THE PROFESSION Why People Don't Like Lawyers, and What You Can Do About ItAuthor(s): Dennis E. HensleySource: ABA Journal, Vol. 70, No. 10 (October 1984), pp. 90-94Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20757404 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 22:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ABA Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.192 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Why People
Don't Like
Lawyers,
and What
You Can Do
About It
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.192 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE PROFESSION
By Dennis E. Hensley
Legal counselors have been burdened
with a bad public image ever since Aaron represented Moses before Phar
oah and wound up bringing 10 plagues on Egypt.
Comb the pages of literary history and you'll be hard pressed to find one author of note who hasn't gone out of his or her way to slander the legal profession. Ev
eryone from Shakespeare to Jonathan
Swift has added a barb or jab to the al ready lengthy list of malicious descrip tions. Some comments have been
downright ghastly. Theodore Dreiser wrote in his 1912
novel The Financier, "Lawyers in the
[main are] intellectual mercenaries to be bought and sold in any cause. . , . Life
is at best a dark, inhuman, unkind, un
sympathetic struggle built on cruelties . . . and lawyers are the most despicable
representatives of the whole unsatisfac
tory mess."
Illustrations by Gary Gianni
Cheap laughs Why is it that people write and say
such things? Well, in show business it's called a
cheap laugh, a "crowd pleaser." Every one identifies with it. It guarantees the author, actor, orator or politician a sure
round of applause. But perhaps after three millenia of
being bad-mouthed, it is time for law yers to call a halt. Maybe it's time for them to help the public reach a new level of social maturity.
It can be done, you know. After all,
people have learned to find other forms of entertainment than feeding Christians to the lions and poking fun at cripples. Lawyers have made a case for every
thing except their own plight. It's now time for them to take the stand on their own behalf.
The fact that some lawyers can wind up with nicknames like "Honest Abe," while others become known as "Tricky Dicky," emphasizes the fact that most of the struggle for a reputable image is won or lost individually, but changes in pub lic opinion ultimately will have to be
earned by the legal profession as a whole. This will call for the common de termination of the legal profession to face negative public relations develop ments by all members and to find solu tions to them.
As a public relations consultant (and a person who has learned to appreciate the helpfulness of a family attorney), I point out five key public relations prob lems I feel the legal profession is now facing and suggest some positive solu
tions.
Problem No. 1: Public misunder standing about a lawyer's income.
A big hubbub is made in national mag azines and newspapers about the start
ing salary of lawyers on Wall Street. The figure is approaching $50,000, and the public gags when it reads this. But the national median starting pay for lawyers is only about $24,700, according to a na tionwide survey commissioned by the
ABA Journal.
It's safe to say that the public is being handed confusing, misleading informa tion about the imagined "wealth" of all
"The public is being handed confusing, misleading information about the
imagined 'wealth' of all lawyers/'
October 1984 Volume 70 91
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.192 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
lawyers. It goes on all the time. In truth, many young lawyers earn less than
$10,000 annually. They bear an unfair burden when they become victims of jealousy based on misinformation.
Here are some strategies to control
this problem: Find an accurate report on the aver
age income level of lawyers, make pho
tocopies and share them with clients who question your fees. Lawyer income
surveys were published in the ABA Journal in February 1984 on page 51, and in August 1984 on page 42.
Prepare a specific list of your fees, consultation charges and additional ex
penses and abide by this list. Clients will then be able to see that your fees are no
higher than those of dentists, certified public accountants and other profession als.
Respond quickly to any inaccurate statements printed in your local news
paper about attorney's fees or earnings. Call the responsible editor or reporter and politely provide the correct data. Follow your call with a letter that re states the information you shared on the phone. Act as an individual. Don't wait for your professional association to get around to speaking for you.
Issue your own press releases lo
cally on your letterhead whenever you can share new data about attorney's fees or income levels. Substantiate your in
formation with research done by the ABA. This will diffuse rumors before they begin.
Make yourself available for TV and radio talk shows in which you can can
didly discuss the nature of legal fees.
Problem No. 2: An overabundance of lawyers.
There are 622,000 lawyers in the United States, according to the Amer
ican Bar Foundation. This calculates to one lawyer for every 418 persons.
Adding to this tally are more than 30,000 people who graduate from law school every year.
Legal counseling, unlike automobile maintenance, does not necessarily im
prove as service becomes faster and
cheaper. Clients need careful advice, pa
tience, empathy and support. Nev
ertheless, fierce competition among
lawyers leads to volume scheduling and terse dealings. The whole profession suf
fers from mishandling of clients. This only compounds public dislike.
