It's Tuesday: I'm a lawyer, get me outta here!

This blog was initiated by the article appearing in The Lawyer on-line today entitled: Lawyers can't handle Tuesdays, survey reveals.  The "research" in question was commissioned by Michael Page International and its results are summed up by their marketing director Eamon Collins as follows:

"This research has told us that 10am on a Tuesday is the most stressful time of the working week, and it isn't a coincidence that this is also when traffic to our website peaks."

Gimme a break.  The article does not mention who carried out the research or how but it is likely to be as scientific as the intendance research ranking law firms by Twitter use which gave rise to huge debate  Let's accept that the research could actually come to the conclusion that 10am on a Tuesday is the most stressful time of the working week.  Does Michael Page really expect us to believe that the first thing a stressed out lawyer does is say:

"F*&k this, I am out of here.  Let's see what Michael Page has on offer this week".

What a pile of dog poo (sorry still can't bring myself to swear on-line).

What's worse is that this kind of marketing dressed up as serious research does immense damage by belittling what is a very real issue in law firms today (and I suspect in the in-house world too).  Lawyers are under incredible stress for all different reasons.  All this article does is make a mockery of the issue by giving Michael Page cheap advertising space.

So here is an attempt at a more helpful review of stress in the legal world today; its causes and perhaps a stress reliever or two for all you stressed out lawyers out there.

So here are some causes I have noted in my long and illustrious career to date :

1. Technology - yes we all thought that technology would make our lives easier but the incessant stream of information, e-mails, red-lines, twitter, IMs, iPhones, internet browsing actually add up to an impossible mix that our brains do not have the time to digest.  Top of my list is e-mail.  In the old days lawyers and clients communicated by letter (or fax if really urgent).  It was recognised that it took time for letters to arrive and letters to be sent as well as time for documents to be typed.  However, the advent of immediate correspondence has led everyone to believe that if a question is asked by e-mail at the push of a button then the answer should come back at the push of a button.  We might use computers to communicate but the answers still come from a human being who may need to analyse, annotate, review and meditate before responding.
2. Lack of support/supervision - this means poor management by us, partners and senior associates of those we instruct further down the seniority chain.  It is right that associates should not need constant hand holding.  On the other hand giving over the instructions is only half the job.  Junior fee earners (and senior ones) need to be provided with proper supervision and support if they are to fulfil their potential.  They need to be pushed but not off the top of a skyscraper!
3. Poor client management - how easy it is to complain regarding unreasonable client demands but is that really the client's fault?  The client is buying a service.  Whilst it would be nice to think that when asked the question "when do you want it for" the client will respond with an answer relating to when he needs it, that was not the question asked.  Perhaps the question we should be asking the client is "how does this piece of work fit in with your deliverables at so that I can ensure that we can revert in a timescale that enables you to meet your deadlines?"
4. Poor working habits - also known as "rabbit in the headlights" syndrome.  This is the person who faced with a number of different tasks keeps on jumping from one to the next without actually finishing any of them and at the end of the day feels they have accomplished nothing (which is actually true).

And now for some self-help remedies (one for each issue):

1. Just because you get an e-mail does not mean you need to respond to it immediately.  Turn off that annoying "ding" and the pop-up window.  Clients know that you are not necessarily at your desk and that sometimes you need to think about things.  If something really is urgent they will pick up the phone and call you so if it rings you better answer it.  If it is not urgent ask the client if you can call them back.  Tell them you are just in the middle of something and want to be able to give them your full attention which will be easier once you have finished what you are doing.  Make sure you say when that will be.
2. If you feel unsupervised then say something.  Don't send an e-mail to someone asking them to look at a document.  Get off your backside, print it out and take it in.  9 times out of 10 the person you go to see will be happy to help and you will learn far more.  Contrary to popular belief partners do not eat their young (I believe that's even true in the "eat what you kill" firms).
3. Manage your client's expectations - well this just goes back to the whole client care debate.  When you get a new instruction how about you pick up the phone to the client and talk it through with them.  Understand what their drivers are; what internal pressures they are under.  Even if this does not change the timetable you will develop a much better relationship with the client and the better the relationship the better the chance of sensible timetables being issued in the first place.
4. Sorry but all I can say to this is "Get a grip".  You simply need to force yourself to complete one task at a time.  Look at what you have to do and ask which is the most Urgent and Important.  That is what you do first and you finish it before you look at your e-mails or any other task.  If two tasks rank equally then just pick one; just go with your gut.

