Lawyers must be better than mid-level communications executives who think they can anticipate the needs of every caller. They must be professional, writes Allan Bonner.
I emailed my lawyer asking for a phone call. The lawyer emailed asking me to state a few times in the next few days when I could make a call.
“Can’t you take a call now?” I wrote. I figured if the lawyer was responding to emails, we could also talk on the phone.
“No. I need to set a time in order to manage my day.”
How do you manage a day, I wondered? How do you even manage a call when you don’t know how long it will last? You can’t set times for the next call or meeting – only by guessing at the length of the call you’ve booked. That’s hardly management – more clairvoyance.
(As an aside, I use the telephone in what is now an unusual way. If it rings, I answer it. If there’s a person on the other end, I speak to that person. If there’s a voicemail, I respond to the voicemail. Old-fashioned, I guess.)
Nonetheless, I gave the lawyer a few times. I called at the exact time picked. I asked my question. I received an answer. I thanked the lawyer. The lawyer seemed put off.
“Is that it?” I was asked.
“Yup,” I said, adding that we used four emails to set up a 45-second call. The emails took more time than the call.
There’s always a contest among professionals about whose time is more valuable – lawyers, planners, architects, engineers, and so on. My take is that I bill in six-minute increments, as do many other professionals. In billable time, this call cost me four or five times more to schedule than it took to ask the lawyer a question and receive an answer on the phone. If the lawyer charged me for the email exchanges, I’m out a significant amount.
Why not just make phone calls and be done with it? There used to be something billable called a “failed phone call”. There’s no such thing now. Leave a message and wait for a response.
Then there’s the other lawyer who tried to automate the client relationship. I wanted a simple contract between friendly parties. To sign on, I had to read pages of boilerplate about my estate, children, grandchildren, possible disputes, arbitration, mediation, and so on. I asked that these irrelevant matters be removed. I was told I had to “trust” the lawyer to have a good relationship. Why would I need a contract if all relationships were based on trust? Plus, if the lawyer didn’t trust me without signing on and a retainer, why would I trust the lawyer? For me, clarity was the issue, not trust.
I signed on after minor edits. Then I began receiving automated emails from the lawyer. The lawyer couldn’t turn them off but said I’d not be billed. Fair enough. But I can’t bill anybody for reading extraneous verbiage and multiple emails.
Here are ideas for lawyers:
Here’s my big idea. Be better than a call centre. Be better than mid-level communications executives who think they can anticipate the needs of every caller.
Be better. Be professional.
Allan Bonner is a Canadian-based author, keynote speaker, and crisis management consultant.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Lawyers Weekly a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Lawyers Weekly as a preferred news source.