Anonymous callers
Periodically I get phone calls from people who refuse to give me a name - they want legal advice, they want a consultation about their situation, or they just "have questions," but they are not comfortable telling me who they are. If you call and cannot tell us who you are, you probably are not going to get past the receptionist. If I pick up and you cannot tell me who you are, I'm not talking to you. If I sound aggravated, it's because I am.
You could be a co-defendant of a person I represent. You could be the victim in one of my criminal cases. You could be a witness in one of my cases. You could be one of the hundreds of annoying telemarketers that persist in calling my office and lying to get past the receptionist. You may have another attorney that represents you already - which does not necessarily mean I won't talk to you, but I have to know if someone represents you, who it is, and why you are calling me.
If you are talking to a lawyer on the telephone, in most circumstances your identity is protected - I'm not going to call anyone and announce that you have called my office. Confidentiality, to the extent that it applies, applies to you even on an initial phone call. Also, it is common courtesy to identify yourself - you know who I am, and I am not speaking with you unless you can extend the same courtesy.
Comments
If someone is seeking legal advice, they are going to have to come in and meet with me. I suppose I do make a few exceptions generally (speeding tickets I will handle over the phone and through email) and occasionally, I will make exceptions based on a specific case. But as a general rule, they're gonna have to make an appt and come in and see me.
I suppose that may cost me some business. And I am sure it's different for someone who practices at a place like the beach, where you have a lot of out-of-town visitors from far away. But it's a rule I feel pretty strongly about. First, I guess you could say I'm paranoid, but I don't like discussing things over the phone.
Second, I have found that rule cuts back dramatically on what I like to call "chit-chat" phone calls from clients. I have no problem meeting with you how ever many times you want to meet with me, to discuss your case. But I'm not gonna play the "just wanting to see what was happening" game. If the questions or concerns you have about your case are important enough to pull me away from actually working, then they are important enough for you to get in your car, drive over here and sit across from me to discuss them. I learned early on that if I made my clients come in to meet face-to-face, they realized they needed to make sure whatever it was they needed was important.
If a potential client calls me and starts asking legal questions, I always stop them and politely explain that they need to make an appointment to come in and I would be happy to discuss their situation with them. If it's a criminal situation, I explain to them their rights under Miranda and suggest that they invoke those rights until they have had a chance to meet with an atty. Like I said, I am sure it has cost me some cases. But I feel a lot more comfortable handling this stuff face to face.
Posted by: pluvlaw | May 17, 2010 12:28 PM
awesome post. Couldn't agree more with both you and pluvlaw.
Posted by: Paula Gardner | May 17, 2010 9:13 PM
Six of one, half dozen of the other. I think talking with some potential clients on the phone saves me face time with people whose cases I am not going to accept, or who are not going to hire me.
But - I spend far too much time on the phone with people, it does cut into my time when I need to be working on cases.
Posted by: BFrederick | May 17, 2010 10:46 PM