Why are lawyers/clients so in love with the call? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Topic title. I'm not talking about obvious instances where a call is easier, like if you want to have a discussion in real time to parse out what is needed, but otherwise? Every week is filled with hours on calls of stuff like:
- "As you can tell from our e-mail, this is where the workstreams are. Let me now tell you that the workstreams are, exactly as we told you in the e-mail, for the next 20 minutes."
- "I asked you in the e-mail to send through these specific documents. Let me proceed to tell you in this call that I want the specific documents I indicated in the e-mail."
- "Let me explain the assignment to you. None of this will make sense until after you've given a look at the documents I will send to you/I'm just repeating what I already told you in the e-mail, but I wanted to reiterate it anyway so I can feel useful."

Whenever I talk to lawyers, it's always like "I started off my day thinking I was going to get a lot of work done...then the calls came," but they initiate calls nearly as often I see clients initiate calls. And they nearly always end up at the exact same spot they started. 95% of all calls I'm on could have been satisfied with an e-mail, or worse, already was done via e-mail. So why?

[Anonymous User]

The primary reason for a call over email is to not have anything in writing that can be disclosed. Though it doesn't sound like that fits your examples.

In the examples you give, I'd presume the intent is that you can ask questions and the caller can deal with them all at once, rather than have you (or a bunch of people? if it's a multi person call) pinging multiple e-mail questions back at various times. (I'm not saying that's always going to be effective, but possibly the intent.)

[Anonymous User]

Client weighing in.

We have a standing call with outside counsel that was put on calendar at their request. Initially, I had the same questions as you -- like calls are literally a waste of time, add to bills, and can be handled way more efficiently over email.

Over time, as the prior poster pointed out, I've realized that the standing calls with OC are one of the few times that all the in-house attorneys are together to bounce ideas off of/coordinate logistics/etc. (And yes, all of this could technically be done over email, but action items just seem to get done quicker when everyone is on a single Zoom call vs multiple emails flying back and forth.)

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but to the posters above, OP explicitly carved out your examples - “I'm not talking about obvious instances where a call is easier, like if you want to have a discussion in real time to parse out what is needed, but otherwise?”

[Anonymous User]

- "As you can tell from our e-mail, this is where the workstreams are. Let me now tell you that the workstreams are, exactly as we told you in the e-mail, for the next 20 minutes."

As another poster already said, this gives someone an opportunity to ask questions. Also, it might open up discussion about priorities.

- "I asked you in the e-mail to send through these specific documents. Let me proceed to tell you in this call that I want the specific documents I indicated in the e-mail."

This is a better example - it communicates urgency without putting that in writing. Emails can go without response for a long time, but if you catch someone on the phone you can lay the pressure on without having that in writing. I'm more comfortable asking opposing counsel over the phone why they haven't delivered rather than over email.

- "Let me explain the assignment to you. None of this will make sense until after you've given a look at the documents I will send to you/I'm just repeating what I already told you in the e-mail, but I wanted to reiterate it anyway so I can feel useful."

Again, gives an opportunity to ask questions. Plus, they can gauge your understanding better on a call than on an email. You can easily miss a sentence in an email, but that's harder when you have to keep saying "okay" over the phone.

Not to be critical, but OP's cherry-picked examples aren't reflective of the way things play out IRL. I rarely ever have a call that covers an email word for word. Rather, I often find that calls about material that was already covered in an email leave both sides with more info, a better mutual understanding, or even just with a higher likelihood that every piece of info was received. I have a really close friend who hates picking up the phone and has the same perspective as OP, but we have both walked away from team calls with precisely the opposite perspective on whether the call was helpful.

Perhaps a perspective shift would help? If I join a call thinking I'm going to get nothing out of it, chances are I won't get anything out of it. Even if I have an opportunity to make more out of the call (ask a question, listen more carefully, etc.), I'm not going to because I think calls are useless. If, on the other hand, I join hoping to learn something more or communicate something more effectively, chances are that will actually happen because I'll be looking for the opportunity.

