Who Do You Trust?

by Joseph Shaub

“Trust” is a big word for lawyers.  We draft trust documents which transfer control of one person’s assets to another, with the attendant testamentary, totten, spendthrift, QTIP and other permutations.  There’s the trust deed you signed to pull money out of your home. Sometimes you would like to have opposing counsel trussed (oops - that’s for another article). There’s Microsoft’s anti-trust trial....and, perhaps, most essential to the work we all do, regardless of specialty, we have a fiduciary duty to our clients, which is based upon trust.   

However “trust” is tremendously difficult to give.  As Noah Webster tells us, it involves an element of dependence.  If there is one thing we share with most of our clients, it is that the notion of being dependent on someone else gives us the heebie-jeebies.  I have seen confident, self possessed professionals (in an array of disciplines) become visibly uncomfortable at the notion of being dependent on another person. 

By dependent, I refer, here, to that state of vulnerability in which you need someone to provide something that you cannot provide yourself.  (Of course, to accept the premise that this could even be possible, is to accept our fundamental humanity and imperfection.)  This is the state of most of our clients who come to us seeking our services.  Even the most sophisticated of those we counsel and represent come to us because there is something we can do which they need,  but cannot do for themselves.  Among the less sophisticated - those who stream through our doors every year who have seldom, if ever, employed an attorney - who are flat-out confused and humbled before the legal process - and whose well-being rests upon the work we do, these people are extremely vulnerable in a system within which we seem to move so effortlessly and they are, in the clearest sense, dependent upon us. 

People naturally detest  being dependent and vulnerable.  I don’t much like it...I don’t imagine you do either.  A lot of lawyers I know put considerable energy into being rock-solid self sufficient.   We labor to exercise emotional self-control, client control and case control.  Like our clients, we don’t want the resolution of our affairs to be out of our own reach...and grasp. 

I think we practice without a deep and respectful appreciation of the dependence our clients have on us - and how they resent that dependence.  And every time we fail to timely return a telephone call or fully respond to an inquiry to allay our clients’ concerns and to educate them (on their level) about the process in which they have become enmeshed, or whenever a client has to ask why any job promised has not yet been done - we only exacerbate their anxiety and plant seeds of distrust.  I think that’s one reason why people complain about lawyers.  Lots of what lawyers do with their clients (all the while practicing their craft with the highest competence) would naturally lead those clients to think their lawyer doesn’t like them.  While you might scoff at such a comment as “touchy feely b.s.,” I ask you to consider - How would it feel for you to be dependent on someone you didn’t believe particularly liked you or cared about your well-being? 

A marvelous study conducted some years ago involved four sets of taped lawyer-client interviews which were observed by a group of test subjects.  After the interviews the people were asked to rate each lawyer in terms of skill; effectiveness; whether they’d want to work with the lawyer and whether they’d refer others to that lawyer.  The lawyers in the interviews were distinguished by their demonstration of competence and interpersonal skills.  Indicia of competence included a clear knowledge of legal precedent and procedure and succinct explanations to the client.  Interpersonal skills included maintenance of appropriate eye contact and demonstration of interest in the client as well as their  problem.  Of course, the lawyers who demonstrated both competence and interpersonal skills ranked the highest, but the really interesting finding was that the lawyers with high interpersonal skills and low competence ranked higher than their counterparts with high competence and low interpersonal skills. 

It’s really quite simple.  People will be more comfortable reposing trust (and being dependent upon) someone they believe likes them and shows an interest in them as people.  Sure they’ll hire a lawyer and pay the retainer if the lawyer is competent- but the relationship will often evolve into a begrudging one - the counsel will not be easily taken and the conclusion will not be particularly satisfying.  Referrals and repeat business will be less likely.  Unreturned telephone calls and inexplicable billings are the two most frequent complaints people bring to the bar - understandably because they project a lack of concern for the client who is forced into dependence upon you - who must trust you. 

Which naturally leads to a key question - Who do you trust?  Upon whom to you allow yourself to be dependent?  Who do you let take care of you in areas of your life where you may feel vulnerable or inadequate? What do you worry about?  Your kids?  Your marriage?  Money?  Your health?  Your office or partners?  What do you keep close to your vest?   Most of us are far more comfortable taking care of others than being taken care of ourselves.  However, I want to suggest that vulnerability - or dependence - is a natural condition that occurs periodically for each of us and it is a quintessentially human experience.  What do you consider a “weakness” and how much energy do you put into shielding that weakness behind your competence? Does the importance of control in your life lead you to have contempt for those who are vulnerable?  If so, it’s a virtual certainty that your clients.....or your associates, your spouse or lover and most definitely your kids will know it. 

So its going to be hard to expect our clients to trust us when we have a deep uneasiness about trusting, ourselves.  That’s also why we cannot expect to strictly segregate our personal and professional lives.

Back to Articles