Lawyers know all too well that job demands for attorneys can cause increased levels of stress  that lead to serious health problems. But what happens when client impatience, combined with the increased speed of communications, leads to errors affecting the bottom line?

It's a very real problem affecting attorneys at all levels, according to David Friedman, litigation partner in the Stamford office of Murtha Cullina who said in an interview this week that the modes of communication people use today can contribute to costly errors. He noted that client demands for instantaneous answers, combined with technology that allows lawyers to give them, creates an environment in which mistakes can easily be made.

“We often get calls from clients who want instantaneous answers, and they'll send a complex document, that's been created by someone else's lawyer, and you're looking at it on your iPhone,” Friedman said. “It's difficult. You're struggling to read it, enlarging different parts of it, and it's hard because you're not looking at the whole page. You don't necessarily pick up everything you're supposed to pick up and you may miss some critical things that you wouldn't miss at your desk. I've seen a few cases and situations where the problem was the lawyer was using the iPhone to look at complicated documents.” With the smaller format, cellphones don't always pick up the red-lining, or corrections, that invariably appear in certain documents in desktop mode, making review even more difficult.

In addition to serving as general counsel and chairing Murtha's litigation department, Friedman is loss-prevention counsel for the firm, so he is familiar with a litany of potential problems that can arise from answering questions too quickly or just scanning important documents on a phone. “I attend conferences with ALAS, our insurer, and one of the things they've been emphasizing lately is the dangers of the requirement of having instantaneous responses, instead of being willing to wait a day or two for an answer. There has been a large increase in claims that are based on mistakes, as opposed to just bad judgment. They've been engaged in a large-scale effort to work with firms to adopt procedures that will minimize the number of mistakes. One of the things they've identified is so many of our communications are on iPhones, and we'll get a message while we're driving or at dinner. We take a quick look and feel the need to respond quickly, rather than have an opportunity to think about it or talk to someone in the office. A lot of times your knee-jerk reaction is not a good one.”

Technology is a double-edged sword, of course, and Friedman acknowledged that instantaneous messaging is a huge benefit to lawyers and firms. “That's the thing,” he said. “The ability to turn documents around quickly—to either draft new documents or make changes to documents and turn them around quickly wasn't possible in the past. It's a tremendous thing, and that's why we use it. It's not just because clients want a quick response. It's terrific. If I want to do a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, I can go into my computer and search for 10 different dismissals I've done in the past and make changes. It saves money for the client and it allows us to get things done much more quickly. The ability to research information is spectacular. You can find out what's going on in a case in a small town in Oregon, and find all of these things you couldn't find before. Knowledge is being shared in extraordinary ways, but it doesn't always necessarily lead to better results.”

Friedman said demands for instant answers aren't the only things that put added pressure on attorneys. In an effort to cut costs, some clients are also imposing limits on counsel. “There is a lot of pressure to have only one lawyer involved in a case, and they won't pay to have a more senior lawyer review the case,” he said. “Young lawyers make more mistakes because they aren't allowed to bounce questions off more senior lawyers. These are some of the problems that have developed, but they've definitely gotten worse in recent years.”

Ken Krayeske

Client demands for immediate answers are also a source of stress for smaller outfits. Hartford solo practitioner Ken Krayeske gets pressing requests from all sorts of clients. “What I always tell people is you're calling me with a situation that's taken years to develop, and I can't give you an answer overnight,” he said. “If you look at prison health litigation case where a wife says, 'My husband is in jail and his medication isn't being served,' it's going to be a month before we see a judge. The law moves very slowly, and sometimes people come to you with expectations you can't possibly fulfill. There is a disconnect between the pace at which modern life moves and the ability of attorneys to provide fast answers.”

Waiting 120 days for a motion to strike may seem like an eternity for clients, while the attorney is forced to explain the situation. “I'm required to move at breakneck speed while everything else around me waits,” Krayeske said. “It's a tough game out there. As the saying goes it's a dog-eat-dog world and I'm wearing Milk Bone underwear.”

Still, when Krayeske is finally able to explain the situation to clients, “most people understand,” he said. “The most frustrating thing for me is that people call with legitimate problems and they want the court's order immediately. We come in and clean up the messes. The mess could have taken 30 seconds to create, but it's often going to take years to deal with it.” On the bright side, during that waiting period, things can change in the client's favor. “In the meantime a law may get passed that benefits you, more information comes to light, or the opposing party may move away or die. Who knows what can happen? Sometimes it's a good thing in resolving disputes that time allows cooler heads to prevail.”

Friedman, 62, said he is old enough to remember when attorneys wrote briefs with pen and paper before handing them to their secretaries. “We learned to do things differently,” he said. “We adapt as well as we can to the new tools, but we're not necessarily as adept at it as some of the younger folks who learned using these tools. Sometimes the senior folks don't want to admit their limitations.” He reasoned that older attorneys may be the most in need of training in new technologies.

“The people who use technology the worst are people like me,” Friedman noted. “I still do my best work with paper and a pencil. I do think there needs to be a lot of training, but the people who need it the most are the least likely to ask for it.”