Billable Hours and Work Flexibility: Navigating the Paradox in Law Firms

Abstract

Flexible work promises control over where and when work is performed, yet organisations still need credible performance evidence at a distance. Drawing on 30 interviews with women lawyers in UK‐based international firms, we examine how billable hours mediate these demands. Records of billable hours allow fee‐earning output to be observed regardless of where the work is performed. This visibility can warrant flexible work, while the continuing availability of the same record preserves review and encourages self‐monitoring. We develop datafied trust to describe confidence in remote productivity warranted by recorded output and conditional on its continued measurability. The evidence speaks more strongly to control than to autonomy. Participants describe critical awareness, target pressure, and the possibility that flexibility will be questioned when figures decline. The study specifies how an established professional metric makes autonomy governable. It also shows how selective, self‐reported records can support oversight and self‐government without invasive automatic monitoring.