E-Mail Efficacy
With electronic communication such a regular part of our lives, it can be easy to forget the basics.
November 30, 2009 at 07:00 PM
7 minute read
In many organizations, e-mail is the primary means of communication. E-mail provides a seamless way for everyone to stay in contact despite all of the factors–such as travel, multiple office locations and telecommuting–that can prevent in-person meetings or even telephone calls. E-mail offers the convenience, and strategic advantage, of sharing information in real time with key decision makers. As such, e-mail presents a golden opportunity for attorneys to demonstrate value to their clients and strengthen the attorney-client
relationship. Yet all too often, the e-mail we receive from outside counsel is more frustrating than helpful.
Just to take a few examples: subject lines that are unrelated to content or that are missing altogether; paragraph after paragraph of unnecessary prelude that obscures important information; or writing in “legalese” that needs comprehensive translation. These mistakes transform e-mail from newsflashes into headaches.
The irony is that attorneys possess a skill set that should shine in the context of e-mail: the ability to synthesize information and present it clearly and persuasively. But the same outside counsel who can hold a courtroom spellbound can, without even realizing it, write an e-mail that loses its audience. The attorneys who are best at communicating via e-mail recognize that the format is fundamentally different than a conversation or a written formal letter, and they tailor their messages accordingly.
Some techniques I encourage among the attorneys on my team are as follows:
- Consider your audience. These days, more people than ever are reading their e-mail on a Blackberry, iPhone or other mobile device rather than a large monitor. The takeaway: Keep your e-mail short and to the point.
- Make the subject line count. Your subject line should accurately tell the reader what the message is about. Your audience may receive a lot of e-mail every day. They may need to decide which emails to read based only on the subject line and opening line of text. By the same token, use discretion when labeling your messages “urgent.” Doing so in the absence of a real emergency is a sure-fire way to reduce your chances of getting through when there truly is an immediate need.
- It's an “elevator speech.” In recognition of everyone's busy schedule, one thing we try to instill at Kaplan Higher Education is the ability to make a persuasive “elevator speech.” Present your idea or information quickly–say, in the amount of time it might take to travel a few floors in an elevator. If you can't summarize your position in an elevator speech, you probably need to rethink it and identify the essential points.
- Set out the options. If your e-mail identifies a decision to be made, give a concise analysis and a clear recommendation of how to proceed. Your advice will help your client save time and make a decision, as well as highlight your ability to stake out a closely reasoned position.
- Speak plain English. Finally, recognize that the e-mail recipient may wish to share it with colleagues or internal clients, not all of whom may be lawyers. An e-mail written in plain English allows your audience to forward your message with minimal additional comments–a hallmark of effective advocacy.
What do these guidelines have in common? A deep respect for the audience and a commitment to be helpful. The outside counsel who “get it” are those who maximize e-mail communication by sending messages that get to the point, offer recommendations and can be forwarded to executives with minimal comments. Those are the outside counsel you keep.
In many organizations, e-mail is the primary means of communication. E-mail provides a seamless way for everyone to stay in contact despite all of the factors–such as travel, multiple office locations and telecommuting–that can prevent in-person meetings or even telephone calls. E-mail offers the convenience, and strategic advantage, of sharing information in real time with key decision makers. As such, e-mail presents a golden opportunity for attorneys to demonstrate value to their clients and strengthen the attorney-client
relationship. Yet all too often, the e-mail we receive from outside counsel is more frustrating than helpful.
Just to take a few examples: subject lines that are unrelated to content or that are missing altogether; paragraph after paragraph of unnecessary prelude that obscures important information; or writing in “legalese” that needs comprehensive translation. These mistakes transform e-mail from newsflashes into headaches.
The irony is that attorneys possess a skill set that should shine in the context of e-mail: the ability to synthesize information and present it clearly and persuasively. But the same outside counsel who can hold a courtroom spellbound can, without even realizing it, write an e-mail that loses its audience. The attorneys who are best at communicating via e-mail recognize that the format is fundamentally different than a conversation or a written formal letter, and they tailor their messages accordingly.
Some techniques I encourage among the attorneys on my team are as follows:
- Consider your audience. These days, more people than ever are reading their e-mail on a Blackberry, iPhone or other mobile device rather than a large monitor. The takeaway: Keep your e-mail short and to the point.
- Make the subject line count. Your subject line should accurately tell the reader what the message is about. Your audience may receive a lot of e-mail every day. They may need to decide which emails to read based only on the subject line and opening line of text. By the same token, use discretion when labeling your messages “urgent.” Doing so in the absence of a real emergency is a sure-fire way to reduce your chances of getting through when there truly is an immediate need.
- It's an “elevator speech.” In recognition of everyone's busy schedule, one thing we try to instill at Kaplan Higher Education is the ability to make a persuasive “elevator speech.” Present your idea or information quickly–say, in the amount of time it might take to travel a few floors in an elevator. If you can't summarize your position in an elevator speech, you probably need to rethink it and identify the essential points.
- Set out the options. If your e-mail identifies a decision to be made, give a concise analysis and a clear recommendation of how to proceed. Your advice will help your client save time and make a decision, as well as highlight your ability to stake out a closely reasoned position.
- Speak plain English. Finally, recognize that the e-mail recipient may wish to share it with colleagues or internal clients, not all of whom may be lawyers. An e-mail written in plain English allows your audience to forward your message with minimal additional comments–a hallmark of effective advocacy.
What do these guidelines have in common? A deep respect for the audience and a commitment to be helpful. The outside counsel who “get it” are those who maximize e-mail communication by sending messages that get to the point, offer recommendations and can be forwarded to executives with minimal comments. Those are the outside counsel you keep.
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 AllBallooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
The Reason a GC Abruptly Departs May Not Be What You Think
Trending Stories
- 1Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 2Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect
- 3Simpson Thacher Launches in Luxembourg With Hires From A&O Shearman, Clifford Chance
- 4How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 5Big Firms May See 'Uncomfortable Flashbacks' as Cost Pressure Grows
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