ILNews

IBA: Saving Time and Sanity

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Time spent on the phone with a prospective client is time well spent when that prospective client becomes a paying one. However, often time lawyers find themselves on the phone, answering numerous questions from callers that seem to be doing nothing more than looking for some free legal advice.

The successful lawyer/time manager works to 1) quickly to determine the caller’s need, 2) identify why they have been singled out for this call, and 3) gauge the seriousness of the caller. Is the caller as serious about their case as the attorney would be?

Once this quick assessment is done and the attorney is satisfied with what they have learned they should schedule a time for the caller to come into the attorney’s office. Of course, assuring the client that the attorney is equally serious about their case is a must.

The likelihood of being retained by a client dramatically increases when they walk in the office door. So, working to eliminate time spent with non-productive callers not only will improve your productivity, but your sanity as well.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT