I am amazed by the number of legal memos and service proposals that could have been much shorter and far more effective if the writer had had a bit more of a preliminary conversation with the client.
Take the typical memo, where the attorney sets out all the options, all possible scenarios (if you are in situation A, then... and if you are in situation B, then...). Question to the attorney: instead of spending hours investigating and writing about all possible legal consequences of client being in situation A, B, C or D, why didn’t you call the client and discuss with him in which of these situations he actually was? That would have made your writing far more relevant, to-the-point, and shorter, and that’s exactly what clients are longing for.
I get many answers to that, from “From a professional liability viewpoint, you need to be extremely careful” (If you think that being to-the-point is too dangerous for you, maybe you should consider another career) to “I don’t want to trouble the client with an unsollicited phone call” (The truth is that clients are begging for their attorneys to be more proactive) to “I had a conversation but the client did not tell me his exact situation” (Did you ask?).
An answer I haven’t heard explicitly, and I sincerely hope that, indeed, it isn't playing a role, is that not asking about the specifics situation gives a justification to the attorney for writing a much longer memo and accordingly, invoicing a much higher fee.
Another answer I often get from associates, and that makes me despair of the legal profession, is “I agree with you, but I am not entitled to call the client. I have received this writing assignment from the partner, and he is the one with the client contact. I can only write the memo on the basis of the succinct info – and that is an overstatement - I have received from the partner.” I hear the voices saying, "Cut the middle man!"
Antoine Henry de Frahan