Well that's it for the tips.  One last word on stress.  The fact is that doing what we do for the people we do it for stress is a fact of the job.  You can take positive steps to avoid it but there will always be times when you are under stress.  But at the end of the day it is only a job.  Don't let it ruin your life.

Pinsents – first firm to offshore work of qualified UK lawyers | News | The Lawyer

Pinsents - first firm to offshore work of qualified UK lawyers News The Lawyer

Shared via AddThis

Am I about to be outsourced to South Africa?

I awoke this morning to read in The Lawyer that Pinsent Masons is the first firm to send real legal work (i.e. work that qualified associates would do) to a company in South Africa. Outsourcing is not new to law firms and nor is outsourcing off-shore. However this is a first as it means real legal work going off-shore and judging by some of the comments made by my peers on TheLawyer.com they are not happy about it!

This is a fascinating development in the provision of legal services. I think that there is little argument that to a large extent geographical location is no longer an important factor in the provision of any services apart from those requiring you to be in a specific place (e.g. a plumber). So why did lawyers possibly consider themselves different? Afterall, in some ways our jobs are even more easily transferable across the globe. I could be writing this blog, reviewing and drafting documents and reports and generally conducting my work life from anywhere on the planet (and, I suspect, from the International Space Station as well) - my clients do not care where I am as long as they can get hold of me when they need to!

So what is the big issue?

Well I think that there is a difference between a firm based in another country with limited or no office in the UK providing legal advice from a cheaper base and a firm existing properly in the UK and outsourcing legal work to another company in another country to cut costs. In the first case, from trainee up there is the potential to get exposure to all parts of transactions. The only thing that might be partially lacking is client contact although this would increase as you became more senior and your skills would develop accordingly.

However, in the second form, which Pinsent Masons has adopted, there is a whole chunk of work experience that is now being removed from trainees and junior lawyers. One cannot play down the importance of that kind of experience in developing a well-rounded lawyer. The ability to run a transaction well can only come from the experience of being a tiny part of a similar transaction and seeing the effect that decisions made at the higher level have further down the chain.

Am I surprised?

Of course not. The increasing dichotomy between partners' needs to keep profits growing and clients' needs to see fees fall meant that something had to give. Law firms have to find a cheaper way of conducting business especially in the current climate and this is one way to go.

Will it affect quality?

This is an impossible question to answer as often quality is dependent on the individual as much as the company employed. However, the fear of failing to impress a given supervisor will be lost as will concern regarding damage to brand. Again, these are not tangible things which can be measured.

Is this the end (or at least the beginning of the end)?

Who knows. I do not see it as being possible to remove the human touch, certainly at the higher value end of the spectrum. Clients want specific lawyers for specific deals. The problem is, as pointed out by a number of comments on TheLawyer.com, what effect will the outsourcing of the low value work to cheaper locales have on the experience required for the next generation of lawyers just starting out? Could it ever be positive?

Don't the partners and clients know this?

I think they do but at the end of the day we now live in a short-term view society. This has been highlighted as one of the main causes of the financial crisis. Partners and managers are not worrying about the effects of something in 10 years' time but rather the benefits that will be achieved in 2-4 years' time. Some may also suspect that the whole fees issue is a short term one and once the economy recovers it will disappear.

The problem is that whilst it might be true that law firms will not be expected to further cut fees it is highly improbable that they will be able to significantly increase them either. Further, if you were a partner in a firm who had outsourced work to South Africa and you could now increase your fees and either (i) bring more work back on-shore at a higher recoverable cost or (ii) keep it off-shore and make more profit, which would you opt for?