You Can Slow Down the Speed of Business
OP-ED: From what I've seen, clients will respect their attorney's need to have time off-duty as long as they are reassured that the attorney will attend to their matter “promptly” when on-duty.
May 27, 2019 at 01:30 PM
3 minute read
Editor's Note: This commentary was written in response to “Speed of Business leaves 'Nowhere to Hide,' but What Are the Dangers?” New Jersey Law Journal, April 29, 2019.
“Enjoy your vacation! You deserve it! We'll continue working on this when you get back.” Ten months after I opened my elder law practice in 1995, these are the words one of my clients said to me as I got ready to leave on a two-week summer vacation with my husband and our four little children. What an eye-opener! Being new to private practice, I was worried—I wasn't sure how my clients would “cope” if I went away from them for two weeks.
Since then, my full-time work-life balance has been great, and my clients have managed to wait until Monday or wait until my vacation ends. I don't give out my cellphone. I don't text with clients or log into office email to read—no less answer—questions at 10:00 at night. My workdays may be 10 hours long (or more), but I leave it all at the office at 5:00 on Friday and start returning calls on Monday morning.
The two or three weeks leading up to a vacation are brutal, of course, as I've always scrambled to complete and send out all the document drafts, opinion letters, briefs or motions. I call clients and adversaries to let them know if I'll be away. And after some years of calling into the office during vacations—only to be told by my incredible staff that everything was under control—I can just wait for the staff to call me. Amazingly, an actual emergency doesn't occur very often. It's all worked out beautifully and the practice hasn't suffered for it; a huge percentage of my many new clients each year are referred by former clients, and that's without my taking their calls on the weekends or answering emails at bedtime.
We should be very concerned about the pressures placed on attorneys to be available to clients at all hours of the day or night. What's the impact on their families? On their well-being? Is it truly unthinkable to tell a business client or a litigant that their issue will be discussed during weekday business hours? Can it possibly be that the RPC regarding “prompt response” means that response must be immediate and at all hours? From what I've seen, clients will respect their attorney's need to have time off-duty as long as they are reassured that the attorney will attend to their matter “promptly” when on-duty.
Attorney burnout and career dissatisfaction are substantial, well-recognized problems. I believe that our profession can serve our clients well and protect the wellbeing of the attorneys at the same time without sacrificing quality of service. Perhaps it's time to take a fresh look.
Linda S. Ershow-Levenberg is the managing partner at Fink Rosner Ershow-Levenberg in Clark. She is a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation which is accredited by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 All'I've Worked Until 2 in the Morning': Lawyers Brace for Trump Policy
6 minute readGOP Trifecta in Washington Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Lowenstein Hires Ex-FTX US General Counsel Ryne Miller to Lead Its Commodities, Derivatives Practice
3 minute readMany Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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