Your Clients Aren't Calling Because They're Needy. They're Calling Because You Haven't Told Them Anything.

Every family law attorney I’ve worked with has a version of this client: they call every Friday to ask if anything happened with their case this week. The answer, 90% of the time, is “nothing yet — the other side hasn’t responded to our filing.” The call takes five minutes. Multiply that by the 15-20 clients who feel compelled to check in weekly, and you’ve lost a half-day of billable time to saying “nothing’s changed” in slightly different ways.

These clients aren’t unreasonable. They’re anxious. They’re going through a divorce, or a custody dispute, or a wrongful termination claim — some of the most stressful experiences a person can have. They hired you to handle it, and when they don’t hear from you, they assume the worst. Maybe you forgot about them. Maybe something went wrong. Maybe they should have hired someone else.

The irony is that the silence they’re experiencing isn’t neglect. It’s usually a sign that things are proceeding normally. But “proceeding normally” is the one thing nobody is telling them.

The Communication Gap Costs More Than You Think

The financial cost of reactive client communication is straightforward: every inbound call about status is 5-15 minutes of non-billable time. With 15 active clients making weekly check-in calls, that’s 75-225 minutes per week — up to 4 hours of unbillable attorney time.

But the real cost is in the complaints. When clients feel uninformed, they don’t just call your office. They call the state bar. Communication failures — not legal errors, not billing disputes — are the number one category of complaints to bar disciplinary bodies in most jurisdictions. ABA Model Rule 1.4 explicitly requires lawyers to keep clients “reasonably informed about the status of the matter” and “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”

Why Client Portals Aren’t the Answer

Clio and MyCase both offer client portals where clients can log in and see their matter status. In theory, this solves the problem — instead of calling, clients check the portal.

In practice, most clients don’t use them. Client portals require:

• The client to remember their login credentials
• The attorney to keep the portal updated with current status
• The client to navigate an interface designed for legal professionals

What actually happens: the client forgets their password, can’t find what they’re looking for, and calls the office anyway — now more frustrated because they tried the self-service option and it didn’t work.

The better approach is to push information to clients proactively, using the channel they already check constantly: email.

What Proactive Communication Actually Looks Like

The system I recommend to firms replaces reactive communication with a structured update cadence:

Event-driven updates: When something happens — a filing is made, a hearing is scheduled, opposing counsel responds, a deadline passes — the client receives an email explaining what happened, what it means for their case, and what happens next. This is generated from matter activity in Clio, so it doesn’t require the attorney to compose a separate email.

Scheduled check-ins: For matters where nothing has happened in two weeks (common in litigation), the client receives a proactive update: “Your case is proceeding on schedule. We’re currently waiting for [specific thing]. We expect to hear back by [date]. No action is needed from you at this time.” This simple message prevents 90% of “just checking in” calls.

Appointment reminders: Court dates, depositions, and consultations get automatic reminders at 7 days, 2 days, and 1 day before. Include any preparation the client needs to do and logistics (address, parking, what to bring).

Milestone summaries: At key stages — after a mediation, after a hearing, at case closure — a more detailed summary goes out with what was accomplished, what was decided, and what the next phase looks like.

The Tone Matters

Automated doesn’t mean robotic. The updates should sound like you wrote them — because they’re based on your templates and your matter data. A few principles:

Use plain language. “We filed the motion for summary judgment” is better than “MSJ was submitted to the court.” Your clients aren’t lawyers.

Always include next steps. Every update should answer the unspoken question: “What happens now?” Even if the answer is “We wait,” state it explicitly.

Acknowledge the human element. “I know waiting for a court date is stressful. That’s normal in this type of case.” One sentence of empathy goes further than a paragraph of legal procedure.

Don’t over-automate. Some communications need to be personal — a difficult outcome, a strategy change, bad news. Automation handles the routine so you have time for the conversations that require a human touch.

The Bar Complaint Insurance Policy

Here’s the practical reality: even the best lawyer can receive a bar complaint. When you do, the first thing the disciplinary committee looks at is your communication record. Did you keep the client informed? Can you prove it?

With manual communication, you’re relying on phone call notes that may or may not exist, emails buried in a thread, and your recollection of when you last spoke to the client. With automated communication, you have a timestamped log of every update sent, when it was sent, and what it contained.

That documentation isn’t just good practice — it’s your defense. A bar inquiry into a communication complaint is dramatically different when you can produce a log showing the client received 15 proactive updates over the life of the matter versus having no record of communication beyond the initial engagement.

The goal isn’t to never hear from your clients. It’s to make sure that when they do call, it’s because they have a real question — not because they’re wondering if you still remember their name.