How About Those Yanks?™

I have to disagree with you on this one, Dan. A client's time is too valuable to be "bombarded" with communications. While some clients may want to know everything, many clients do not. They are paying for the exercise of judgment so they receive only critical information. The exceptions to which you refer are significant enough to swallow the rule in its entirety. I believe the better formulation of the rule for communicating with your client is the "no surprises" rule.

Good point on the client's time, Pat. That's hard to argue with. But I feel pretty strongly about this one. Most of what I am talking about here is copies of documents, pleadings, letters. In fact, we don't even ask up front what to send and not to send--because I think the client is entitled to have a copy of everything we are doing and some written update by e-mail or voice mail if there's no obvious document. It's out "default" practice. They don't have to read it but at least they have a copy. (Lately, we have had requests to send no hard copies--and to just use a digital sender, which is convenient for everyone. It's in their computer, doesn't need to be handled and they can look at it later.)

It's rare in my experience for a client to say, hey, you are sending too much--please cut that out. So I do think that it's better to err on the side of sending all documents and written updates. Finally, clients often don't send clear signals on what they want and don't want. I'd rather have the client get mad at us for sending too much than feeling as though they missed or didn't get something.

Dan-

This is a great list. But one other thing to consider about communicating with clients is this (and believe it or not, I did run into this as a practicing lawyer): if you're 'bombarding' a client with information and the client feels that you're 'milking' them because you're charging by the hour and sending them what they consider to be either too much information or meaningless information, they won't be happy.

Admittedly, most lawyers make the mistake of communicating too infrequently, and perhaps the clients that complain that you're charging them to communicate with them aren't the clients you want. Although I agree with the rule in general, I would add that you should make sure that your communications are substantive and to the point. If you're sending a one or two sentence status with copies of pleadings, or if the communication ONLY is forwarding the client copies of documents in their matter, be very careful how you charge the client for these communications.

I can tell you from the perspective of a client (having been both a client and an attorney), receiving a bill and being charged even the 'minimum' time increment for a 'letter' which I knew was written by the secretary and said only, "Enclosed please find a copy of the complaint filed in your action" was enough to send me off of the deep end.

I do agree, though, that unless you've specifically agreed with the client in advance about your level of communication, you should always err on the side of communicating more unless and until the client suggests otherwise.

Just remember what Occidental Petroleum's General Counsel said not that long ago (and I paraphrase here): YOUR CLIENT IS JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU. You're client is into . . . . . HIMSELF!! What your client doesn't want to know about: THE LAW!! What your client is interested in: HIS OWN BUSINESS. What your client wants from you: SILENCE, i.e., listening to him. "If you're talking more than 50% of the time," said Occidental's GC, you will not be retained as our counsel." 20% was his idea of the ideal conversation with counsel: 80% listening by the attorney and 20% talking. "Don't send me updates on the law," he said. "Do send me material that makes me think you actually understand my business and its problems and goals." You can WEAVE the law and legal developments into this, but, really, he doesn't want to hear about e-discovery. That's it. Not MY opinions. The feedback of a GC of a Fortune 50 company. Best, Vickie Pynchon

Thanks, Vickie. Rule 5 is about working, and practicing law, as opposed to marketing. What I had in mind here: on any client project, you send the GC the whole "file" and otherwise communicate all developments about the work you doing for him or her so they can (1) have it, (2) see what your firm is doing, and (3) see what they are paying for. You do it on a real time basis with little or nothing left out and without ceremony. Good GCs and their in-house support seem to like this. Many higher-end clients are not used to it, so it's a way to differentiate your firm as you work. Most (85%) of our clients are large, sophisticated and publicly-traded, as large or larger than the fine fossil-fuels company you mentioned (which is in the bottom half of Fortune 500). You are right. They don't want "industry law updates"--any more than they want to read blogs; they just don't have the time. And re: Rule 5, they don't want goofy transmittal letters and unnecessary legal memos, either. But they do want to receive everything you are doing for them.