In an essay in the Wall Street Journal, a physician took the medical profession to task for its habit of providing laser-focused disease treatment, while essentially ignoring other needs of the chronically ill. Dr. Arthur Kleinman, a Harvard professor as well as a physician, says in “Treating Disease Is No Substitute for Caring for the Ill” that far too often patients with chronic illnesses are left to fend for themselves to navigate the system. “Disease demands treatment while illness calls out for care,” Kleinman says. He knows whereof he speaks; his wife had Alzheimer’s.
Those with chronic illnesses (nod in agreement if you are one of us, and, yes, I am in that category) often feel as if they are “chopped liver.” (It doesn’t matter whether you like chopped liver or loathe it, you get the point.)
You may be surprised — or maybe not — to read that half of adult Americans have at least one chronic disease.
I wonder if we treat clients in the same way that the medical profession handles disease. Do we hone in on the big money-making cases to the detriment of matters which, while not as lucrative, provide legal knowledge and advice that clients can use in ongoing situations?
I also wonder if clients look at us in the same way that Dr. Kleinman looked at his own profession while seeking help for his ailing wife. If he had trouble, imagine what it is like for us. It’s ironic that he was in the same predicament that nonmedical people face all the time when trying to figure out how to manage a chronic illness.
Lawyers are front and center for our clients when a crisis needs our immediate and all-consuming attention, but when the crisis fades or dies out, when we have won or lost, do we forget to pay attention to a client’s ongoing needs, however mundane they may be? I think a lot of us do, as we may well be more concerned with the big deal or the company lawsuit (and it doesn’t have to be a big company for corporate existence to hang in the balance. Exhibit A is a wage and hour judgment that can and does bankrupt a business).
We are more concerned with outcomes, with results, with numbers than with a client’s ongoing legal needs, prosaic or not so. It’s no surprise that what the client regards as nothing more than a legal hangnail can morph into something far more serious and business-threatening unless attention is paid.
Perhaps some chronic illnesses can be prevented (don’t smoke, drink in moderation, eat healthy, exercise, the usual litany of dos and don’ts), but not all. However, we as lawyers can practice preventive law if the client understands the cost-benefit analysis.
It is, essentially, the client’s risk assessment. How to explain that to the client with the hope that the client is willing to prevent future legal troubles? And if the client is willing, but the lawyer’s response is of the “We’ll get to it when we can” variety — in other words, putting the matter in the “stall box” — then how does the client feel? I think the chopped liver comparison is spot on.
How do we instill in clients the concept that preventive law is good business? How do we instill that in ourselves as well?
Sometimes it’s too late to prevent the damage, and all that the lawyer can do is stabilize the situation and minimize whatever damage has already been done, to triage. Not an easy task.
Early every January, my tax organizer arrives from my CPA (shudder). The first few pages compose a checklist, asking about any changes since the last year. How many lawyers do something similar for their clients? I would hazard a guess that it’s not enough. How many lawyers use such a checklist as a business development tool? I would imagine not many.
Just like physicians, we focus on solving problems. But, as Kleinman points out, we often just give our clients the bare bones, if that, of what they need.
Many times customers would come into a bank branch, plop down a bunch of documents without a clue as to what they meant or how to use them in their businesses. They expected the branch to give them the advice they sought from lawyers and didn’t get. Not our job, we told them. It is the job of the lawyer to explain what they have and why. It’s like having a chronic condition that needs care but doesn’t get it.
I don’t think that clients get the attention they need. It may be better for the lawyer to wait until a matter blows up, but is that the way it should be? We are in a helping profession, so let’s help and not leave them to navigate by their lonesome.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of 
