paradigms: Positivism vs 

interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 

39-43. 

Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M. (2020). The impact of COVID-

19 on gender equality (Working paper 26947). National Bureau of Economic 

Research. 

Arslan, A., Yener, S., Korkmaz, F., & Alola, U. V. (2022). Caught unprepared: 

Consequences of getting full online during a pandemic. Revista de Cercetare si 

Interventie Sociala, 77. 66-88. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.77.5 

Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role 

of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems 

approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207-

215.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019 

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? 

Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, 130(1), 165-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032 

Boateng, W. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of focus group discussion (FGD) in 

qualitative social research. International Journal of Business and Social 

Science, 3(7). 54-57 

Bolisani, E., Scarso, E., Ipsen, C., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P. (2020). Working from 

home during COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned and issues. Management & 

Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 15(1), 458-476. 

https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2020-0027 

Bose, J. (2001). Nonresponse bias analyses at the National Center for Education 

Statistics. Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium: Achieving Data Quality in 

a Statistical Agency: A Methodological Perspective, Ottawa, 29 October 2001. 

Statistics Canada. 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. 

Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.) APA handbook of research 

methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, 

neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological 

Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004 

https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.77.5


44 

Briggs, S. (2021, July 13). Connectivity in South Africa: the numbers you need to know. 

itweb.africa. https://itweb.africa/content/dgp45Ma6yKxqX9l8 

Budnitz, H., & Tranos, E. (2022). Working from home and digital divides: Resilience 

during the pandemic. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112(4), 

893-913, https//doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.1939647 

Cadena, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research: interactions and 

experiences. MedUNAB, 22(3), 292-293. https://doi.org/10.29375/01237047.3746 

Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining 

employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management 

Review, 16(2), 199-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.012 

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges 

and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123. 

https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/937596  

Creamer, T. (2021, November 8). Creamer Media's Engineering News. Retrieved May 

2022 from: https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/with-south-africa-set-to-

breach-1-000-hours-of-load-shedding-in-2021-concerns-grow-about-maintenance-

finance-and-skills-2021-11-08#:~:text=This%20year%20is%20also%20set,

shed%2C%20mostly%20at%20Stage%202 

Cypress, B. rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: perspectives, 

strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical 

Care Nursing, 36(4), 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000253   

Duszynski, M. (2021, July 01). Remote Work and Telecommuniting Statistics for 2021. 

ResumeLab. https://resumelab.com/job-search/remote-work-statistics?utm_

source=google&utm_medium=sem&utm_campaign=6540517835&utm_term=%2B

working%20from%20%2Bhome%20%2Bstatistics&network=g&device=c&adpositi

on=&adgroupid=104067133394&placement=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwspKUBhCvAR 

Eddleston, K. A., & Mulki, J. (2017). Toward understanding remote workers’ 

management of work–family boundaries: The complexity of workplace 

embeddedness. Group & Organization Management, 42(3), 346-387. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115619548 

Eisenberger, R., Malone, G. P., & Presson, W. D. (2016). Optimizing perceived 

organizational support to enhance employee engagement. Society for Human 

Resource Management and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 

2, 3-22. 

Ferreira, R., Pereira, R., Bianchi, I. S., & da Silva, M. M. (2021). Decision factors for 

remote work adoption: Advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges. 

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 70. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010070 

https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000253


45 

Filardi, F., de Castro, R. M. P., & Zanini, M. T. F. (2020). Advantages and 

disadvantages of teleworking in Brazilian public administration: Analysis of 

SERPRO and Federal Revenue experiences. Cadernos EBAPE. BR, 18, 28-46. 

https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395174605x 

Fleming, J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2018). Methodologies, methods, and ethical 

considerations for conducting research in work-integrated learning. International 

Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 205-213. 

Foreign Press Center Japan . (2020, May 2020). Coronavirus pandemic has 

exacerbated Japan’s Hanko Stamp problem—Will it improve? Foreign Press 

Center Japan: https://fpcj.jp/en/useful-en/wjn-en/p=81156/ 

Foster, M. (2021, November 8). The effects of the pandemic on the legal industry. 

Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/11/08/the-

effects-of-the-pandemic-on-the-legal-industry/?sh=6b68edff7f77 

Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from 

home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work 

productivity, engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine, 63(7), e426-e432. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236 

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008) Methods of data collection in 

qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal 204, 291-

295. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192 

Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE 

Publications. 

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing 

Company. 

Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the 

psychological factors affecting remote e‐worker's job effectiveness, well‐being and 

work‐life balance. Employee Relations, 35(5), 527-546. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-

08-2012-0059 

Hardill, I., & Green, A. (2003). Remote working—altering the spatial contours of work 

and home in the new economy. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 

212-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00122 

Helsel, P. B. (2014). Gender roles. In D. A. Leeming (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Psychology 

and Religion. (pp. 700-702). Springer. 

ILO. (2020). Teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A practical 

guide. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups

/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_

751232.pdf 

https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236


46 

Irminger-Underwood, T. (2021, March 21). How to get around groupthink in focus 

groups. InterQ. https://interq-research.com/how-to-get-around-groupthink-in-focus-

groups// 

Kawulich, B. B. (2005, May). Participant observation as a data collection method. 

Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466 

Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method: Grounded theory. International 

journal of business and management, 9(11), 224-233. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p224 

Kim, A. W., Nyengerai, T., & Mendenhall, E. (2022). Evaluating the mental health 

impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perceived risk of COVID-19 infection and 

childhood trauma predict adult depressive symptoms in urban South 

Africa. Psychological Medicine, 52(8), 1587-1599. https://doi.org/10.1101/

2020.06.13.20130120 

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. 

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222. 

https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214Kurland, N. B. & Bailey, N. B. K. D. E. (1999). 

The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. 

Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 53-68. 

Lufkin, B. (2021, June 7). If the pandemic has taught us anything about work, it's that 

we don't need to be pulling long hours in an office to be productive. So, why is 

presenteeism still so important? BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/

20210604-why-presenteeism-always-wins-out-over-productivity 

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter 

in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research, Journal of 

Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22, 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667 

Matli, W. (2020). The changing work landscape as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic: 

insights from remote workers life situations in South Africa. International Journal of 

Sociology and Social Policy, 40(9/10) 1237-1256. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-

08-2020-0386 

Messenger, J. C., & Gschwind, L. (2016) Three generations of telework: new ICTs and 

the (r)evolution from home office to virtual office. New Technology Work and 

Employment, 31(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12073 

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification 

strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. 

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202 

https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214


47 

Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Lockwood, C., Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014). Establishing 

confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: The ConQual approach. 

BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(108). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-

14-108. 

Nikolopoulou, K. (2022, December 2). What Is Snowball Sampling? | Definition & 

Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 17, 2022 from: 

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/snowball-sampling/ 

Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G., van de Voorde, K., Geurts, S. A., & Kompier, M. A. (2016). 

Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health, and job-

related outcomes. Chronobiology international, 33(6), 604-618. 

https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2016.1167731 

Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus 

group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in 

conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20-32. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 

Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V. (2020). A rapid review 

of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise 

health? BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1-13.- 

Ozimek, A. (2020). The future of remote work. Available at SSRN 3638597. 

Page, M. (2020, Septemb