One solution is for lawyers to focus more on becoming specialists rather
than generalists. In this way, "needs"
areas can be discovered and filled, much
"There is one lawyer for every 418 persons."
the way they are in the medical and engi neering professions.
For example, corporations are es
pecially interested in hiring lawyers who have become legal specialists. Accord
ing to Michael K. Magness of Martindale Services Inc., of New York, specializa tion already far outweighs the value of
generalization. Magness helps corpora tions find, screen and hire key ex ecutives.
"The greatest need right now is for legal specialists in leveraged leasing," said Magness, "because corporations that are cash-rich are looking for ways to divest funds into real estate. Large com
panies are actively seeking attorneys who are knowledgeable in securities, creative financing and real estate. They want such lawyers to become in-house
investment experts."
Magness added, "Equally in demand now are tax lawyers, because the gov ernment keeps rewriting the tax laws; and labor relations lawyers, because cor
porations are starting to be more asser
tive at the union bargaining tables. I'm convinced, overall, that the more spe cialized an attorney becomes, the more
in demand his or her services will be."
Problem No. 3: The client's sense of vulnerability.
When people are frustrated and scared, they lash out at anyone who re
minds them of their current vul nerability. Internal Revenue Service
agents are constant victims of tongue
lashings by taxpayers. Physicians get screamed at by terminal patients who
demand to be cured. Attorneys are vic
tims of clients' anger because they are
"part" of this bitter divorce proceeding, or bankruptcy, or slander suit or prop
erty battle. What's worse, the attorney is
charging a fee for helping the client dur ing this darkest moment. What could seem more mercenary? (Not helping the client would be far cruder, but the client will never consider that.)
When clients visit an attorney, they feel extremely vulnerable. They don't know the law, so they are forced to take the attorney's opinion. They often don't even know the attorney and are forced
to trust a stranger. Clients are also unnerved by the lack
of a specific time frame for legal matters. As one person told me: "Last year I had two tragedies hit me. I had to have a ma
jor operation, and I had to defend my business in a discrimination lawsuit. I didn't like either one, but at least I knew what to expect in regard to the opera tion.
"My physician said the operation would be done on Tuesday, I'd then be in the hospital recovering for five more
days and after that I'd be off work for a month. I could cope with that. No mys
teries, you know? But as to my lawsuit, my attorney said she'd try to get a court date 'soon' and that it would take
'awhile' to select a jury and that she would need 'ample time' to research the case. Nothing specific. I stayed awake for weeks, anxiously fretting about when the whole thing would end. That agony was far worse than the pain of my operation."
92 ABA Journal, The Lawyer's Magazine
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.192 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Another sense of client vulnerability stems from ambiguous billing practices. Often clients are unsure of how much of an attorney's time they are buying. One executive explained, "You know how
you feel when you're sitting in a taxi during a traffic jam: the meter is still running but you're going nowhere. That's how I feel when an attorney says, 'Let me check on that for you,' and then I get billed for anywhere from one to 20 hours of legal consultation time. I never know if it's legitimate or if the attorney is just dragging his feet or padding my bill. I'm often skeptical."
Here is how you can reduce a client's
sense of vulnerability: Low-cost or no-cost initial con
sultations are extremely popular with cli ents. By setting a "discussion fee" of $25 (about the same fee as a routine den tal check-up), clients will seldom hesi tate to seek legal counsel when they need it.
Taking time to explain legal circum stances will make the client see that state or federal laws?not the lawyers
dealing with them?are the obstacles. Point out passages in law books. Give copies of laws to clients to read. Turn the client's frustration toward the real culprit?the circumstance?and away from you.
Never snow a client with legalese, jargon, legal catchphrases or buzz
words. Talk straight and simple. Whenever possible, present time
and billing parameters. Clients will ac cept ballpark figures. Say, "This'11 prob ably take me half a day to run down, Mr. Peterson. If it looks like more than four hours billing time, I'll call you first with what I have, and we'll discuss the situa tion then." Be as specific as possible as often as possible. Say, "I'll try to line up a court date for early next week, Ms.
Draper. My secretary will call you with the details later today."
Again I emphasize the importance of a specific billing list for key services. Remove as much of the mystery as pos sible related to hiring an attorney. This will give clients a sense of control over their destiny.
Problem No. 4: One lawyer must al ways lose.
The oldest cliche in military strategy is, "Divide your enemy, and he will fall." The legal profession has gone this one better by dividing its colleagues and making itself fall. Lawyers face off against each other in courtrooms like en
emies rather than fellow officers of the court. They object to each other's state
"When clients visit an attorney they
feel extremely vulnerable."
ments, ridicule each other's evidence
and often publicly discredit each other's character and reliability.
