The Overloaded File’s Legacy
At a webinar I hosted with more than 200 adjusters and attorneys, one claims professional revealed they were juggling over 500 subrogation files simultaneously, saying bluntly, “Quality had to go out the window.”
That isn’t an isolated anecdote, it is a pattern. By the time those cases hit a defense attorney’s inbox, they often arrive with disorganized files, missing discovery, or incomplete scopes. Attorneys inherit that chaos and then pile on their
own pressures: deadlines, billable hour targets, and client expectations.
One junior associate confessed that on trial prep day she realized she had missed a critical witness interview. She wasn’t lazy, unprepared, or careless, she was burned out. “It wasn’t burnout,” she said quietly. “It was
survival.”
And that is the reality many attorneys will not say out loud: burnout often disguises itself as simply “getting through the day.” But in litigation, “just getting through” has real consequences.
Burnout’s Tactical Drain
Burnout doesn’t always show up as someone falling asleep at their desk. In litigation, it is more insidious. It creeps into the quality of advocacy, the level of creativity, and the sharpness of preparation.
- Recycling motions or arguments: Instead of tailoring to facts, overworked attorneys recycle prior filings just to clear their docket.
- Settling too early: Not because it is the best outcome, but because it is the fastest way to relieve pressure.
- Avoiding discovery battles: Strategic opportunities are skipped when cognitive bandwidth is maxed out.
- Client disengagement: Terse, delayed updates erode trust even when the underlying work is solid.
One senior defense attorney shared that he once prepped depositions for multiple cases simultaneously. He was so fatigued that he confused witnesses between files, mixing details in front of opposing counsel. The slip gave the other side leverage that
ultimately compromised the case. He admitted later, “That wasn’t a legal mistake. That was burnout.”
The Data Confirms the Impact
Burnout is more than anecdote, it is quantifiable.
A 2025 ALM Intelligence survey reported that 62% of attorneys say
they experience high stress levels, and nearly 45% are considering leaving the profession as a result. An ABA report from late 2024 confirmed the connection between attorney attrition and degraded client service, citing missed deadlines, inconsistent communication, and increased malpractice exposure as predictable byproducts.
The CUNY School of Public Health (2025) estimated that burnout costs U.S. employers between $4,000 and $21,000 per employee annually,
with organizations of 1,000 employees losing about $5 million each year. Apply that to law firms, particularly defense practices with heavy caseloads, and the economic impact is enormous. The loss is not just financial. It is also reputational: clients
notice when their counsel seems stretched thin.
Strategic Consequences for Clients
Clients don’t care about burnout. They care about results. But burnout directly changes results.
A fatigued attorney might underprepare for mediation, missing the emotional cues that lead to favorable settlements. Another might deliver a flat oral argument, not because the law isn’t on their side, but because exhaustion dulled their persuasiveness.
A burned-out team might miss discovery deadlines, forcing the court to sanction delays or limiting the evidence available at trial.
One insurance claims director told me they noticed cases managed by burned-out counsel not only had higher litigation spend but also took longer to resolve. That wasn’t because the legal issues were harder. It was because exhaustion slowed momentum
at every stage. That is burnout’s budgetary footprint, invisible until it shows up in invoices and trial outcomes.
The Human Side
It is easy to frame this issue purely in terms of dollars and efficiency, but burnout is also profoundly human. Attorneys suffering from it often describe feeling like they are failing both clients and themselves. One mid-level associate said, “Every
case feels like a fire drill. I’m never ahead, and I can’t remember the last time I felt good about my work.”
That kind of erosion in professional confidence doesn’t just harm one lawyer. It impacts team morale, mentoring, and firm culture. Partners begin to shoulder more of the work to cover, associates burn out faster, and recruitment becomes harder when
word spreads that a firm is a “burnout mill.”
The Generational Divide
Younger attorneys in particular are rethinking the trade-offs. A 2025 iHire report found that 73% of Gen Z and 70% of Millennials are considering
leaving their jobs due to burnout and lack of support. Without retaining younger attorneys through the critical early years, defense firms risk a shortage of experienced litigators in the future.
What does that mean for clients? More churn, less continuity, and higher costs as new counsel repeatedly learn the same cases.
Honesty as a Strategy
Lawyers are trained to hide fatigue. But suppression does not make it disappear; it makes it more dangerous. Burnout is like sending that exhausted quarterback back under center, still technically on the field but too drained to execute with sharpness
and confidence. In the courtroom, the cost is just as real: it quietly shapes strategy, erodes preparation, and weakens advocacy. Treating it as a hidden risk factor, not a personal flaw, is the first step toward protecting both attorneys and clients.
The harder question is what to do next.
In Part 2 next month, we will explore how to confront burnout directly, break through stigma, and implement structural changes that turn this liability into a source of strength, sharpening advocacy, retaining talent, and delivering better
results in the courtroom.
Chris Casaleggio is the author of Claims Burnout: Recharge Strategies for Adjusters & Attorneys. He is also a regional vice president at The Vertex Companies.
The Center’s brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and conclude that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement does not conflict with the Federal Rules. Rather, under Erie v. Tompkins and its progeny, state medical liability reforms, such as Delaware’s affidavit of merit statute, are substantive parts of the state malpractice cause of action that are intended to weed out meritless litigation in favor of increasing the availability
and quality of healthcare in the state. Such reforms are substantive laws that define when and how recovery for alleged medical malpractice is available. Principles of federalism require that the substantive state law be given effect in federal court.
The Center’s brief was drafted by 
.jpg?sfvrsn=98b33dd5_1)
