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
"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
© 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The American Lawyer's Top Stories of 2024
- 2Semiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
- 3Zuckerman Spaeder Gets Ready to Move Offices in DC, Deploy AI Tools in 2025
- 4Pardoning Jan. 6 Defendants May Send Bad Message About Insurrection, Rule of Law
- 5Looming Clash Over Abortion Pills Shows Overturning 'Roe v. Wade' Settled Nothing
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