Images

“Smart”phones, But To What Extent?

By JEFFREY BROHEL

As traditionalists go, I consider myself moderate, ironic even. In fact, I’m pretty sure our lives on the whole are a lot better today than they were in the olden days. Which is to say that I like automobiles, indoor plumbing, electric heat, swimming pools—all of the modern conveniences. And, earlier this year I even added a smartphone to my techie arsenal, with the standard bells and whistles: remote e-mail! remote Internet! texting!

Alas, some months later my curmudgeonly traditionalist roots are shining through with regard to that “smart”phone. Truthfully, I’ve grown to resent the little runt, and at this point I’m not sure how smart the whole concept is at all.

Consider: I recently witnessed a young man standing on a train juggling two such devices, frantically swapping one to his pocket for the other, pecking out e-mail after e-mail. Take a look around the next meeting you find yourself in, watch how almost every participant is hopelessly caught in that purgatory between the meeting and the ether, fighting to concentrate on what is going on around them while simultaneously carrying on a host of other conversations on their BlackBerrys.

Note how, in public places and intimate ones alike, people use their smartphones as a tool of isolation rather than engagement, walling themselves off from the world, distancing themselves from their surroundings and foreclosing any meaningful interaction with those around them. Those ubiquitous commercials in which hordes of people in our networks follow us around everywhere are all too accurate for my money. Each of us seems to be carrying on private conversations with hordes of others far away and not doing much conversing with those actual people in our presence.

Here is my hypothesis. You take it out into the world, make your own observations if you haven’t already, and see if you think I’m right. Smartphones allow us to work more and work longer, but in many ways they diminish our humanity, and create a tension in our professional lives that is antithetical to our most important obligations as attorneys.

Too strong? Perhaps.

But consider: According to a recent New York Times article (“Mind Your BlackBerry or Mind Your Manners”) some companies (and at least one law firm in New York) have been compelled to create rules for use of smartphones by their employees during meetings. Obviously the powers that be at those particular companies felt that the ingenious little devices were interfering with the ability of their employees to most productively participate in meetings.

Above all else, it seems to me that the most important aspects of good lawyering are effective client communication, and concentration, and I wonder if smartphones impair, more than enhance, our capacity for both. The nature of a smartphone is that it relentlessly delivers information to its owner, constantly pulling that person’s focus willy-nilly in any number of different directions. Over the course of a few hours I find that the barrage of information from so many sources can create a cumulative, frenetic energy akin to downing a few cups of coffee in quick succession, making it all but impossible to concentrate on anything – particularly if I am, indeed, simultaneously downing several cups of coffee.

As for communication, sure the average ‘phone is good for quick notes, acknowledgements of receipt, a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with minimal explanation necessary. But, what of those more complicated messages, the nuanced discussions of finer points of law, a detailed explanation of what happened in court that day? If you can tap out more than a paragraph or two on your ‘phone, QWERTY keyboard or not, then you’re far more patient than I. Does your wireless device allow for meaningful communication with your clients, co-workers, partners? Or do you generally need to get back to your computer to do that?

The nature of our profession is such that we are required, whether litigators or patent practitioners or deal-makers, to intently focus on very complicated and important details for long periods of time, day in and day out. If we fail to do so, disaster is a near certainty, for ourselves and our clients. Very often large amounts of money, people’s lives even, hang in the balance, and our capacity to find meaning in the minutiae of our work can often make the difference between success and abject failure.

Moreover, our ability to convey the meaning of our work to our clients in an accessible way, our ability to figure out what our clients need and want, and let them know what the possibilities are, good or bad, in our representation of them, can be the difference between winning and losing, freedom or incarceration, liquidity or bankruptcy, salvation or hell. This is not melodrama; it is simply the underlying foundation of everything that we do.

As I write this, it occurs to me that if I were describing my dog to Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, in the way that I have described my smartphone – that it persistently disrupts my concentration and impairs my ability to communicate with others – he would likely tell me that I need to take control of the animal, to let it know that I am in charge and act that way. I suppose, then, that this is the most important thing we can bear in mind when considering the role of the technology we avail ourselves of in doing our jobs—exercise control over the technology; do not allow it to rule your life; use it to enhance your relationships with your clients as much as that is possible; and figure out ways to alleviate the disruptions that it can bring to bear on your focus and concentration.

Obviously this is something that I need to work on, and I would start doing so now except that I have a number of e-mails to answer, and I think my smartphone is ringing.•

Jeffrey Brohel is a corporate attorney in Norwalk and author of the blog “Unemplawyered.”