Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

Tips on Working Remotely

March 26, 2020 - LADC e-newsletter

Amber B. Garcia

share this page

Working remotely is becoming the way of the present and future of most law firms and businesses these days. Having electronic files and internet access makes it possible to work from any part of the globe at any time. This has enormous benefits for attorneys because this allows us to just do that, work from any area of the globe at any time. Some may even say working remotely is a pro and a con because having the access and ability to work remotely means you may work whenever wherever. Some may say being able to work remotely blurs the lines of work life balance; but it is times like these when working remotely and providing your assistants and paralegals with the ability to work remotely is most crucial to your success as an attorney and professional duty to your clients.

To help ease the transition between the "traditional office" and "working remote" practices of law, here are a few tips:

  1. Stick to a Schedule. Whatever your schedule may be or whatever schedule works well for you, stick to it. If you are a morning person whose work product thrives on those early hours, maybe you have a 4am or 6am start time to 2pm or 4pm. If you are a night owl who works better once everyone is asleep, maybe your start time is much later in the day around 4pm or 6pm. Whatever works for you personally, set a work time schedule and stick to it.
  2. Create a Workspace. When deciding to work remotely, you should create a workspace within your home or hotel (depending on the circumstances) that best supports a working environment. Science shows that mixing your work space and your sleep space is usually not the best idea as using your sleep space as your work space for long durations may interrupt your sleep patterns. If possible, create a space that you and your brain (including your family and friends) know that is your workspace. Make it comfortable. Make it inviting. Make it yours. But most of all make it about work. You will train yourself to know when in that space this is where the work gets done.
  3. Communicate and Collaborate. Working remotely does not mean being cut off from your co-workers, your team, or your clients. Thankfully, in 2020, we have WiFi just about anywhere and are able to connect to our e-mail, including on our smart phones. Send e-mails regularly and often. Communicate with your team members to let them know what you are working on, what you need, your deadlines, your expectations, and your weekly plan. Set up weekly "check-in" calls with your team members. If need be, set up daily "check-in" calls with your secretary and paralegals. Depending on your work load and management style, it is also a good idea to circulate work flowcharts listing out all the active cases you are working on, all applicable deadlines, assignments done, being done, and needing to be done and circulating to all your team members. Indicate who is responsible for doing what assignments by what deadline to ensure the work on the case is being done and accomplished. This will help to keep everyone aware and on the same page and will also give you some peace of mind that your active cases are still handled and being worked up. It promotes accountability and highlights the necessary information to communicate with clients and to ensure that no deadlines are overlooked or missed.
  4. Be consistent. Humans like consistency, so a routine is not bad. Make sure you are being consistent with your habits and schedule so you are able to be productive and responsive to your co-workers, team members, and clients.
  5. Be disciplined. Ok, so this one seems like the easy tip and the one that got most of us through law school. You do not make it through law school and study for the hell that is the bar exam without having some ounce of self-discipline. However, the reality is that the self-discipline aspect of working remotely is the toughest one for most attorneys. When people are not in a structured environment with firm do's and dont's, they struggle to flourish and accomplish the assignments at hand. This is where your schedule, workspace, and flowcharts noted above are crucial. You have to set in place those firm do's and dont's according to your own personality, circumstances, and triggers. For example, if you decide your schedule for work hours will be 9am to 6pm, then you will be doing work and only work between those hours just as if you were at the office. If you were in your office during those hours, you wouldn't be doing laundry, fixing lunches, or shopping online (ideally), so you should not be doing those extra-curricular tasks during those hours while working remotely either.

Most of all, working remotely is truly a luxury and benefit of being in the work force in 2020. It should be viewed and accepted as a positive element and a necessary one in today's world. If you and your co-workers are set up to work remotely, this promotes flexibility in the workspace but also promotes productivity. Unfortunately for us, COVID-19 and the necessity to quarantine has forced many law firms to embrace working remotely; but let's use this as a way of proactively embracing the inevitable future and use this time to adapt and execute a systemized plan to make the "working remote" option a part of our work lifestyle. The benefits will be long-lasting!

This article, written by Deutsch Kerrigan attorney Amber Garcia, was originally published via LADC e-newsletter on March 26, 2020.

Firm Highlights

  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan celebrates 100 years of legal leadership across Louisiana and the Gulf Coast

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims