Enjoying Vacation Without Sacrificing Quality
As we emerge from the holiday season and a (hopefully) restful period of time spent with family and friends, lawyers are reminded of the positive impact…
January 02, 2018 at 01:22 PM
6 minute read
As we emerge from the holiday season and a (hopefully) restful period of time spent with family and friends, lawyers are reminded of the positive impact of time spent away from the office. Numerous articles, both in the legal industry and scientific community, have been published extolling the virtues of vacations as well as the positive impact vacations have on mental health issues.
Vacations benefit not just individual attorneys, but also law practices generally. This is because firms that facilitate time away from the office demonstrate that they value their attorneys' professional contributions and personal well-being.
Still, the same firms may not always address vacation as an aspect of the firm's risk mitigation plan and of a larger effort to ensure the wellbeing and satisfaction of its attorneys. Instead, if vacation is left to individual attorneys to address, some attorneys may simply never take real, disconnected time off. Alternatively, those who can get away may not be aware of the important risk management steps impacted by a vacation.
While the unique needs of each attorney and law practice will vary, there are some common steps that firms and attorneys can take to minimize vacation-related risks.
Give Colleagues Notice
Vacations often impact staff and other professionals in the law practice. For example, an extended absence will likely limit when other individuals might be able to take vacation or planned leave. Advising everyone well in advance of the vacation allows team members to plan their own work and personal schedules accordingly.
Prepare in Advance
Procrastination poses serious risks: the attorney's ability to address deadlines, reschedule closings or hearings, or otherwise address calendared events decreases significantly or gets completely lost. For example, courts are unlikely to hold deadlines in abeyance if a long-planned vacation is only disclosed at the last minute. However, when provided sufficient notice, many courts (and even opposing counsel) may be amenable to rescheduling dates, when possible, to avoid conflict with a vacation.
For many, effective planning for vacation typically involves four steps.
First, identify scheduling conflicts. If deadlines or other events are scheduled during the planned vacation, address each conflict by obtaining an extension, rescheduling, or having it covered by another attorney. This will eliminate all ambiguity and ensure that everything is being handled.
Second, notify all interested parties. Having everyone on the same page avoids surprise and significantly decreases the likelihood of an emergency during the vacation. To that end, consider whether courts, clients, and other parties should be notified of the planned vacation.
Typically, courts grant requested leaves of absence when made in good faith. Clients understand that attorneys are people who take vacations, too. And even opposing counsel may recognize that they may someday be in a position to request a similar accommodation. Courts are becoming more impatient and critical of opposing counsel who use a lawyer's vacation schedule as an opportunity to issue eleventh-hour filings or other inconveniences.
The earlier the notice, the more effective it will be.
Third, leverage technology to reduce risks. Email and voicemail are the two most effective tools to set expectations and manage risks. For email, the “Out-of-Office Assistant” will provide an automatic response to every email when an attorney is out of the office. The automatic reply may include the dates when the attorney will be out of the office, how often (if at all) the attorney will check messages while out of the office, and the contact information for immediate assistance. For voicemail, the greeting can be changed to include the same information.
Even with these systems in place, attorneys' active matters do not stop when vacations start. Thus, some attorneys may choose to have someone monitor their practice while on vacation. This may include opening and reading mail, listening to voicemail messages daily, or responding to clients, courts, and opposing counsel who may call (even after being informed of the vacation).
Fourth, clarify availability during the vacation. It is important for all interested parties and the law practice in particular to clearly understand what capacity the vacationing attorney will have to communicate during the vacation. The most important thing is to make sure that everyone on the team is on the same page.
Follow the Plan
Before departing the office, the vacationing attorney may be tempted to change or alter the plan. For some attorneys, completely disconnecting from the law practice is either difficult or simply not preferred. Those attorneys may wish to set up a set time, place and procedure for someone in the office to reach the vacationing attorney to provide an update or to confirm that everything is under control.
Of course, expecting the unexpected is always important. Having a contingency plan, such as calling an emergency telephone number, is helpful to managing unexpected crises effectively.
Be Mindful of the Risks of Working Remotely
When implementing a firm-wide vacation policy, law practices might address the inherent risks of working remotely, assuming the vacationing attorney plans to do so. At a minimum, the majority of firms recommend securing smartphones and other devices with passwords. In addition, firms may wish to confirm the ability to wipe the device clean remotely, if it is lost or stolen, or to advise attorneys of the risks of unsecured wireless connections.
In an era where attorneys are almost always available by phone and email, time away from the office can help to ensure attorneys' personal health as well as the law practices' longevity. By taking some simple steps before unplugging, attorneys and their firms can reduce any risks associated with time out of the office.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons and serves on the firm's US Board of Directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team. Alanna Clair is a senior managing associate at Dentons and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
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 AllMore Young Lawyers Are Entering Big Law With Mental Health Issues. Are Firms Ready to Accommodate Them?
Trending Stories
- 1Will England Accept that Digital Assets Are ‘Property’?
- 2Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
- 3Bar Report — Nov. 25, 2024
- 4People in the News—Nov. 25, 2024—Eckert Seamans, Klehr Harrison
- 5How We Made Practice Group Chair: 'One of the Most Important Skills Is Being a Good Listener,' Say Timothy Kincaid and Brad Vaiana of Winston & Strawn
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