Once upon a time, I knew someone who had worked as an aide for a U.S. senator. The senator had a meeting with a bunch of constituents in about five minutes. The aide filled those five minutes with the briefing: She told the senator four key things about the constituents’ cause.
And the senator pulled it off! The aide was startled: “It was amazing! The constituents really thought he knew about their problem, and they were convinced they mattered to him!”
This is a recurring theme in the law.
Product Spotlight: Lexis® Verdict & Settlement Analyzer
Put away the guesswork—Lexis® Verdict & Settlement Analyzer helps legal professionals assess case potential with confidence by using data-driven insights from the industry’s largest collection of verdicts and settlements.
Partners often know very little about the client’s issue.
I didn’t say this was good. I just said it was true.
I also didn’t say this was universally true among partners. When I slaved away at a law firm, I was often deeply involved in the client’s case. And I had many, many partners who also understood what they were working on.
But that wasn’t true of everyone.
Humans in the Loop: The People Powering Trusted Legal AI
As the use of artificial intelligence permeates legal practice, a critical question confronts every legal professional who uses these tools: Can I trust this?
There were irresponsible partners. Those partners had plenty of time, but no inclination to learn anything. If those partners had to meet with a client, they had to be brought up to speed.
There were also partners who were too busy for their own good. Those partners had attracted so much business that it was essentially impossible for them to know anything about any individual client’s case. If those partners had to meet with a client, they had to be brought up to speed.
In a law firm, the bringing-an-ignorant-partner-up-to-speed drill is a pain in the neck. You, and the others who are actually informed about a case, might waste a full eight-hour day telling the ignorant one about the case, answering the ignorant one’s questions, and then performing follow-up tasks when the ignorant one asks questions that no one could possibly care about, but the ignorant one’s in charge, so someone has to provide an answer.
Corporations actually operate at a faster pace than law firms.
You feel rushed at a law firm, but you’re rushed because there isn’t sufficient time to perform a task: “How is anyone supposed to draft a motion for summary judgment in a complex case in just three days?”
You also feel rushed at a corporation, but the rush is different: Pre-scheduled phone call with a business person from 8 to 9. Pre-scheduled one-on-one meeting with one of your direct reports from 9 to 10. Pre-scheduled meeting with finance from 10 to 11. A half hour free! That’s where you’ll sneak in commenting on the draft motion for summary judgment in the complex case, answering a couple of emails, and responding to the internal survey. And then it picks up again: Pre-scheduled meeting from 11:30 to noon. It’s unimaginable to have three days to think about what a motion for summary judgment should look like.
These truths mean that you bring ignorant people up to speed differently in-house than you do at law firms. Curing ignorance happens more often in-house, and it has to happen more quickly. How do you do it?
Here’s how you bring an ignorant person up to speed in-house: Draft a short email. The email has two sections. The first section consists entirely of what the ignorant recipient has to know for the upcoming meeting, or what the ignorant person must say. This section contains perhaps four to six short bullet points. “During tomorrow’s meeting with BigCo, you must make the following points: . . . .” You should also identify in this section who at the other side actually knows what’s going on. (Suppose your company’s Ms. Big is talking to the other company’s Mr. Big. Neither of those people really knows what they’re talking about. So you should tell Ms. Big: “The person who has been leading the charge for this at BigCo is Jarndyce.” That enables Ms. Big to say to the other side, “You may not be fully up to speed on this issue. If you’re not, talk to Jarndyce.” This tells the other side who to speak to within the other side’s organization.)
But that’s all the first chunk of your email should contain; you tell the ignorant one what to say.
The email then has a second section: “To the extent you’d like to know more, here’s some background information about the problem. . . . ” Now you’re entitled to spend perhaps four short paragraphs, using short sentences, explaining more about what’s really happening.
Finally, the closing sentence: “If you’d like to know more, or if you’d like to discuss this, please call.” That covers you in case the ignorant person is curious.
It’s funny: Although you encounter ignorant folks in politics, at law firms, and at corporations, you adjust for the ignorance in different ways in different environments.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].