Balancing efficiency and a lawyer's role during client intake

There are a number of ways that lawyers can achieve this goal, a number of which involve using nonlawyers through parts of the process. That can certainly include using members of the professional team who are not licensed by the State Bar. But, it can also mean taking advantage of opportunities involving non-humans, such as chatbots or virtual customer assistants. These are useful and effective ways of addressing some issues involving how lawyers most efficiently spend their time. But lawyers would be well-served in establishing parameters for prospective client questions and intake that make sense from both an ethical and a business perspective.

Last June, the ABA addressed this concept through Formal Opinion 506. Though the opinion was targeted to the concept of what nonlawyer firm employees could and could not do during the intake process, the same concepts would necessarily apply to automated systems, such as chatbots and virtual customer assistants.

From an ethical perspective, the biggest issue is to consider what portions of the intake process are things that should not be delegated. It is clear that not all communications about a lawyer and prospective engagement need to be directly with a lawyer. Indeed, lawyers communicate through their websites and other advertising. In that way, a technological response is similar except that it provides a more interactive experience that likely is more efficient for the prospective client.

This can even extend into the prospective client intake tasks, including the exchange of initial information for a conflict check, the type of assistance the client is requesting, and more general questions about the engagement agreement. But the lawyer should be available to the prospective client, including to discuss the scope of representation and more detailed aspects about the engagement agreement. Accordingly, whether a lawyer uses live personnel, technology, or both to assist with client intake, the lawyer should ensure that the prospective client’s questions that involve the practice of law are answered only by the lawyer. Examples of these subjects include what types of services should be provided, a negotiation or explanation of the engagement agreement’s terms, or preliminary strategies. As a practical and related matter, lawyers may want to interact with individuals before an engagement begins simply to determine whether the personalities are a good fit.

From a business perspective, lawyers may want to remember that a profession providing services is one that often is most successful because of the relationships the professional cultivates. Though few professionals could imagine surviving based on their care for a single client, à la Jerry Maguire, it is also reasonable to assume that most clients want to feel like they are at least a high priority for their lawyers. That means that they will want and expect their lawyers to answer their questions and to do so in a timely manner. This, of course, means that both ethical and business interests are aligned.

Lawyers should absolutely take advantage of technological tools available to them. It frees them up to be more efficient in caring for their clients. But this means also making sure that the technology does not become a substitute for work that should come from the lawyer.