Technology Is Limiting the Depth of Lawyer-Client Relationships
It may make work easier in some ways, but tech can remove the human touch from the profession.
January 16, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Contacts. It's all about contacts. That's what older lawyers say, anyway. They grew up in an age when it was common to spend hours—even days—in the same room as lawyers from another firm, as advisers on both sides of a deal or case attempted to hammer out an agreement.
Technology has changed all that. Nowadays, lawyers spend hours on conference calls as terms are negotiated, but they have much less of the face-to-face contact that once built strong professional relationships—even friendships—between practitioners of competing firms.
The effect is that younger lawyers simply do not get to know people like their predecessors did. And it is not just other private practice lawyers they see less of. It has become easy to have client relationships that involve little to no real-life interaction.
Lawyers are instructed by email. They liaise with clients by email. And sometimes they even celebrate a deal completion by email. While celebratory food and drinks were once a staple part of corporate dealmaking, many say it has become difficult to get clients out for meals due to anti-bribery regulations.
And yet that human touch is what in-house lawyers are constantly asking for—not necessarily in the form of face-to-face meetings, but in the way that extra detail and advice naturally flows from genuine relationships, as opposed to purely professional interactions.
One head of legal at a well-known U.K. institution recently bemoaned the fact that her business' panel firms frequently fail to go beyond the absolute basics. She wanted a lawyer who could proactively tell her the advice they have offered to other companies in the same sector and what it would mean for her team. But she wasn't getting it, and now plans to make changes when the roster is next reviewed.
Surely her need for tailored advice rather than some robotic service that treats everyone the same would be best addressed through personal interaction.
Her problems are trivial compared to those of the group worst affected by all of this: private practice lawyers. The drudgery of a demanding mandate is a lot more depressing when you don't know the client. While money is the ultimate reason for working, there are few successful lawyers who think of it that way. Over the long term, loyalty to clients and providing an excellent service are more powerful motivators than the simple satisfaction of generating fees.
Take away the human element from a relationship and lawyers could be forgiven for feeling like they are working for their laptops and iPhones. It is hard to feel loyalty toward a nebulous concept of a client. And it is hard to feel motivated about acting for someone you have never met.
Not only that, but a lawyer's ability to push back against clients also becomes more limited. One veteran partner says he would often spend time explaining to clients that they could not have documentation as quickly as they wanted it because it was important to take the time to get it right. The clients listened to him because they knew him well enough to trust him and value his opinion. Without that depth of relationship, though, such conversations are likely to be a lot more awkward and the work done on deals more perfunctory.
It is notable that the veteran partner describes his career as "fun," a word that is not often used by the younger generation—the same people who constantly ask the veteran how he is so well connected.
Is it any wonder that mental health problems are so prevalent across the industry? Putting limits on working hours and introducing wellness workshops won't solve this one. Lawyers, like all humans, respond best to, well, humans.
Technology has found a way to increase the speed of interactions. But, so far, it can't do anything to deepen them.
Email: [email protected]
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 All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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