Good Client Communication Isn't Just Good Customer Service, It Can Also Help Avoid Malpractice Claims
Good client communications can be the key factor in bringing a quick end to a malpractice claim or avoiding one altogether.
August 30, 2018 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
Good client communications can be the key factor in bringing a quick end to a malpractice claim or avoiding one altogether.
When a legal malpractice plaintiff claims in court that “I thought my attorney was going to take care of that for me,” or “I would have accepted that last settlement offer had I known my case was weak,” the case will often turn on a jury's judgment about who is telling the truth. These situations create inherent “fact issues” that can prevent summary judgment.
Legitimate misunderstandings can occur between lawyers and clients, and people can have unexpressed expectations. Putting important communications in writing can ensure everyone is on the same page regarding what the lawyer is doing and not doing, and why, as well as costs. Clarity on these important issues is good for all parties.
Lawyers often shy away from documenting client communications because it feels like “malpractice prevention” or “CYA.” But good client communication is also good customer service. And thoughtful written communication can mean the difference between a swearing match that goes to trial and a case that is disposed of by summary judgment, or better yet, is never brought in the first place.
Engagement Letters
Good client communications start with the engagement letter. This can do many things, but should cover the essentials of “who,” “what,” and “how much.”
First, be specific on who you are representing. If a potential client comes in wanting to sell the company he and his brother own, is he the client? Are he and his brother joint clients? Is it the company being sold? This decision needs to be made at the outset of the relationship, and it should be stated clearly in the engagement letter.
Second, it is important to lay out what the lawyer is agreeing to do. Defining the scope of the representation in the engagement letter can ensure things don't fall through the cracks, and can prevent a revisionist history years later when something goes wrong.
Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.02(b) permits a lawyer to limit the scope of representation if the client consents. But if this is not in writing, a jury may well believe the lawyer undertook much broader duties. For example, a client may later argue he thought the lawyer he hired for a specific litigation matter would also put the client's insurance carrier on notice of the claim, even if that was never discussed. Or a client may hire a lawyer simply to paper a transaction that has already been agreed to in principle, but then later argue the lawyer should have negotiated a better deal or should have advised the client about the tax or regulatory implications of the transaction.
Third, the engagement letter should address fees. Having a written fee agreement is a good practice in most circumstances, and certain fee agreements must be in writing, including contingent fee cases and cases in which the fees will be split among lawyers who are not in the same firm. (Rule 1.04(d) and (f)). A key factor in determining whether a particular fee is “unconscionable” is whether the lawyer provided the client with a “clear and accurate explanation of how the fee was to be calculated” at the outset of the representation. (Comment to Rule 1.04). In fact, Disciplinary Rule 1.04(c) requires that, for a new client, “the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.”
Communications Throughout the Engagement
Malpractice claims and grievance complaints often start with: “The lawyer never told me that,” relying on Disciplinary Rule 1.03's requirement that lawyers keep their clients “reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”
Archiving emails updating the client on good or bad developments, thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the case, or the risks involved with proposed transaction terms can go a long way toward defusing those claims. For lawyers who are wary of “CYA” emails, descriptive billing entries can be a great tool for documenting work and evolving strategy decisions.
Termination Letters
Once the representation is over, it is helpful to send the client a short letter or email saying that the firm is closing its file on the matter. This will address comments to Disciplinary Rule 1.02, which caution that “[d]oubts about whether a client-lawyer relationship still exists should be clarified by the lawyer, preferably in writing, so that the client will not mistakenly suppose the lawyer is looking after the client's affairs when the client has ceased to do so.”
Having a defined end to the attorney-client relationship also clarifies when a “current client” becomes a “former client,” and thus, whether Disciplinary Rule 1.06 or 1.09 applies to evaluating potential conflicts with future clients. Lawyers may resist communication that seemingly closes a door on a client, but including language such as “we have successfully concluded this matter, but please call me if anything new arises” may help keep the door ajar.
Good client communication is a habit that is good for your practice, good for your clients, and good for loss prevention.
Kelli Hinson is a partner at Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP in Dallas and serves as the firm's general counsel. She practices in the areas of commercial litigation and professional liability, representing law firms, hospitals, companies and the professionals who run them.
|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 AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 2Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 3'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 4Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 5These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
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