Michael Kemp, The Daily Record Newswire
NFL free agency began on March 10 at 3 p.m. Central, and I sat at my computer at 2:55 and logged on, waiting for something to happen. Of course, it was a Tuesday afternoon and I was in the office, so it's not like it was out of my way. I logged on to NFL network, Bleacher Report and Twitter (just for good measure), and waited for news on the Vikings.
And waited. And waited.
Day 1 came and went, and nothing. Day 2, and 3. Iupati went to the Cardinals; McCourty stayed with the Patriots (that one was always a pipe dream). Blue-chip free agents hit the market and were quickly snapped up, and the Vikings did nothing. On Twitter, many in Purple Nation complained loudly, but no comments came from on high. While ESPN was filled with stories of teams making big moves - releasing some big name players; acquiring others - the only coverage on the Vikings' free agency was news articles discussing whether their continued aloofness was a well-designed strategy or poor decision-making, and ongoing speculation on whether star running back Adrian Peterson would return to the team after his well-publicized criminal charges.
Eventually the Vikings briefly popped up on the radar; a single blip of a trade, a few ultra-low-key free agency signings, disappearing again. The fans waited as all the desirable free agents were vacuumed up by other teams. Pro football talk turned back to speculation about the upcoming draft, as no more free agents remained worth writing about. Everyone's attention began to turn elsewhere, still without a word of reassurance from the Vikings. This is how free agency ends: not with a bang, but with a whimper. For the Vikings, not revealing their intentions to their fans (and necessarily, the high command of other teams around the league) might be a wise strategic move, but it certainly leaves fans forced to trust that there is in fact a wise, strategic reason. To quote The Doctor, "Just hold on tight and pretend it's a plan." Or to quote Rick Spielman, "No comment."
I could go on for as long as my editors would let me about whether the Vikings' action - or apparent lack thereof - in free agency was good or bad; I could talk about whether they were waiting back for the Adrian Peterson situation to resolve, and how I would like to see it resolve, and whether we can afford to bring him back or could have afforded to sign a marquee free-agent even with his situation then (and now, as of the time of writing) still very much up in the air. But I won't, for two reasons. First, plenty of much more informed men and women have already written about these topics, and if you want to find out what they think, go read it from them. If you're interested you already know where to find these articles. The second reason, of course, is that it is not really what this column is about at all.
It's not quite about doing nothing. There are plenty of times where doing nothing is exactly the right thing to do. Those might make the topic of a good CLE, but they wouldn't be a good solo column. The question for this column is about how to say nothing. For Vikings fans (or Doctor Who fans), we don't have any choice but just to hang on and hope there's a plan. But clients have a right to know what is going on, and to a certain extent we have to keep the court and even opposing counsel in the loop on some things. But it can lead to awkward, or sometimes just annoying, situations.
We've all been there. There's the client who calls for weekly updates even when you tell him (every week) that you don't expect any action on the case for the next six weeks. Worse, there's the client who drops off the radar for weeks (or longer) while opposing counsel is asking for information you just can't give. How does your client know that you're doing the right thing when you tell them that there's nothing going on in their case at the moment? After all, many if not most small-firm clients are not frequent litigants; no matter how many times you tell them, it's sometimes hard to understand just how long the system can take. How does opposing counsel know that you're not just stonewalling when you don't get back to them right away? After all, you have a duty not to disparage your client in front of the other party, so even if you're screaming at them behind the scenes to do something, it's not like you can tell them, "It's not my fault; my client's being an idiot."
The answer for lawyers, as it does for Vikings fans, comes down to trust. For small-firm lawyers, the personal relationship you build with your client can be an invaluable tool when it comes to your own inaction. If they trust you, they are more likely to trust your silence. They don't feel left out of the loop if you say "we'll hear something in the next 90 days" and then don't call them for 75. They'll be more confident in your position if they want you to make hay about a certain issue and you tell them it's not worth addressing. When it comes to opposing counsel and the court, there's not always a lot you can do; even if you never make a mistake in your professional life (unlikely), lawyers are not predisposed to trusting the other side, but your reputation still obviously matters. Lawyers understand that sometimes clients don't always tell them everything (shocking), respond when they should, or change their position at the last moment. But as a small-firm lawyer or especially a solo practitioner, your reputation is tied only to you. If you don't have a reputation for taking cheap shots, unnecessarily obfuscating, or stonewalling, other lawyers and the court are more likely to take your action - or even apparent lack of action - in good faith. It's a long way from trust, but it's better than nothing.
I had a conversation with a Packers fan (but a friend nonetheless) not too long ago about the NFL offseason, and really, it inspired this column. He told me, with some fairness, that the difference between Packers fans and Vikings fans at this time of year is that Packers fans have confidence deep down that their management will do the right thing. (The Packers, not coincidentally, have made exactly zero moves in free agency.) Vikings fans wobble between hopeless optimism and a crushing sense of impending doom. It's true; we do. The Packers' front office has instilled that confidence from years of demonstrating good offseason strategy, while the Vikings' front office has not - at least until recently. The last few years of fairly strong decision making has started to restore some of that confidence, and made it more likely that we can believe that there's a strategy to the Vikings' silence, and that our team will continue to improve. This is our year.
Trust me.
Published: Thu, Apr 09, 2015
