Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Email: The Reality in Law in 2013

Prologue and executive summary: This article details my current attitudes about email management, which can be a touchy subject.  I've been on both ends of the spectrum.  However, as of 2013, I've become convinced that no matter what the time management experts say, lawyers as service professionals are oblidged to pick up the pace regarding crafting responses to their clients because that's what the market expects.  Obviously, I invite responses.

I get a lot of emails. You get a lot of emails. Some days, the volume of (and the content contained within) these emails can be overwhelming. 

Many, many pages have been written about managing email. These days, the prevailing advice by time management experts seems to be: (1) turn off your in-box alarm; and (2) set designated times to review and respond to emails.  Email is an interruption says these experts.  Manage the interruption.

Solid advice, but how does that play in real life - especially for professionals whose mission is providing service like no other?

It really doesn’t play at all.

Why?

Because: (1) our clients are paying us good money to respond to questions, requests for assistance, status updates, etc.; (2) they don’t consider their emails to be interruptions; and (3) by virtue of the speed at which our world travels, people – including our clients - have developed an expectation of the “instantness” of a reply. Lastly, (4) if you’re not willing or able to expedite on your email responses, one of your competitors will be glad to (or at least will make the promise to be faster than you when they’re pitching your client).

In 1996, email was quaint.  In 2013, email has largely replaced all other forms of communication in the business world – including the telephone (sorry, we don’t have a lot of clients who text). And though email has replaced the phone and it’s written communication, clients (at least it’s my perception) expect speed and attention akin to a phone call when they email. 

The product of these realities (at least in my book)? The default rule – at least for the service professional is - answer your email ASAP.

Our clients have expectations, which – whether you agree with them or not – have been shaped by the world as it exists in 2013.  Therefore, your decision is whether you’re going to meet the challenge of doing the best to serve your clients’ interests as quickly as practicable/possible or continue to operate in way that suits only your purposes and preferences.  Note: Remember, it’s about the client and not you.

Obviously, there are parameters in which you should work.  You can’t spend all day in front of your laptop or handheld, awaiting for email to respond to.  Moreover, some responses require careful and considered thought and maybe even a telephone call or face-to-face meeting rather than a full-blown written response. 

Notwithstanding these considerations, I’ve developed the opinion that waiting 3-4-5-6 hours to respond to an email that requires a response is not altogether a good idea for the lawyer as service professional.  While you may not have a complete answer at the time the question or request is posed, at the very least respond with the acknowledgement that you have received the email and are working on a reply (along with a timeframe you both can live with for ultimate resolution).  The failure to even acknowledge the client in a timely manner is – in my book – where the lawyer as service profession can get himself or herself crossways with the client.  Don’t cause that pain for the client.

You say, “Fine Stegmaier, you want me to answer emails as close to the time when they come in. That sounds great, but I can’t keep up with that pace, do my other work, and be able to go home at a reasonable time.  How do you fix that?” Well, that sounds like email volume is always heavy, if not too much. If the volume is overwhelming on a daily basis, the overarching problem is capacity, which lends itself to discussions regarding delegation, process, etc.  More on that as well travel down the road of exploring lawyer as service professional.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Nosiness vs. Sincere Interest: The Difference When It Comes to Questioning Clients and Prospective Clients

Many law firm partners read yesterday's (January 7) Wall Street Journal article regarding the continued deterioration of the legal market, which has included a good many partners as casualties. See Law Firm Partners Face Layoffs (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578221891691032424.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) or see a free summary of the same in the ABA Journal (@ABAJournal)Partner Layoffs Haven’t Ended in BigLaw, Surveys Indicate http://dlvr.it/2lv5CB.

For most reading the article, this wasn't news.

As noted in these articles, it's not enough to be a good lawyer anymore. A partner also has to be a good business person. Said one lawyer interviewed for the WSJ article who his new job at a law firm last year, "You're only as secure as the amount of money you bring in." This is the new normal for law firm partners ....

As a result of this new reality, these partners (myself included) are compelled to spend substantial time, effort, and resource both cultivating new business, as well as expanding work with existing clients. This cultivation and expansion is done through a variety of ways, including seeking referrals, attending industry meetings and meeting new folks (which includes follow up), and simply asking existing clients whether they have additional legal work, which needs to be done.

These conversations between counsel and client (or prospective client) can sometimes yield some negative responses, such as: "We would never pay those rates," or "We've got all the lawyers we need," or (even worse) "We had a bad experience with one of your lawyers several years back."

Those responses can be tough to hear. The natural inclination when hearing this pushback is to end the conversation and take it to mean a big, fat no. However, for the service-oriented attorney - the one who truly wants to help and win the trust of his client (or prospective client) - you can't just leave it at that.

As taught to me by my friend and coach, Walker McKay (@walkermckay), you have to respond to the negative ultimately with the request to ask some questions to really get down to whether "no" means "no." If allowed to ask those questions, you need to find out what the problem or roadblock is and whether it can be negotiated. If it can, then there's a chance a relationship can be formed (or expanded). And if it can't, then that's fine too. The lawyer can focus his or her efforts elsewhere.

What Walker said yesterday in a conversation about this questioning was particularly astute and should be heeded: "The difference [in these situations] between just being nosy and being sincerely interested is intent."

As a service professional, our sincere interest should be in helping and earning trust; accordingly, the tone and tenor of the questioning should evince that interest. Trust may be earned when the client/prospective client can tell that notwithstanding the initial hesitancy to even continue the conversation, you have a genuine interest in helping solve their problems. Because, ultimately, all the client wants is their problems to be solved.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Lawyer as Service Professional: An Introduction

Arguably, the biggest complaints a client has about his or her lawyer center on: (1) a lack of responsiveness; and (2) a feeling of being taken for granted.

Lawyers who are honest recognize they likely have been guilty of one or both of these complaints.

This blog is for those honest lawyers who seek to be responsive to their clients and completely serve their needs.

I look forward to the journey.