So, are we living in a world where the simple act of asking for a day’s grace in court now requires a full-blown negotiation? Apparently, in some corners of the legal profession, the answer is a resounding ‘yes.’ A recent piece laments the erosion of professional courtesy, specifically around adjournment requests. It paints a picture of lawyers, swamped as always, needing to shuffle court dates and being met not with a nod and a handshake, but with demands for ‘substantive concessions.’ Translation: give up something important in your case just so you can breathe.
This isn’t some abstract philosophical debate about the death of collegiality. This is about the nuts and bolts of practicing law. The author recounts a personal, infuriating experience where an adversary wouldn’t consent to a one-week adjournment for a vacation without demanding concessions that would cripple their client’s defense. The ultimate solution? Adjusting vacation plans. Because, of course, the court wouldn’t budge without everyone’s OK. It’s a stark reminder that while we’re all chasing the next big AI innovation, the foundational interactions between legal professionals still matter.
One of the most galling aspects here is the transactional nature of it all. It feels less like professionals trying to manage busy schedules and more like chess matches where every move, even a simple request, is an opportunity to extract use. The underlying message seems to be: if you’re not willing to pay a steep price for a minor accommodation, then tough luck. This approach, as the author rightly points out, is short-sighted. The legal world is smaller than we think, and the lawyer who is making your life difficult today might be the one begging for your courtesy tomorrow.
Why the Decline in Basic Courtesy?
Look, I’ve been covering tech for two decades, and I’ve seen plenty of cycles of hype and disillusionment. This feels like a different flavor of cynicism creeping in. Is it the pressure? The sheer volume of cases? Or is it something else? Perhaps the very tools we laud for efficiency are, in some indirect way, contributing to this. When every interaction can be logged, every decision scrutinized, does it encourage a more rigid, less forgiving stance?
And where’s the money in this? That’s always the question, isn’t it? There’s no direct profit margin on being a jerk about adjournments. Unless… it’s a tactic. A way to wear down an opponent, to gain an advantage through sheer attrition. Forcing a lawyer to scramble, to potentially miss an important deadline or obligation because their adversary is being difficult – that can have real, tangible consequences for their client. This isn’t about the AI itself, but the environment it operates within. An environment that, by the sounds of it, is becoming increasingly transactional.
Lawyers frequently need to request adjournments so they can balance all of their obligations. Depending on the court, lawyers may need to secure the consent of counsel to adjourn a court appearance or another type of case obligation. In most instances, adjournments should be granted as a matter of professional courtesy and adjournments should not be conditioned on substantive concessions in a case.
The article also touches on a separate, albeit related, development concerning financial aid for law students, mentioning an organization stepping in to help negotiate terms they can’t secure alone. This tidbit, while seemingly tangential, underscores a broader theme of difficulty and negotiation in the legal world. It’s a world where even basic needs – like managing schedules or securing student loans – are becoming complex transactions.
Is This the Future of Legal Practice?
It’s easy to dismiss this as a minor gripe. But think about it. If the practice of law becomes so inherently adversarial that even basic courtesy is a commodity to be bartered, what does that say about the profession? The author’s conclusion is straightforward: just consent to the adjournment. It’s good for business, good for civility, and good for the soul. The mention of AI-powered docket summarization and natural language searching is a classic tech-solution to a human-problem. We’re so busy trying to automate our way out of interpersonal friction that we’re forgetting the basics of human interaction.
Ultimately, the sentiment here leans towards WARNING. The practice described, while not directly an AI issue, highlights a creeping transactionalism and lack of basic professional courtesy within the legal field that could be exacerbated by the pressures and perceived efficiencies of new technologies. It’s a reminder that legal AI tools are being implemented in a human system, and those systems have their own deeply ingrained – and sometimes problematic – cultures.
