Zoom and Gloom: Lawyers Getting Fatigue from Endless Video Calls
A never ending parade of long video calls has led to a more pronounced feeling of fatigue than they would normally feel following phone calls or in-person meetings, U.K. lawyers say.
July 22, 2020 at 06:22 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com International
Several lawyers said they had spent more than four hours on a single video call. Photo: Shutterstock.com
"I was on back-to-back Zoom calls for eight hours yesterday, and I've just finished a four-hour video call about something that absolutely could have been talked about over email," sighs one weary partner at a U.S. firm in London.
His frustration is typical of many working in the legal industry. While long hours are nothing new for lawyers, he says that a new low has been reached in his tiredness — even his teenage daughter had picked up on his zombie-like manner following a particularly dull series of video calls.
"I must have looked rough if she a) noticed me and b) thought to ask about it," he says.
Numerous other lawyers at top firms also say that they are suffering from 'Zoom fatigue', which has become particularly acute in the last month or so.
In the early months of the U.K. COVID-induced lockdown, lawyers had been quick to praise the ease with which their firms have swiveled to a running a remote workforce, and lauded the virtues video call technology in helping to keep activity levels reasonably high.
But as the months have worn on, lawyers say that their initial gratitude towards software like Zoom, Microsoft Teams and Google Hangouts has worn off due to excessive use.
Seven lawyers told Law.com International that they had been on a single video call for four hours or more, with many saying that they had to go on a second video call almost immediately after hanging up. This, they say, has led to a more pronounced feeling of fatigue than they would normally feel following phone calls or in-person meetings.
Firms tried hard to make it easier for their lawyers to hold video calls with clients and colleagues at the start of the lockdown, which one Latham & Watkins partner says was "exactly the right thing to do at the time". He adds, however, that "perhaps people overcompensated for the lack of personal presence" too early in the lockdown process.
Another Latham partner added that "the enthusiasm for showing one's face has also dissipated… Now, you see more blank spaces rather than people on camera."
And it's not just private practice lawyers who are finding video calls to be more hassle than they're worth.
A partner at Weil Gotshal & Manges said that their team had stopped using Zoom altogether in favor of phone calls because clients preferred to do so. According to the partner, the team was happy to oblige to the clients' requests since they were feeling similarly drained.
Videos vs. Phones
The benefits of using Zoom when closing a deal or litigating a case during the pandemic have been well-publicized in recent months, for reasons including that they have have increased lawyers' abilities to build more personal relationships with clients and have allowed for court hearings to be held online.
But video calls are not without flaws too, with industry onlookers citing concerns over confidentiality and on-screen slip-ups as hazards of the technology.
For scores of lawyers, the time has come to return — at least now and then — to the good old-fashioned phone call.
"I don't want to constantly be staring at my own face on the screen when I'm trying to talk to a client," says one partner. "I know people say that it's beneficial to be able to read people's body language, but to me it's still not the same as meeting someone in person and I find it far more draining."
Video calls remain, at least for now, a "necessary evil", according to one partner who warns that despite a lifting of the U.K. lockdown, the pandemic is far from over and people should still be discouraged from holding in-person meetings.
Others add that despite their weariness with the technology, they hope to see more video conferencing options in the future to limit the number of trips they need to take across London and even abroad to speak with clients. For that reason, video conferencing has been recognized as having dragged the typically tech-averse legal profession into the 21st century.
But that positive aspect will not diminish the growing numbers raising concerns about video calls. As one lawyer points out, too much of a good thing can turn something bad.
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
© 2025 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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