Getting 'Round Tuit'—Learning How to Avoid Procrastination
Procrastination is a powerful example of the power of feeling over thought, the triumph of the drive to avoid emotional discomfort over the intellect's recognition that some task must be attended to in a timely fashion.
June 04, 2019 at 11:06 AM
5 minute read
We all know procrastination is our enemy. As lawyers, it is doubly dangerous because it is contrary to our ethical obligation to diligently represent our clients. Representation is diligent if it is thorough and done in a timely fashion. Yet many of us fail in this objective, to the point that some clients take their frustration with our inaction to the Statewide Grievance Committee, where we would find ourselves among other similarly situated indolent brothers and sisters of the bar. Diligence violations, often coupled with communications lapses, are among the most common types of cases that come before the committee.
Procrastination is a powerful example of the power of feeling over thought; the triumph of the drive to avoid emotional discomfort over the intellect's recognition that some task must be attended to in a timely fashion. It is tortuous and self-destructive, and puzzling to those who do not suffer from its spell. It plagues most of us, myself included, at one time or another. But for us lawyers, failure to manage our work can have consequences far more unpleasant than the task we are dodging.
So why do we put the files we don't want to deal with in a pile, thinking we will do something when we get 'a Round Tuit'? We all know the Round Tuit is never coming, so there in the pile the file will fester and rot. The end will probably not be pretty, and it may come with a close encounter with bar regulators.
Before putting the file in the Round Tuit pile, consider why you want to put it there in the first place. Current research shows procrastination is not a time management issue, but an emotional management issue. Procrastination is opting for momentary relief from the stress of an impending unpleasant task by distracting yourself with an activity that offers the immediate gratification of a pleasurable experience, such as another game of virtual solitaire or cleaning out your sock drawer. This dilatory behavior gives us momentary relief from whatever discomfort is attached to the dreaded task.
In the face of temptation to add to the Round Tuit pile, it may be more productive instead to sit with the situation and take some time to focus on the problem with the task at hand. There are some common barriers to progress—fear, resentment, intimidation or some other negative reaction associated with the file.
For lawyers, there are a few likely possibilities—dislike of the client, the task, or the overall case. If it's a client call you are avoiding, keep in mind that no client ever complained about getting too much information from his or her lawyer. If there is an underlying problem such as an outstanding bill, resolving the underlying problem is much more fair to you than letting resentment impede your effort, exposing you to angry phone calls or a grievance complaint about work not done. If you have to give the client bad news, process your own feelings first. Plan your delivery, then pick up the phone and get the call over with. The news is not going to improve with time, and you will feel a lot better for having gotten the job done.
If you're intimidated by the task, just start working, maybe with the easy part. A helpful mantra for me in these situations is “Don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good.” Show up to the task, give it your best effort, get it completed and chances are your work will be fine—and more importantly, it will be done.
If the case is the problem, maybe it's time to level with the client. Our clients deserve to be told the truth; it's our job to give them our objective and independent legal advice. Maybe the case looked more attractive when you agreed to take it. If the discovery process has not been kind, it may be better to have a heart-to-heart with the client and come up with a long-term strategy to deal with the problem. If it boils down to irreconcilable differences, better for you to withdraw sooner rather than later, when the client's interests could be prejudiced.
Overall, a few minutes of discomfort is preferable to months of resentment and the effort it takes to ignore that file in the Round Tuit pile, with that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.
Finally, the last file you want to put in the Round Tuit pile is a grievance against you. You may be angry, insulted, offended or frightened that someone has filed a grievance against you. You may fear being labeled as an imperfect lawyer. Failure to answer alone can be grounds for a probable cause finding, even if the underlying complaint is frivolous—maybe even illegible and incomprehensible. If the grievance was sent to you, no matter how meritless you believe it to be, you need to answer it. Use a lifeline—phone a friend immediately and ask for help. Blow off some steam, then get your answer out.
Face it, you're never going to get a Round Tuit. It is out gallivanting with the unicorns. Don't pay the price of waiting.
Patricia King is a former chief disciplinary counsel for Connecticut, now with Geraghty & Bonnano in New London. She can be reached at [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 AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
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