Our Clients and Us
If you really want
your client to have confidence in you, is it better to demonstrate
a command of the relevant legal principles or to appear warm,
reactive and animated?
Most of us
would say the former - pointing out that the more people-friendly
skills, while helpful, are certainly not essential. After all,
what do clients want from us lawyers if not legal competence.
However this may be a serious misconception, according to the
work of Stephen Feldman and Kent Wilson.[i]
Some years ago these faculty members in the law and psychology
departments of a Midwestern university conducted a research study
that bears consideration.
Their study design
compared indicia of "legal competence" and "relational
skill" to see how each might bear on clients’ desire
to work with the professional. They created two axes. At one end
of the "competence" axis, they instructed their lawyers
to be sure to obtain factual data, explain court jurisdiction
and procedure, give practical advice, provide appropriate forms
and explain relevant case law. On the other end, the lawyer failed
to do any of these things.
Feldman and Wilson
actually conducted a literature review to determine what might
be the components of "relational skill." They identified
the following: the lawyer introduces him/herself using their first
name, shakes hands, makes small talk, lets the client talk, leans
forward, looks at the client, reflects the client’s content
and affect and appears warm, reactive and animated.
The researchers, then,
recorded four different attorney/client interview scenarios, in
which the lawyer demonstrated (1) high legal competence/high relational
skill, (2) high legal competence/low relational skill, (3) low
legal competence/high relational skill and (4) low legal competence/low
relational skill. These four tapes were then shown to a large
number of subjects who were asked to rate the lawyers in relation
to the following statements:
This lawyer will do
all he can to help the client; I would have confidence in this
lawyer; This lawyer will charge a fair and reasonable fee for
his services; The client will accept and follow the lawyer’s
advice; I would recommend this lawyer to a friend in need of a
good divorce lawyer; I would recommend this lawyer to a friend
in need of a good tax lawyer; I would consult this lawyer if I
had a divorce problem.....or a tax problem.
Obviously, the lawyers
who demonstrated high competence with high relational skill were
the first choices in every context and those with low competence/low
relational skills were at the bottom. Yet, which combination came
in second? Was it the lawyers with high competence/low relational
skills or low competence/high relational skills?
What Feldman
and Wilson found, consistently, was that people preferred to work
with - and tended to trust - the lawyers demonstrating high relational
skills. This applied not only to the divorce lawyer scenario (which
would make sense due to the emotional issues usually presented)
but to the tax lawyer, as well. [ii]
Demonstrating relational
skill resulted in the client being more likely to follow the lawyer’s
advice and to refer others to that lawyer. Thus, high relational
skill strongly promotes client control, as well as practice development
through referrals from clients (a highly gratifying source of
business for any attorney).
We may look at these
behaviors associated with "relational skill" as simply
a set of techniques to be learned. Yet this would be a mistake.
Our clients are usually perceptive enough to know if the concern
is sincere or they are being worked by a clever "to do"
list for clients.
Pete Roberts,
who runs the LOMAP program for the State Bar [iii]
has written a useful guide available through his office entitled
"Up and Running: Operating Instructions for the Small Law
Office." Many of its nuggets are applicable to the lawyer
practicing in any firm environment. One chapter, entitled Client
Relations notes (perhaps self-evidently) that, "Relationships
with clients can make or break a law practice. In addition to
providing competent legal work (which we assume to be the case),
happy and successful lawyers know how to treat their customers."
Too often, lawyer’s
think of their clients only as problem delivery systems. Solve
the problem, earn the fee, move on to the next problem. However,
as Pete Roberts, once again, notes, "Many of us have experienced
insensitive treatment by another professional....We come away
from the experience feeling uncared for, disrespected, and angry,
even if the professional performed competent work. Likewise your
clients will form a distinct impression of you based on how you
treat them. They may also share this impression with everyone
they know, directly influencing your success as an attorney."
Dr. Andy Benjamin
has counseled hundreds of Washington attorneys and law students
over the past dozen years. In that time, he has observed that
attorneys who have fallen into professional and personal difficulties,
didn’t follow what he calls "the rule of two."
According to Dr. Benjamin, in order to maintain a basic sense
of satisfaction with a particular case, we need to satisfy at
least 2 of the following 3 criteria: We must (1) love the type
of law involved; (2) enjoy working with that particular client
and/or (3) have a satisfactory advance fee deposit in the bank,
so that the case does not cause financial stress (his "no
involuntary pro-bono" rule).[iv]
I want to suggest,
here, that in order to be truly satisfied in our practices, we
need to view these criteria as legs on a stool, each of which
is essential to personal and professional enrichment. Who wants
to worry about money, even though they love the kind of law they
practice and enjoy their clients? How long will you last if you
like your clients and have no money worries, but think the kind
of law you practice is boring or even distasteful? By the same
token, if you don’t like your clients, how much gratification
are you going to get from your practice?
More to the point,
here, if you don’t like your clients, how are you going to
be able to believably demonstrate the "relational skills"
discussed earlier? Thomas Shaffer and James Elkins in their gem,
Legal Interviewing and Counseling in a Nutshell say that,
"There is common agreement that an open, reflective, supportive
atmosphere in the office, is likely to produce better rapport
than a climate in which one or both parties in the relationship
have secret agendas. An open, reflective atmosphere suggests the
use of these devices: (1) active listening, (2) evidence of empathic
regard for the client’s feelings and (3) acceptance."
These comprise the foundation for the counseling relationship,
as identified by Carl Rogers over 50 years ago.
My practice
focuses on domestic relations and estate planning - which represent
the intersection of personal-life concerns and the law. The connection
between so-called "family law" and the principles, above,
are pretty much a no-brainer.[v]
I have often wondered about the degree that strong client rapport,
which is marked by a high degree of empathy and legitimate concern,
informs the successful and rewarding practices of the plaintiff’s
PI lawyer; the patent attorney, the employment specialist or the
securities lawyer. I have yet to hear that these practice areas
can safely eschew the principles of honest empathy and concern
for the client and that the successful rainmaker views clients
as nothing more than inconvenient carriers of a legal problem
and a satisfactory fee.
[i]
Stephen Feldman has long been native son of the Pacific
Northwest and now maintains a successful and very well regarded
mediation practice in Pioneer Square.
[ii]Feldman, S. and Wilson, K, The Value of Interpersonal
Skills in Lawyering, 5 Law and Human Behavior 311 (1981)
[iii]Law Office Management Assistance Program.
[iv]This rule has also been cleverly stated by Jay
Foonberg, the national expert on building and maintaining a law
practice as, "I’d rather not work and not get paid than
work and not get paid."
[v]Although I am certain that the adversarial family
lawyers in the community would heartily disagree.
