September 2003

The Internet: Changing Professionals' Lives

by Jeff Tolman, Guest Editor

In the glory days of our profession, clients and attorneys felt part of a team—working together to resolve the legal issue in the client's life. The attorney's advice was respected. After all, the attorney had been through the rigors of college, law school, and the bar exam, and had practiced for several years. The client was simply a citizen caught in the middle of a legal battlefield. There was little debate about who had the most information on which to base the next move.

The same was true in other areas of life. Patients seldom argued with their physicians about which medication should be prescribed, realizing that the doctor knew pharmacology better than the patient. School boards and other public decision-makers set most policy without much citizen objection, due to the great information advantage they had. If patients didn't like the decisions their physicians made, they switched doctors. Citizens elected new decision-makers if they felt the board was racing down the wrong policy road.

Then the Internet was born.

From any computer a person could make travel arrangements, send an instant communication, see fake pictures of nearly every moment in Pamela Anderson's life, and research any topic. Suddenly a person unable to sleep from the stress of a legal problem could spend the night researching the case. The attorney's information advantage changed. Now clients, it seemed, could gather the same information as their lawyers. The team relationship changed to one of competitors. Was the attorney aware of the recent clip in The Weekly World News that seems related? How did the half-sentence in the fourth page of the 1997 Wisconsin decision found on Who-Needs-Lawyers.com affect the next strategic move? Why hadn't the attorney mentioned the University of Sligo Law Review article on a similar-sounding topic? Attorney-client meetings became debates, often cross-examinations of the attorney about topics that had minimal impact on the straightforward case at issue.

Lawyers are not alone in the Internet dilemma. My pal Dr. Cureusall tells the same tales.

Public-policy boards now have citizen input on virtually every issue. There are no "gimmes" anymore. Attorneys and clients, doctors and patients, decision-makers and constituents are now as often adversaries as teammates due to the availability and accessibility of information.

So how do we deal with the changed relationships this information backwash has caused?

First, I always give clients the option of representing themselves. If the Internet information is as clear, concise, and persuasive as they think it is, they don't need me.

At the same time, I need to understand that some of the information may be helpful. Once in a while a client actually finds a case or an article that supports my legal position. Don't immediately scorn the Internet information.

Clients should be reminded, however, that not everything they read on the Internet is true. Ask Pierre Salinger, who stated, after reading it online, that a Navy missile had downed TWA Flight 800, and was very publicly shown to be incorrect. As I tell clients, I can say I'm tall a hundred times. I'm still not.

In addition, clients must be educated as to how judges decide cases. Judges are constantly busy. Each case gets their full attention and best effort—for a short period of time. Lawyers must convey to their clients that the judge will weigh the quality of the information, not the quantity.

It should be pointed out to clients that, often, Internet information is "a mile wide and an inch deep." Sure, you can download will forms from the Internet, but are they valid? Depends on the nuances of the law. Did testators acknowledge they were over the age of 18 before the will was witnessed? Did they tell you they understood that wills governed their estates and were made at their free will? In a nutshell, even if a will form is OK, it must be properly witnessed. And if it wasn't, how do you sue the Internet for malpractice for not telling you how to do it right?

When clients start debating the value of Internet information with me, I ask them why they think law school takes so long. "Why, if I could learn the law overnight on a laptop, was I required to spend a fortune and be tortured by the Socratic Method for three years?" This inquiry usually brings home that practicing law is more than spending time on Google, and changes the dialogue into why my client is better off with me than acting pro se. The Internet has given attorneys a wonderful opportunity to describe what we do; how we help clients; what experience and expertise we have in the area of law concerning our client; what our value is to them.

Finally, clients need be reminded that their interests and their lawyers' interests are similar. I almost always talk to new clients about my goals in their case: to make wages and be their lawyer forever. How I will do that, I tell them, is to return their calls, work hard for them, and send a fair bill. What I'm after is a long-term attorney-client relationship, where we both like and trust each other. Where we're on the same team. Like things used to be in the glory days of my profession before the Internet.

Editor's note: Jeff Tolman is a past member of the WSBA Board of Governors who practices law and writes better than I do. I thought you'd enjoy one of his pieces this month. I'll be back mumbling something in October.

Back to table of contents >>