Many law firms market themselves by sending out “client alerts” about the latest hot case or regulation. But how successful is the typical client alert?
Newsflash: These client alerts leave most clients cold.
Why? Because they fail the “So what?” test.
“So what” can I do differently? Read and compare the two examples below for some perspective!
A Typical Alert
A typical client alert starts like this:
In Verzini v. Potter, No. 03-1652 (3d Cir. 2004), the court discussed the relationship between two defenses that employers can use under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Court considered both the “direct threat” defense and the “business necessity” defense. The Plaintiff, a postal worker, told his supervisor that his neighbors were peering into his windows while he slept. The supervisor was concerned that the employee was not fit for duty and ordered him to be examined by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist diagnosed the employee with chronic paranoid schizophrenia. The Postal Service eventually fired him. Plaintiff sued for disability discrimination, but the Postal Service insisted that it had a “business necessity” to fire him because it had to ensure workplace safety. . . .
Any clients still reading are tapping their pens . . .
A Better Approach
Start by telling your clients what they can or should do now. Only then discuss the case or regulation—and only to highlight the “So what?” factor. Try something like this:
Under a recent Third Circuit ruling, if an employer fires an employee to preserve workplace safety, the employer need not prove that the employee has directly threatened anyone. In that case, for example, the court allowed the Postal Service to fire an employee who was “unfit for duty” simply because he had refused treatment for paranoid schizophrenia. Although this case appears to allow employers to fire an employee for legitimate business needs alone, employers should take the following steps before doing so. . . .