Altman Weil recently released: 2018 Law Firms in Transition, an Altman Weil Flash Survey.

From the introduction, comparing today to 2009 during the Great Recession:

The threat in 2018 is broader and more nuanced, arising primarily from the sweeping force of technology evolution over the last two decades that has resulted in the commoditization and commercialization of more and more legal services….

Most law firms continue to plan for short-term incremental improvements in performance, while deferring or slow-walking more forward-looking actions to address long-term, systemic threats.

That last line reminded me of many defense lawyers during the tort reform era of the early 2000’s. They were swamped with work and could not imagine ever not being busy.

At the time, I was a defense lawyer transitioning into a plaintiff practice (talk about rotten timing). Many fellow defense lawyers told me they would always be busy because plaintiff lawyers would always file cases. I know how crazy that sounds today, but it was a common belief in 2005.

Plaintiff lawyers certainly knew better. On the defense side, there were many lawyers drawing great paychecks sitting in mass tort depositions all day who never thought about workload next month, much less in a few years. Many of those legal eagles no longer practice law or have long since left the state for easier work.

Of the defense lawyers who did think about the future, maybe 20% had an inkling what was coming. The ones who did have done a better job adjusting to the new reality.

Divorce and criminal lawyers said less personal injury and consumer fraud litigation would not impact them because it wasn’t their practice area. Now they compete with former plaintiff and defense lawyers for that work.

The Altman survey is an interesting read. Among its conclusions:

• there is an oversupply of lawyers,
• billable hour demand is down,
• there are still too many lawyers in many law firms,
• more work is going in-house [to lawyers making less money but with a better quality of life],
• work is being redefined or eliminated through the application of technology, and
• the legal market will not be immune to the staggering changes wrought by modern tech.

The suggestions are bad news for big firm lawyers. They include weeding out more lawyers.

Final thoughts from Mr. Sunshine:

It’s sucked for people like me who graduated from law school in 1993. Ten years earlier, and we would have made a killing in the 90’s. Ten years later, and we wouldn’t had to so drastically adjust our professional expectations.On top of that, our retirement accounts have been halved. Twice.

We had to go through the period where no one knew how to use email yet and asshole emails were flying back and forth all day. We saw total idiots make millions. We saw great lawyers have breakdowns because their practices dried up. Many of those we started our careers with have left the state for greener pastures.

Of course, it hasn’t been all bad. I haven’t heard of a coke head lawyer in years. They can’t afford it anymore and have to stick to booze.

The worst part is that it used to be fun. Now, it’s just….not. Ask any lawyer–plaintiff or defense–if they are having fun. The answer will be ‘no.’ If you weren’t having fun practicing law in 2000, then you didn’t need to be a lawyer. Because it was a blast.

I enjoy reading articles about lawyer email etiquette like this one by Stefan Savic on Above the Law. It always reminds me of how ill equipped I and many other lawyers were when we began using email in the mid-1990’s. Because trust me, if you think lawyers need lessons in email etiquette now, you have no idea.

I first used email in my practice in 1995. I was young (28), inexperienced (2 yrs), and overconfident (was it even possible for me to lose a case?). Thankfully, my firm was an early adopter and I learned many of the dangers of a quick trigger with interoffice emails before I began firing them off to opposing counsel.

Savic’s main suggestions for email are:

• assume the whole world will see it
• don’t use humor
• don’t criticize or mock people
• proofread
• no profanity.

All good suggestions. Most of these are second nature for me. But I still struggle with not using humor.

Savic notes that written jokes can come off as awkward or insulting. I think it’s hard for people to know that a statement is a joke without hearing your tone of voice or seeing your face. There is also something about knowing the person.

Another theory is that most people don’t have a sense of humor and only laugh when they are cued by others laughing. Yet another theory is that I’m just not that funny. But that’s bullshit (see above) not true.

I do find myself writing humorous emails to opposing counsel, cracking myself up and then deleting the email without sending it. I mentioned this to a colleague the other day and he said he does the same thing.

My biggest suggestion for email is keep it short–at least if you want the recipient to read it. Many people will be reading it on their phone. While driving down the road. When I see a long email and I am out of the office, I often do not read it until I am at a computer. I suspect others are the same way.

So while you are doing that proofreading, edit the email to make it shorter. An added benefit is that short emails have less room to antagonize people as long as you also keep out insults and profanity.

And what if you receive an insulting or attacking email? Don’t respond in kind. Ignore the insults and attacks. I make this suggestion for two reasons:

1. the fact that the other lawyer is not acting like a professional is not an excuse for you to not act like a professional (I’m pretty sure judges see it my way on this); and
2. when you continue to act professionally, the other lawyer usually comes around and starts acting right.

I think I’m on to something with suggestion 2. If you treat lawyers the way you want to be treated even when you feel like they aren’t treating you that way–they will usually change their attitude. Before you know it, you will be friends.