[Ultramar vistas]

Having worked in other industries, my experience of biglaw is that it is actually much less call and meeting heavy than most people’s office experience.

Maybe OP just works with idiots, but I don’t relate to the examples at all.

[Anonymous User]

Not OP, but to the posters above, OP explicitly carved out your examples - “I'm not talking about obvious instances where a call is easier, like if you want to have a discussion in real time to parse out what is needed, but otherwise?”

I think there’s a spectrum between the OP’s “obvious instances” and what others are saying about the chance to ask questions. I don’t think “discussion in real time to parse out what is needed” is the same thing as someone calling to be able to answer questions or emphasize priorities.

I mean if the calls are literally word for word what the email said, yeah, that’s dumb. But it may be also that the OP isn’t in a position to personally grasp the more unspoken expectations behind the calls or how they could move the calls beyond what the email says.

[Sad248]

It's one of the many, many issues, not only in Biglaw, but in this service industry in general, just Google anything about meetings being useless and you will find tons of grievances on this practice. Will anything change? No. As the above posters, who rushed to defend the practice, inadvertently have also pointed out: a lot of people truly don't realize how useless it is. So there is a massive disconnect there, I think for some it is incredibly useful. I think for many others, it is completely useless.

For example, I've been on a ton of calls which were devoid of new content and ended with a "Well, thanks so much for your time everyone. This was incredibly useful." So let's indeed be generous and say that people can interpret the same event completely differently. Or as pointed out:

I have a really close friend who hates picking up the phone and has the same perspective as OP, but we have both walked away from team calls with precisely the opposite perspective on whether the call was helpful.

Perhaps a perspective shift would help? If I join a call thinking I'm going to get nothing out of it, chances are I won't get anything out of it. Even if I have an opportunity to make more out of the call (ask a question, listen more carefully, etc.), I'm not going to because I think calls are useless. If, on the other hand, I join hoping to learn something more or communicate something more effectively, chances are that will actually happen because I'll be looking for the opportunity.

Whilst I do find this is funny ("OP, you and my close friend are the problem! You just don't grasp the amazing content of these calls which repeat what was said in the e-mails!"), it strikes at its core: people just interpret things differently. And neither side is thinking that they're in the wrong. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why we have as many calls as we do.

My most recent call was the result of 5 e-mails that were exchanged (one with the request, one with indication of receipt, another with the indication that a call would be preferred, and two to schedule the call). What was discussed on the call that lasted almost 10 minutes? Let's find out.

"Hey there. This is my colleague. It's a busy time, haha! *insert more meaningless stuff about how hard their life is*"

"Yes, of course it is, thanks so much for making the time."

"So as to your request, as you might know *insert information that I indeed knew*"

"Yes, of course, I completely understand."

"So, to your request..., we have this excel sheet? Would that work?"

"...Yes. Yes, it would. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks."

"Ah nice. Well just let us know if there is anything else! We are planning to *information wholly unrelated to my workstream*"

As others have pointed out, "There is the opportunity to ask questions!" Yes. You know where else you can ask questions? Over freakin' e-mail. In the above example, the file could have just been sent over hours earlier. Instead a call had to be scheduled, work had to be halted to get on the call, I had to read up on what the call exactly was going to be on, in case questions would be raised, etc.

I agree, of course, when we are talking about calls that require a lot of back and forth. I even think that a standing call with the client could be useful. Probably not, but it helps assuage client concerns and make them feel taken care of so they can relax on all the other calls they want to impose on associates.

Lastly, for people who say "Well, in an e-mail, points can be missed!" Yeah, in a 45 minute call, nothing will get missed or misinterpreted of course, you're completely right. It's way more likely that you'll be missing something that is permanently on black and white on your screen.

