A pet peeve of mine, for which I am getting increasingly peevish, is attorneys who set office procedures that value their time more than their fellow members of the bar’s time. I am seeing this behavior in three distinct ways. First, attorneys demanding that one courtesy copy their paralegals on emails to them. Second, attorneys who have their staff ask for a courtesy that one would be granting the attorney (rather than the staff). Third, attorneys who require other attorneys to answer numerous questions from their receptionist before they will even attempt to contact the attorney being called.
There are two issues I have with the request to courtesy copy staff on my emails to attorneys. The first is that I often get responses from staff (who have no authority to bind the attorney to what they communicate) when my email seeks a response from the attorney. The second is that I should not be required to remember which attorney wants which staff to be courtesy copied on their emails. Each offending attorney thinks I should be able to remember their particular courtesy copying preferences. However, it has become myriad attorneys asking me to remember. I frankly don’t want to use my limited bandwidth to remember their workplace preferences.
These attorneys could easily set up email forwarding for their staff so that their staff receives every email they receive. I assume the reason they do not do this is that they do not want their staff being inundated with emails. However, asking me to communicate directly with their staff is essentially outsourcing their workflow responsibilities to me. Not my monkeys; not my circus.
My second peeve is attorneys who have their staff ask me for courtesies. Some courtesies, such as sending word drafts of discovery, that would normally go between paralegals, I don’t mind because I recognize that I am an outlier in not having a paralegal. But when support staff asks me for extensions or other professional courtesies, I get offended. An attorney who wants a courtesy from another attorney should ask that attorney directly. When attorneys have staff ask on their behalf , I perceive it as those attorneys seeing their time as being valuable than my time.
My final peeve is attorneys who set up their receptionists to ask me myriad questions before one can even be informed if that attorney is available. Being asked to spell my full name, whether I am an existing or potential client, and the case I am calling about, isn’t information that a receptionist needs before determining whether that attorney is available. I assume these questions get asked so that these attorneys can screen calls. However in ensuring their time is productively used, they ensure my time is unproductively used. It is obnoxious—especially when I am returning that attorney’s call. And a pox on any attorney who has staff call me and then asks me to hold for the attorney.
My offending members of the bar should set up email forwarding if they want their staff to know of their email communications. Fellow members of the bar should ask for professional courtesies directly. Lawyers should not expect fellow lawyers to answer two minutes worth of questions before being informed whether that attorney is available. These attorneys may not perceive such behavior as valuing their time over their fellow members of the bar, but that’s how I perceive it.
I concur with all of your points. When called and asked to hold for an attorney, I go full Nancy Reagan and just say no. Then I hang up.
Much of the cc issues I have seen involve unnecessarily and duplicatively billing their client for the attorney and the five others who were cc’d on the email. Classic churning. That takes a special place in cases where the attorney expects the opposing party to pay this kind of ginned up billing.
All valid points!
In residency I had an attending who when he wanted to talk to another doctor would tell me to ‘page them to my pager’. This ensures that they would be waiting on him, rather than he waiting on them, despite the fact that he is the one initiating the communication.
Once I asked him ‘would you like me to put ‘My time is more important than yours’ on the message, or should we just leave that as implied?’
Greg,
I am with you on 2 and 3 but not 1. I always ask to keep my paralegal in email chains after I have put her there in a reply. This is done to make sure I don’t miss your communication. She does not reply outside of me ever unless it is to send a document that I have already ok’d. But she does make sure I know that I have gotten an email.
Conrad F
The way for you to handle that is to have you automatically forward incoming emails to your paralegal, rather than asking other attorneys to remember to courtesy copy your paralegal.
It is an honor to be a subscriber of you!
Long time admirer. Thank you for your content; more for your loyalty to your Oath. You restore faith in those that have experienced the poor behavior of Attorneys. Keep Talking!
I’m totally with you on copying staff — not only can you set up mail forwarding, but there are now programs that make sharing specific emails almost seamless.
I disagree about requests for courtesy, mainly because if I need a courtesy and am delegating asking for it to staff, it’s because I genuinely *need* the courtesy and — based on those circumstances — can’t send the request myself. (Note: I had a baby in a car a month earlier than planned…I know I didn’t personally ask for the associated courtesies I needed.)
The receptionist thing is annoying, but it’s related to using receptionist services instead of a full-time person in-house. The quality — and ability to write your own script — varies. My preference is to send an email and schedule a phone call so nobody’s time is wasted.
I should have been more precise. If an attorney has staff reach out to me because he or she is addressing a personal issue, I don’t resent the delegation to staff. Often they have staff make the requests because they’re too busy. I don’t care how busy an attorney is: one is never too busy to ask another attorney for a courtesy.
All of these comments are valid. All in all I agree with you. As always, thank you Greg, for your illuminating thoughts.