Frenetic Pace of a Lawyer's Job Raises Concerns
Onerous deadlines are now being blamed for a host of problems including a spike in anxiety and depression in the legal profession.
April 29, 2019 at 10:35 AM
6 minute read
More malpractice claims caused by human error. Constant stress. Fractured relationships. These are just some of the consequences that experts and lawyers fear will only get worse as the pace of legal work accelerates.
In more than a dozen interviews with New York lawyers, experts on workplace culture and even significant others, a complex picture emerged. Some lawyers find the technology that allows them to see a Broadway show while waiting for an important document to be a blessing. But others see the 24/7 legal world as debilitating and are looking for ways to manage unreasonable clients.
While repeatedly missing family dinners or working an exhausting schedule is nothing new in the legal profession, some lawyers are downright nostalgic about the days when they were forced to wait for an adversary's reply by U.S. mail or stay at the printers until all the commas in a document were fixed. At least, they say, that gave them time to ponder their next move.
“We want to feel that we're knowledgeable and wise and smart and have answers but in reality, we have to have time to think,” said Heidi Brown, a Brooklyn Law School professor who advises lawyers and law students on how to overcome fear and anxiety.
The detrimental effect of unrealistic deadlines set by clients and colleagues has been well-documented by the American Bar Association and is a focus of its efforts to improve lawyer well-being. The New York State Bar Association has also cautioned lawyers against imposing unnecessary deadlines on adversaries in its new standards on civility, released this month.
Onerous deadlines that once may have been seen as a way to put an adversary on edge are now being blamed for a host of problems including a spike in anxiety and depression, an increase in human error and rising dissatisfaction among spouses who tell experts they don't want their partners with them if their attention is focused elsewhere.
“I spoke at a partner retreat last week and had the opportunity to sit down with some of the spouses who were attending and every single one of them brought up this topic. That's one of the things that families say very clearly,” said Paula Davis-Laack, who left the legal profession to get a master's in psychology and is now a law firm consultant. “The culture is I'm going to miss out on something if I don't check my phone every 10 minutes. We've made it so that everything is a fire drill and so we're on all the time and that just creates a ton of stress.”
Patrick Krill, a behavioral health expert focused on the legal industry, tackled the topic of unreasonable deadlines set by partners in a column for ALM. which publishes the New York Law Journal. In it, he wrote, “The pace of life and business are increasing, while our available downtime seems to be shrinking exponentially with every iteration of the iPhone. Any reasonable and candid person would acknowledge that it feels like an unsustainable path. And it feels that way because it is.”
Davis-Laack, who left the legal profession because of burnout, said there appears to be a relationship between the quickening pace and malpractice claims caused by human error. She said one legal malpractice provider saw the percent of claims caused by mistakes increase from 13% to 63% over five years. More study is needed to get to the root cause, she said.
Some lawyers are dissuading clients from bothering them in the evening and on weekends and turning down work that interferes with family time. But many lawyers shrug their shoulders and say they have no choice but to move even faster to keep up.
“I think the practice of the law itself, whether you are at a big firm or small firm, has become more demanding. We're in an instant-gratification society. I think technology has increased that expectation,” said Henry Morgenbesser, a name partner at Katzke & Morgenbesser.
“My wife tells me I hunch over a computer all day and the first thing I do when I come home is hunch over it on my kitchen table,' he said.
But Morgenbesser is keenly aware that now that he has his own practice he has more control over when and where he works. Morgenbesser's partner, Michael Katzke, as a matter of fact, turned away a promising new client in favor of watching his son play lacrosse. The CEO called him on a Friday and wanted the work done by Sunday.
Michael Levine, a partner at Rappaport, Glass, Levine & Zullo, said cases are litigated with more intensity than they were when he first started practicing and clients expect more than ever. He frequently calls clients at 9 p.m. on a weekday or on the weekend.
“They want to hear from me. I say take note that your attorney is working on your matter on a Sunday morning. I do that in a teasing way but I want them to know their attorney is working on their matter on a weekend day because that's what they expect nowadays,” he said.
Andrew Oringer, chair of the committee on attorney professionalism for the New York State Bar Association and co-chair of Dechert's Employee Retirement Income Security Act and executive compensation group, said there is a way to put the most important people in your life first without shortchanging the legal practice.
“Not that you have utter control over the work part but if you're the kind of person who's willing to give up your weekends, then grab something back during the weeknights. If you choose to work an extra 7 hours on Friday night, you might free up a lot of your Saturday,” he said.
“I think part of it is getting the other people in your life to understand it,” he said. “My wife would be upset by this kind of stuff. I'd be outside and she'd be with our two friends and I'd miss the lion's share of dinner. I used to say to her you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have all the rewards and none of the downsides.”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Trending Stories
- 1Getting Cameras in Federal Courts Will Take More than Logic
- 2Emerson Electric Opens Wallet to Reward New CLO for Fast Start
- 3Kirkland Hires Real Estate Finance Partners in New York
- 4Delaware Governor Names Magistrate Judge as Next Vice Chancellor
- 5Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250