Another call from the relative of a woman in detention. “I need a lawyer.” As the story winds out, her sister has a lawyer, but “he’s not doing anything.” I ask where the case is at, and it appears that the relative hasn’t got the slightest clue what the lawyer is doing because the lawyer’s answer to her question, “what’s happening,” is incomprehensible to her. She replies with some meaningless mangled words that would make Yogi Berra blush.
I don’t want the case. It’s out of town, it’s not particularly interesting or consequential, and it would interfere with other work. But the caller was referred by one of my favorite clients, so I offer to try to help by calling the lawyer and finding out what’s going on. The relative is less than certain that my offer will help, certain that she needs a new lawyer now, but agrees that it would be smarter to find out first.
I call. We chat. I explain what was said to me and why I’m calling. He’s doing everything he can and should be doing. I understand. He complains that they want action, now. The client’s detained, which is always a troublesome situation, though the fact that she had already absconded and was extradited back in this case tends to explain why bond isn’t readily available to her. Her explanation for fleeing made perfect sense to her, but few explanations play well with judges. Judges are funny that way.
There is nothing unusual about this tension between lawyer and client, and that’s very unfortunate because there’s no good reason for this tension to exist. He was doing everything he should be doing as a lawyer. How well, I don’t know, but that’s a different question. The problem here was a failure to communicate.
Communication has two components, sending and receiving. The lawyer assured me that he was sending the right message, but the problem was that the relative just wasn’t receiving it. The lawyer was mistaken. He was sending the message he, as a lawyer, understood to be correct. He failed to send the message that his client’s relative could understand. She didn’t understand and, as a result, was sufficiently unhappy to call a new lawyer.
One of the most common complaints about lawyers is that they fail to return telephone calls. I know of many like that, and I can’t, for the life of me, understand why they don’t return calls. The failure to return a call is like begging for an angry, disappointed client. It invariably takes more time to deal with the angry client than the merely inquisitive one. Too many calls? That’s client management, another issue. Keep your clients abreast of the situation, let them know that you will call them immediately upon receiving news and that, if they don’t hear from you, it means that you (like the client) are waiting. While waiting, there will be nothing new. That’s how it works, in law as in everything else.
If the lawyer had taken the time to explain to his client’s relative, for transmittal to the client, what he was doing in language that she could understand and appreciate, I have no doubt that she wouldn’t have called me. Instead, he used common legal jargon, which may be very familiar to lawyers but meaningless gobbledygook to others. To what end? Communication was not achieved because the client received no meaningful information. I know, it’s hard to explain legal proceedings to clients. Suck it up. That’s our job, to make them understand one of the most important things that will ever happen in their lives. As useful as our beloved legal jargon may be when talking amongst ourselves, it’s worthless to someone who is unfamiliar with the words. The problem is exacerbated when the client speaks another language.
This is not about telling the client what she wants to hear, but about telling the client what she needs to hear. This is the client’s life, and they must understand what’s to become of it. Some clients will understand quickly, while others will take more time and care. It’s the lawyer’s responsibility to find a way to communicate that works for the client. Use an interpreter. Get another lawyer to help if you can’t seem to get past the communication wall. Use a different approach. Spend the time to make it happen.
There is no option of telling it your way and then throwing up your hands and walking away if the client doesn’t get it. Your job isn’t done until the client gets it. It doesn’t matter that you think you’ve done enough, or you’re satisfied that you’ve explained it in a way that you feel is sufficient. Does the client understand? That’s the only relevant question.
If I had wanted the case, it would have been mine. And the lawyer would have never understood why.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was never interested in conventional teaching for a living but teaching is a large part of what we do. Children resist teaching (schooling). But they love learning (education). IMO. This doesn’t change when they are adults. His approach and your approach is an example. IMO.
There’s a line between teaching and properly informing a client of all the things necessary to understand in order to make informed decisions about their case. We also get general questions from clients and family about the law that really have no bearing on the case. My tendency is to tell them that if they are fascinated by the law, they should go to law school. So I advocate for a middle ground, clear and complete information about the case, but not a generic education about the law.
General questions about the law that really having no bearing on the case? A generic education about the law? My comment was about representing clients.
Other people read the comments, so I try to clarify things that might be obvious to you but less so to others.
All right.
I’m so glad you approve.
I thought I’d share this quote by the Nobel Prize winning chemist Irving Langmuir, since it seems appropriate to the topic.
“Any person who can’t explain his work to a fourteen-year-old is a charlatan.”
True-even in the law profession.
Mixed messages, Scott. This would appear to run directly counter to the “I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you” school of thought (which I got to use with a DA the other day, thanks Mark).
Not at all. Neither medium, message nor obligation are the same.