So, I think it's basically four things:
1. People, for some reason, think calls are actually useful. Some also think the Earth is flat, what are you gonna do?
2. Clients are insecure and afraid things get missed and want calls so their hands can be held/they can feel important.
3. Lawyers are taught to go above and beyond for clients, especially in biglaw. So they will offer calls relentlessly, because they think that is what "full-service" entails.
4. Some are actually allergic to reading e-mails and want everyone told to them out loud.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, I hate talking to people on the phone and would ideally write out everything rather than speak. But I’ve come round to the usefulness of calls for the following reasons:

- I can ask/answer questions (I know you don’t buy this but it helps me)

- big thing: answering questions on a call is actually often WAY quicker than writing out an answer. It just is. It may not be quicker than it is for you to read a written answer, but if you want information from me, and it’s quicker for me to tell you than to write out an answer, I’m going to call you and you just have to suck it up. (Unless there’s a reason I want to have what I told you in writing, of course, which can be true as well.)

- I can go into details that I might not want to put in an email.

I agree that if you have to spend a lot of time scheduling calls that’s a hassle; I rarely find this to be a problem but it would be annoying, I guess.

But if you have to read up on stuff to take a call, you’re going to have to read up on it to send/answer an email. And you have to stop work to send/answer an email same as for a call.

Like someone else said above, I really don’t have calls where all that happens is repetition of the content of an email. So either your firm/clients/whoever are especially tedious/annoying, or there’s value to the calls that you’re missing (like the information that you say has nothing to do with your work stream, which may legit be useless to you, but which the person talking to you thinks is useful for you to you know). Like you think we’re missing the fact that the call is useless, while I think you’re missing the fact that there’s actually something going on, but maybe it’s just that my phone calls are all actually useful.

I agree that neither medium is a guarantee against confusion - phone isn’t magically better than email. You can ask questions but are at the mercy of what you remember/write down. A clear email is great, they’re just not always clear, and back and forth can be more awkward than on a call.

And again - I say this as someone who hates talking on the phone. I’ve gotten a lot better about it but I still cringe when I get phone calls and default to online options whenever I can. I just don’t find that most of my calls could have been emails.

[Anonymous User]

Whilst I do find this is funny ("OP, you and my close friend are the problem! You just don't grasp the amazing content of these calls which repeat what was said in the e-mails!"), it strikes at its core: people just interpret things differently. And neither side is thinking that they're in the wrong. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why we have as many calls as we do.

Poster with the friend - glad I made you laugh. But I should point out that my friend's comments were "this could have been handled over email" and not "this stuff has already been handled over email" as the OP seems to be suggesting. That's an important distinction, and others have already answered why people may want a call for the former.

[Sad248]

Whilst I do find this is funny ("OP, you and my close friend are the problem! You just don't grasp the amazing content of these calls which repeat what was said in the e-mails!"), it strikes at its core: people just interpret things differently. And neither side is thinking that they're in the wrong. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why we have as many calls as we do.

Poster with the friend - glad I made you laugh. But I should point out that my friend's comments were "this could have been handled over email" and not "this stuff has already been handled over email" as the OP seems to be suggesting. That's an important distinction, and others have already answered why people may want a call for the former.

It's a distinction, but it's not an important one. The latter is just stupid and inefficient; the former is just inefficient. But like I said, people won't meet eye to eye on this. Different strokes and all.

[Anonymous User]

Hilarious to see this post now, yesterday I think we set a new all-time record at FIVE checklist calls in a single day between the same exact law firms to go through the same exact checklist. Literally nothing was done on these calls other than 30-40 lawyers sitting on the line asking each other for status on documents. No negotiations, no "are you OK if we revise X document to include Y," just "we're working on a markup and will deliver shortly," ad nauseum for every entry on the checklist, five times in a single day.

I'd like the call apologists here to explain that. Otherwise, I'm sticking with my opinion that the phone was mankind's worst invention.

[Anonymous User]

Hilarious to see this post now, yesterday I think we set a new all-time record at FIVE checklist calls in a single day between the same exact law firms to go through the same exact checklist. Literally nothing was done on these calls other than 30-40 lawyers sitting on the line asking each other for status on documents. No negotiations, no "are you OK if we revise X document to include Y," just "we're working on a markup and will deliver shortly," ad nauseum for every entry on the checklist, five times in a single day.

