Over-communication is one cause of lawyers being dissatisfied with their jobs.

I hear a lot of lawyer dissatisfaction, what is a significant cause of this dissatisfaction?

It's difficult to say what cause lawyers' dissatisfaction. Obviously, not getting the type of job that one wants or getting the opportunity to go in court regularly or not reaching the pay levels one had originally expected can be problems. But, for those lawyers who are practicing regularly and have dissatisfaction, perhaps the biggest issue is gross and overwhelming unnecessary communication. The practice of law has reached such a point that the communication is so frequent that it's difficult for a lawyer to respond or to save all messages and it's difficult for a lawyer to actually get time to work on the substantive matters necessary for a law practice.

Many lawyers spend 50 percent to 70 percent of their day answering emails, phone messages, text messages, Facebook messages, etc. These attempts at communication by clients and others are constant and overwhelming. It has reached the point even if a lawyer goes on vacation, they almost have to take their computer or electronic devices with them to respond to the overwhelming number of emails, texts, etc. that are received each day. Otherwise, a lawyer could return from a week's vacation to find 3,000 to 5,000 emails or other messages.

The Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to communicate regularly with a client under Rule 1.4. Under Rule 1.3, a lawyer has to be diligent. But, the volume of modern communication is, quite frankly, overwhelming. This is particularly hard on trial lawyers who are not at their desk all day. Perhaps the lawyers who are at their desks all day, can respond to emails, texts, etc. as they come in. But, lawyers who are busy then face numerous messages that have to be responded to in the evening or other times. By the time a lawyer has a chance to do substantive work, true exhaustion has set in.

The sad thing about this problem is most of the communication is meaningless and worthless and is pure chatter. Clients nowadays feel an urge to say something to their lawyer and immediately email it or text it. In the old days, it was more complicated. One had to get an envelope and hand write a letter, put a stamp on it, and walk to the mailbox. As a result, people didn't communicate frequently on a daily basis as they do now. Now, it's just a thought or an issue that is something that comes across the client's mind and immediately there is a communication. Then when the lawyer responds, there is another responsive email.

Many experienced lawyers state that it's impossible to get any work done of substance during the daytime. That, of course, requires then to work long hours in the evenings and weekends. This frustrates and interferes with family relationships and also slowly burns out the lawyer. Who, at age 25 or 30 would look forward to practicing 40 or 50 years operating at that impossible pace of getting hundreds of emails or texts each day?

There has been discussion that clients should be told not to email or text a lawyer because these sites can't be secure. Doctors certainly can't do that with their patients. Texting or emailing patients is prohibited. Although, there are opinions on that subject, there is nothing definitive. But, it would be a great blessing to many lawyers if emailing and texting were barred because of the lack of security. The lawyer might actually have some time again without the constant bombardment of many times useless and meaningless messages from clients. Massive over-communication is probably one of the biggest changes in the legal profession in the last 15 to 20 years. One can never get away from the practice of law or their clients. Constant and meaningless communication occurs, which has to be dealt with and responded to is taking away from the lawyer's ability to work on other matters of substance.

This is not the way it was 20 to 25 years ago in practicing law. Although there were perhaps more letters and usually there were telephone calls, the calls were normally when one needed advice or consent. There was not the numerous daily volume of communication that one now receives through emails and texts.

This constant communication creates great stress on an attorney and undermines the lawyer's quality of life.

Perhaps in a fee agreement, there can be some understanding limiting the nature and manner of communications. But, excessive communication is the bane of existence for many, many lawyers. Perhaps the problem is insolvable, but it certainly has taken a lot of the pleasure out of practicing law. Clearly it is impossible for many lawyers to comply with the mandates of Rule 1.4 with the constant and overwhelming communications. There is only so much productive time in a day. Most of this is wasted on responding to all of the above communications.

A law student isn't burdened with the limitations of a suspended lawyer.

I am a law student who graduated and I am working for a firm. I have not been admitted yet, since there is a character hearing I have to attend after I pass the bar exam. Can I continue to work as a paralegal pending my admission as a lawyer?

The answer is yes. Unlike lawyers who are suspended or disbarred or placed on inactive or administrative suspension, a law student or future lawyer is not under the same restrictions. A suspended or disbarred or administratively suspended lawyer has to comply with the rather stringent requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 217(j). That rule was adopted around 2001. It has limited and severely restricted what a suspended or disbarred lawyer or inactive or administratively suspended lawyer can do as a paralegal. In essence, a suspended or disbarred lawyer has to register with the Disciplinary Board, has to be fully and completely supervised, cannot have any client contact except for administrative matters such as confirming dates and times, cannot work on old files when either he or she was licensed to practice, and cannot work in the same law office, among other issues. Rule 217(j) as a compromise. There were some on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at the time that did not want a suspended or disbarred lawyer to work in any paralegal role. The court was concerned that lawyers would take advantage of it or, in reality, practice law without a license.

There are states, such as New Jersey, which in essence bans a suspended or disbarred lawyer from acting as a paralegal. The state of Delaware has very strict limitations on suspended lawyers as paralegals. Pennsylvania was more a compromise, but the compromise at times can be difficult.

But, a law student is in a different situation. A suspended lawyer has not been allowed to act as a paralegal as any other paralegal can act, but a law student is different. Rule 217(j) would not be applicable. There are other ethics opinions on this issue. The Pennsylvania Bar Association has a formal ethics opinion entitled 86-97. That opinion allows the law student to do normal paralegal activities such as drafting pleadings, drafting documents for the lawyer, do legal research, gather information from clients or witnesses, file legal documents, etc. Of course, any paralegal must be fully and completely supervised by a lawyer. The law student can perform all those activities.

Obviously, there are things a law student can't do. A law student can't do depositions; only a lawyer can do depositions. A law student cannot appear in court since that's a lawyer's function. But, a law student can act and do the same duties as any paralegal can act. The law student has to be supervised and, obviously, a law student cannot hold themselves out as licensed to practice law.

Therefore, there is a major difference between a law student waiting for their bar results or a character and fitness hearing and a suspended or disbarred lawyer. The law student/paralegal is not burdened with the limitations of Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement 217(j).

Chester County lawyer Samuel C. Stretton has practiced in the area of legal and judicial ethics for more than 35 years. He welcomes questions and comments from readers. If you have a question, call Stretton directly at 610-696-4243 or write to him at 301 S. High St. P.O. Box 3231, West Chester, Pa. 19381.