‼️
Prof Responsibility • Communication
PR#054
Legal Definition
A lawyer must keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. A lawyer must explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Plain English Explanation
As a lawyer, your role isn't just to handle legal issues behind the scenes. You must keep your clients informed about the progress of their cases. This means providing regular updates, even when there's little change. It's about managing expectations and keeping your clients engaged in the process.
When clients reach out with questions, you need to respond promptly. This doesn't mean you must be available 24/7, but it does mean establishing a reasonable timeframe for responses and sticking to it.
Perhaps most importantly, you must explain legal matters in a way that your clients can understand. This skill - translating complex legal concepts into layman's terms - is vital. Your explanations should be thorough enough to enable clients to make informed decisions about their cases.
When clients reach out with questions, you need to respond promptly. This doesn't mean you must be available 24/7, but it does mean establishing a reasonable timeframe for responses and sticking to it.
Perhaps most importantly, you must explain legal matters in a way that your clients can understand. This skill - translating complex legal concepts into layman's terms - is vital. Your explanations should be thorough enough to enable clients to make informed decisions about their cases.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob represents Sam in a personal injury case. Bob negotiates a settlement offer but doesn't inform Sam for three weeks. When Sam finally learns about it, the offer has expired. Result: Bob likely violated the duty of communication. He failed to keep Sam reasonably informed about a significant case development, preventing Sam from making an informed decision.
Hypo 2: Bob represents Sam in a complex corporate merger. Bob sends Sam weekly email updates and promptly answers Sam's questions. Before major decisions, Bob explains the options and potential consequences in clear, non-technical language. Result: Bob is fulfilling his duty of communication. He's keeping Sam informed and providing explanations that allow Sam to make informed decisions.
Hypo 3: Bob represents Sam in a divorce case. Sam calls Bob daily, often multiple times, asking for updates and explanations of every minor court filing. Bob responds to Sam's messages within 48 hours but doesn't provide minute-by-minute updates. Result: Bob is likely meeting his duty of communication. He's responding promptly to Sam's requests, but isn't required to provide unreasonably frequent updates.
Hypo 4: Bob represents Sam in a criminal case. Bob explains the plea bargain offered by the prosecution but uses complex legal terms without clarifying them. Sam, confused, agrees to the plea without fully understanding its implications. Result: Bob may have violated his duty of communication. While he informed Sam of the plea offer, he failed to explain it sufficiently for Sam to make an informed decision.
Hypo 2: Bob represents Sam in a complex corporate merger. Bob sends Sam weekly email updates and promptly answers Sam's questions. Before major decisions, Bob explains the options and potential consequences in clear, non-technical language. Result: Bob is fulfilling his duty of communication. He's keeping Sam informed and providing explanations that allow Sam to make informed decisions.
Hypo 3: Bob represents Sam in a divorce case. Sam calls Bob daily, often multiple times, asking for updates and explanations of every minor court filing. Bob responds to Sam's messages within 48 hours but doesn't provide minute-by-minute updates. Result: Bob is likely meeting his duty of communication. He's responding promptly to Sam's requests, but isn't required to provide unreasonably frequent updates.
Hypo 4: Bob represents Sam in a criminal case. Bob explains the plea bargain offered by the prosecution but uses complex legal terms without clarifying them. Sam, confused, agrees to the plea without fully understanding its implications. Result: Bob may have violated his duty of communication. While he informed Sam of the plea offer, he failed to explain it sufficiently for Sam to make an informed decision.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
In California, under the Duty of Communication, when must a lawyer disclose that they do not have professional liability insurance?
What additional exception to the attorney-client privilege does California recognize?
What are the three exceptions to the attorney-client privilege?
What is the Attorney-Client Privilege?
