Too Long, Didn't Read

In our culture, all of us are becoming overwhelmed. It is no secret. So much information is immediately and freely available to us, we don’t know what to do with it. There is opportunity in all this abundance for the inquisitive mind. But there is also profound risk in that something important may be lost.

You know about TMI – too much information - generally arising when a listener believes that you either have gone too far afield or are offering more than the requisite level of detail. You may not have heard of TLDR - too long didn’t read - it’s written correlate.

TLDR may not be a new issue for lawyers in offering written advice. But it is a growing one. Our clients are asking us to effectively “tweet” advice because they believe that is all that they need or can tolerate. I believe that I write clearly and concisely. I look for ways to shorten my words, sentences and paragraphs. However, when I am advising on a complex issue, the nature of which I anticipate the client may not fully comprehend, I am wary of giving the “two-sentence answer” that is more often being asked of me.

Why? First, in arriving at my advice, I have to make assumptions based on how the issue was communicated and the facts presented. My two-sentence answer changes profoundly if my assumptions are incorrect, or the facts are incomplete or erroneous. If the client is not fully apprised of those limitations, risk of error arises. In effect, a two-sentence answer shifts both the responsibility for and the risk of outcome to the advisor, by means of the TLDR expedient.

Second, my advice is always contextual. It is about a specific set of circumstances at a specific moment in time. It is not a rule for general application. Stripping away the context, which is inevitable in the TLDR mode of communication, makes the advice more “rule-like” or universal in appearance, if not intent. If so understood, the risk of misapplication of that advice increases substantially.

When I am advising on a complex issue, the
nature of which I anticipate the client may not
fully comprehend, I am wary of giving the
“two-sentence answer” that is more often
being asked of me.

Third, my clients don’t want me around all the time. I understand that. But the compressed advice actually makes the clients’ continued need for my services even greater. This arises from the fact that “bottom line” advice skips the analytic process. The client can only guess at my reasoning. The client has my advice, but no learning from the occasion. When a related situation arises, my client will have to contact me. You know the Chinese proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”? I believe that my role as counsel should include as much “teaching” as possible, even if the client isn’t seeking to be taught.

In my coaching practice, I advise my coaching clients, “We will work together for six months and I will enable you to remove obstacles and sustain yourself. You then need to go and try out what you have learned without me. If you need a ‘tuneup’ after another six months, or you want to move to another level, then we can talk.” It may appear to be “good for business” to make a client dependent in the short run. But no relationship prospers on long-term dependence. I like to “grow” my clients’ competencies whenever possible. My client then can appreciate how my services continue to add value long after the billing has ceased. It also lowers the barrier for the client to reengage me.

So how do I handle the TLDR situation? First, I give the client when it wants - a clear, concise bottom line. I back it up with an expanded “executive summary,” which sets forth the limitations and applicability of my advice. The longer analysis, which reflects the detailed bases for my opinion, more often than not, is only communicated to my file, although the client is made aware that the analysis exists and is available for their review anytime. I advise the client that this analysis is being done to make it cheaper and easier to “pick up the thread” on how we got to “here,” anticipating that this will be relevant when circumstances inevitably change.

One of the most effective tools I’ve developed in the TLDR world is the short, follow-up email, which often is just a series of short questions about what to look for that might disprove our assumptions or signal that the facts, upon which I based the advice, have changed. As you see, this is just another way of teaching the man “to fish.”

While we are considering TLDR, you may want to think about how you handle your own written information “overload.” There are two obvious reasons. While you are not your client, you do have the same issues. You inevitably are taking risks in choosing what you do or do not read. What works for you? What helps you decide? Could any of your self observations help you in conducting your client communications? Second, you can begin to empathize with the struggles facing your client in managing inbound information. Imagine your client’s surprise when and if you should choose to express your understanding of his position and ask if there is anything you can do to improve communications?

At the end of the day, you help the client and yourself by serving its “needs” as well as its “wants.” Written communication is only one of many vehicles. Consider how an oral communication might lay a foundation for a shorter, follow-up written communication. Would it be useful to deliver a series of short email communications to set the stage for your advice? If you adequately protect your client, in my estimation, you won’t have to worry about protecting yourself. If push comes to shove, send your client this article.