Even worse, this behavior sometimes
carries over into their personal life. Bickering and mutual derision become habit. A century ago Charles Dickens noted in Bleak House, "No two lawyers can talk for five minutes without coming to total disagreement." When colleagues defame each other,
the public accepts this as verification of a total weakness of the profession. It's a
deadly situation. No other profession engages in it. Physicians never argue with colleagues in front of patients, even when offering counterpoint second opin ions. Why? Because they don't want the impact of their words to boomerang on their whole profession.
The role of an attorney, of course, is
to offer new views, present legitimate ar
guments and explain extenuating circum
stances as each relates to a case. This can be done tactfully and orderly, however. One attorney does not have to
go for the other's jugular jn order to prove a point.
There are several solutions to this problem:
Instead of assuming that all cases must have a winner/loser resolution, more effort should be made for a winner/ winner resolution. Mediation, out-of
court settlements, arbitration, dispute resolution meetings, common ground
negotiations and mutual compromise should be explored before two parties decide to go to court.
When you have an opportunity to speak about your colleagues in public, speak well of them or at least emphasize the positive.
Your courtroom arguments should
focus on the laws and evidence at hand, .not on the style or personality of the op posing attorney.
In both victory and defeat, opposing attorneys should show empathy, grace and respect for one another, particularly in front of clients.
"Lawyers face off against each other in courtrooms like enemies rather than
fellow officers of the court."
October 1984 Volume 70 93
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.192 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Problem No. 5: Stereotypical nega tive image myths.
Every profession inherits its share of derogatory monikers. It comes with the territory. Bankers are called Simon
Legrees, physicians quacks, police of ficers pigs, psychiatrists shrinks and law yers ambulance chasers.
Moderate teasing can be endured by anyone, but outright slander and exces
sive mockery are intolerable. Self-re
specting professions need to take aggressive actions to reverse negative
public images. Ten years ago the Fraternal Order of
Police hired the late Jack Webb ("Drag net's" Joe Friday) to do a series of na tional commercials that underscored
how helpful police officers were to cit izens. The theme was, "Call a friend . . .
call a cop." It was overwhelmingly suc
cessful. Public opinion polls showed a new respect for police officers, and ap
plications for admission to police aca demies also increased substantially.
A private psychiatric clinic with branches throughout the Midwest re
cently has had great success in changing the "shrink" image of psychiatrists to that of friends and helpers. The commer cials on television tell prospective cli ents, "The sanest thing you might ever do would be to seek counseling. We care."
A similar public service campaign for the legal profession would be very much in order. Themes such as, "Have a fam
ily attorney . . . there's no retainer fee," could promote the friendly accessibility of lawyers. More dramatic presenta
tions, such as a scene in which an under
aged youth is provided free legal counsel, could emphasize the theme, "Your local lawyers aren't just working for the rich and powerful."
Two procedures must be followed in order to reverse the negative image and dispel the myths that veil the legal pro fession. You should speak up to have your bar association undertake these
tasks.
A direct effort needs to be made to educate the public about how lawyers serve society as counselors, public de
fenders, court officers, family advisers and safeguarders of business ethics. This can be done through paid advertising and public relations campaigns.
A similar effort needs to be made to educate the public on how to make use of a lawyer. Procedures for calling, visit
ing and retaining an attorney should be explained. The range of cases covered in
civil and municipal courts should be ex
plained. The difference between small claims and municipal courts, grand and petit juries, and motion hearings and tri als should be explained. People will not bad-mouth something they understand.
Abe Lincoln once said, "A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade."
That is true, but the general public likes to get something tangible for its invested dollars. It finds it difficult to laud a per son who sells "talk." It is a challenge of the public relations-oriented lawyer to show that there are tangible benefits to
wise and timely counsel, and that law
yers are altruistic, not capitalistic, in
nature. The challenge is formidable, not
"Abe Lincoln once said, 'A lawyer s
time and advice are his stock in
trade/"
because the negative public accusations are true, but because the legaLprofes sion has hesitated too long in confront ing these negative stereotypes. The last 3,000 years of bad press have
been costly. The next 3,000 need not be.
(Dennis E. Hens ley holds four uni
versity degrees in communications, in
cluding a Ph.D. in English from Ball State University. He is the author of five self-help business books, including The Key Word Is Enthusiasm and Be come Famous, Then Rich: How to Pro
mote Yourself and Your Business.)
94 ABA Journal, The Lawyer's Magazine
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.192 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:06:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions