When a Client Wants You to Call the Other Side Directly

15 October 2026·5 min read

Quick answer: When a frustrated client wants you to call or message the other side directly and skip the formal correspondence, the short answer is almost always no — but the client deserves a real reason why, not just "that's not how it works." Direct, informal contact can undermine their position, breach professional conduct rules around dealing with a represented party, and leave a messy, unhelpful record if the matter ends up in court. The better move is to explain the risk plainly and give them a faster-feeling alternative within the process. 📱

It's one of the most common calls a litigation or family lawyer gets: "Can't you just ring them? This is taking forever." 💖 The client isn't being unreasonable — they're exhausted and a direct phone call sounds like it would fix everything in five minutes. The job isn't to shut that down with a lecture. It's to explain, quickly and honestly, why that shortcut usually makes things worse.

Please note: general information, not legal advice — check current official guidance before relying on it.

What most firms get wrong

The mistake isn't declining the request — almost every firm declines it. The mistake is declining it badly: a quick "we can't do that" with no explanation, which leaves the client thinking the process is just slow bureaucracy rather than something actively protecting them. Clients who don't understand why formal correspondence matters tend to escalate, contact the other side themselves anyway, or quietly lose confidence in the firm. A proper explanation, given once and clearly, usually heads all three off.

The second mistake is not setting this expectation early. Heard for the first time three months into a heated dispute, "we only communicate through formal correspondence" lands as a restriction. Explained at the start as simply how the matter will run, it lands as normal.

A script for this exact conversation

Phone call opener: "I get why you want this moving faster — that's reasonable. I'm not going to call them directly, and I'd ask you not to either while this is on foot, and here's the actual reason."

The reason, in plain terms: "Anything said informally isn't on the record the way a letter is. It can get twisted or used against you later. And because they have their own lawyer, contacting them directly can cross a professional line and weaken your position if this goes further."

The alternative: "What I can do is send formal correspondence this week that puts pressure on them to respond by a set date, and flag we're open to a without-prejudice conversation between the lawyers. Same outcome, without the risk."

Follow-up email line: "Confirming what we discussed — I'll send formal correspondence this week rather than contacting them directly, for the reasons we talked through on the phone."

Family law client: A client going through a property settlement wants to text their ex directly to "just sort the furniture out." The risk here is less about procedure and more about tone — informal exchanges during a dispute can escalate fast and end up quoted back in an affidavit, stripped of context.

Commercial litigation client: A director involved in a contract dispute wants to email the other company's director directly, "lawyer to lawyer stuff aside." Once the other side is represented, this can cross professional conduct rules around contacting a represented party without their lawyer's consent — a genuine risk for the firm, not just the client.

Workplace dispute client: A client wants to message a former employer's HR contact directly to "clear the air" before a claim progresses. Anything said there, friendly or not, can resurface later, and it removes the firm's control over how the client's position is presented.

What the firm does instead

Formal correspondence still moves things along — it's just structured. "Without prejudice" letters allow genuine settlement discussion without it being used as an admission later. A Calderbank-style offer creates a cost consequence if the other side rejects a reasonable offer and does worse at hearing. Lawyer-to-lawyer settlement conferences give both sides a controlled space to negotiate without either client being exposed to an undocumented exchange. None of this is slow for the sake of being slow — it's built to get a result that holds up.

💡 Set this expectation in the first meeting, not the tenth. A single line in the engagement conversation — "we'll always communicate through formal channels, here's why" — saves a dozen awkward phone calls later in the matter.

Mistakes to avoid

Letting a frustrated client's urgency quietly change firm strategy without a documented conversation about the risk.
Giving a flat "no" with no explanation, which reads as unhelpful rather than protective.
Not recording the client's instructions in a file note when they insist on contacting the other side anyway.
Promising a timeline for formal correspondence that the firm then can't meet.
Leaving long silent gaps between letters with no update, which is often what actually drives the "just call them" request in the first place.

Frequently asked questions

Can a client ever contact the other side directly themselves?

Generally it's discouraged while they're represented, and it can genuinely backfire — informal messages get used as evidence more often than people expect. In some family law co-parenting matters, limited direct contact about day-to-day logistics is normal, but anything touching the actual dispute is a different story and worth checking with the file lawyer first.

Isn't formal correspondence just slower?

It can feel that way, and sometimes it genuinely is slower than a five-minute phone call — that's an honest trade-off, not a myth. The point isn't that it's always faster; it's that it protects the client's position in a way an informal chat usually can't.

What if the other side's lawyer is also slow to respond?

That's a real frustration, worth raising honestly rather than pretending the process is moving faster than it is — a follow-up letter with a firm deadline, or raising cost consequences, is usually the next step rather than going around the process.

Keep reading 🤍

Written by

Kate, founder of Chronically Online

I help Gold Coast and Brisbane businesses grow with branding, websites and marketing that actually works.

Work with me ✦