I'd like the call apologists here to explain that. Otherwise, I'm sticking with my opinion that the phone was mankind's worst invention.

Not in corporate so I wouldn't know about these. Any reason you wouldn't want all of these status updates in writing? I'm a diehard "apologists" to use your terms, and I've got nothing to explain this other than some attorneys are old-fashioned and don't know how to use email.

[Anonymous User]

Delete

[Anonymous User]

Hilarious to see this post now, yesterday I think we set a new all-time record at FIVE checklist calls in a single day between the same exact law firms to go through the same exact checklist. Literally nothing was done on these calls other than 30-40 lawyers sitting on the line asking each other for status on documents. No negotiations, no "are you OK if we revise X document to include Y," just "we're working on a markup and will deliver shortly," ad nauseum for every entry on the checklist, five times in a single day.

I'd like the call apologists here to explain that. Otherwise, I'm sticking with my opinion that the phone was mankind's worst invention.

I mean, I'm one of the pro-phone people above and that's fair enough. I'm not in corporate either and I can't even imagine that.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Having worked in other industries, my experience of biglaw is that it is actually much less call and meeting heavy than most people’s office experience.

Maybe OP just works with idiots, but I don’t relate to the examples at all.

[Anonymous User]

Having worked in other industries, my experience of biglaw is that it is actually much less call and meeting heavy than most people’s office experience.

Maybe OP just works with idiots, but I don’t relate to the examples at all.

Agreed. I'm a 6th-year litigation associate, and the only calls I have fall into three buckets: (1) mandatory/from the Court, like a meet-and-confer; (2) where I and someone else are looking at a document/assignment and talking through our thoughts in real-time; or (3) not wanting to put stuff in writing.

Overall, it's not a lot of time on the phone. And absolutely *no* "meetings" whatsoever, which is far and away my favorite thing about biglaw.

[RedNewJersey]

I tend to prefer emails, but I think calls are pretty useful in two situations beyond brainstorming / actively working through something:

First, lots of people that are copied on an email are rationally ignorant of it, because it didn't tell them to do anything (or, if they did read it, they didn't connect it with something they read last week). But if it comes up on a call, they'll think of something and chime in. This is especially true with more senior lawyers.

Second, about 5% of my emails go into the void. I sent them. The other person received them, buuuut, they don't quite actually do anything. Magically, when they are asked about it on a call with other people on it, they are able to get that thing done much faster--pretty useful!

[Anonymous User]

I've been on checklist calls where it was clear that some emails had never been read. Is that a fault on their end? Sure. But having the call and going through it "yeah we sent comments at 4:20" does help everyone be on the same page.

[Ultramar vistas]

I've been on checklist calls where it was clear that some emails had never been read. Is that a fault on their end? Sure. But having the call and going through it "yeah we sent comments at 4:20" does help everyone be on the same page.

Yep.

And what OP doesn’t understand is that the in-house world is basically non-stop calls and meetings. People often go days without a break in their calendars. So scheduling a call is about scheduling a time for them to think about the issue and make a decision, unfortunately.

You will notice as a young attorney that clients often seem to be reading docs and issues lists for the first time on the call. Not always, but often. That’s really what we’re doing, is carving out time for them to discuss, because if we didn’t, they’d never look at it, and then 5 days later they’d expect the docs to be magically marked up without any guidance from them on key issues.

I personally rarely experience outside-counsel only calls, except when we’re doing a final clear out of legal-only issues that we just need to discuss in person and stop redlining back and forth, and I think because most lawyers are on the same page about having limited time to chat about stuff that’s in an email.

All of which is to say, believe me it could be much worse, and if you hate this, don’t ever go in house because the meetings are truly soul sucking.

[Lacepiece23]

If you’re at a law firm, easy billing, duh. Nothing like a half hour call where the partner spends the first fifteen minutes reciting the elements of breach of contract and then devolves into all the facts of the case everyone knew only to end with 5 minutes of substance.