Image by Proggie via Flickr
Beck, et al presents the results of an extensive series of studies on “lawyer distress” (Connie J.A. Beck, Bruce D. Sales and G. Andrew H. Benjamin, Lawyer Distress: Alcohol-Related Problems and Other Psychological Concerns Among A Sample of Practicing Lawyers, 10 J.L. & Health 1 (1996)) where the studies present page after page of statistics all pointing to one major conclusion – as lawyers, we’d better “watch out”! The article points out that students get more stressed in the year after entering law school than they were in the period just prior to entering law school. The study also shows that that stress level jumps up again when the law student graduates and makes the transition from student to lawyer. “The results obtained from this study indicate some fairly disturbing conclusions about the evolution of psychological distress and probable alcohol-related abuse problems in currently practicing lawyers.” (Id. at 44.) The article concludes with a bleak prospect for us as future lawyers.
From the findings detailed above, one can conclude that psychological distress, in its many forms, is likely to affect newly practicing lawyers in a similar manner regardless of the state in which they practice. In addition, throughout their career span, a large percentage of practicing lawyers are experiencing a variety of significant psychological distress symptoms well beyond that expected in a normal population. Interestingly, the basic pattern of distress may represent the traits necessary to be a successful lawyer (obsessive-compulsiveness, interpersonal sensitivity, and anxiety) and the costs associated with this success (depression and social alienation and isolation).
(Id. at 57).
So what are we to do? I think this ties back in to a comment that Mr. Josephsberg made in his talk on civility in the legal profession. He began by observing that, in his opinion, it is not so much a factor that the current generation is any less civil or professional than his generation. Rather, as a 72 year old attorney, he perceives it as that the un-professional, un-civil, high-stressed lawyers among his generation have mostly either died or quit. I would tend to agree with this assessment.
Mr. Josephsberg’s admonition to “be civil” echoes a call to professionalism that, while coming from external sources, can only truly be effectuated by a personal and internal acceptance and application by each individual law student and practicing lawyer. More to the point, in order to better understand how to become a more civil and professional lawyer, we need to look inside of ourselves and recognize the very characteristics that, if left unchecked, can get us all in trouble. In her article, Susan Daicoff addresses this issue as follows:
Suggested external cures usually involve lawyers working less, being less money-oriented, being less competitive and aggressive and more collaborative and collegial, being more caring and humanistic, providing more community service and pro bono work, mentoring other lawyers and being mentored, and being more strictly regulated or disciplined. Internal cures call for a change in lawyers’ fundamental values, appearing to wish for a return to the good old days when lawyers were principled, sage advisors instead of value-neutral hired guns. Some legal scholars have argued for a fundamental change in the lawyer-client relationship as well as the lawyer’s role, often recommending that lawyers consider their own morals when representing clients.
Susan Daicoff, Asking Leopards to Change Their Spots: Should Lawyers Change? A Critique of Solutions to Problems with Professionalism by Reference to Empirically-Derived Attorney Personality Attributes, 11 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 547, 548 (1998).
Ms. Daicoff suggests that a lawyer, by his very nature, is a creature composed of various inherent characteristics which are all vital to the effective practice of law. These characteristics are described as “materialism, need for achievement, preference for dominance, competitiveness, tendency to respond to stress by becoming more aggressive and ambitious, insensitivity to interpersonal, emotional, humanistic concerns, the Myers-Briggs dimension of “Thinking” as an approach to decision-making, and a “rights” orientation to moral decision-making (as opposed to an ethic of care).” (Id. at 594.) So the question becomes, do we change the lawyers? Do we have a lawyer “change his spots”? Ms. Daicoff concludes the article with a call for more data and more research. From my perspective, it is a matter of acknowledging that these traits exist in good, competent, and professional lawyers so long as they are kept in check. The best way to keep these in check is to become aware of them.
Awareness of the pinnacles and pitfalls of the legal profession can only be learned by two methods. The most obvious method is by experience. In my opinion, the better method is through formation – mentoring – and the relating of experiences. Law students, like young children, need to hear the stories as told to them by their “elders”. Communication – a true and open dialogue – between the legal generations is the only way that we are going to pick ourselves up from this rut of incivility and lack of professionalism. Professor Lawrence Krieger writes that, “students are not told in law school what they really need to know to have meaningful and healthful lives as lawyers.” (Lawrence S. Krieger, What We’re Not Telling Law Students-and Lawyers-That They Really Need to Know: Some Thoughts-in-Action Toward Revitalizing the Profession from Its Roots, 13 J.L. & Health 1, 3 (1999).) Professor Krieger contends that law students need to be told, early and often, about the positive and negative aspects of the legal profession. The positive so that they can strive for the good, and the negative so that they can, hopefully, avoid it. Unlike many other authors of articles on professionalism, Professor Krieger feels that it is within the ability of each law school, law student, and lawyer to improve themselves and, along with them, the profession. “In fact, law students and lawyers can make choices that will simultaneously enhance personal and professional life, because health, life satisfaction, and professionalism are closely linked.” (Id. at 34-35.)
Recently, I had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Michael Cohen, Esq., Executive Director, Florida Lawyers Assistance and Dr. Cheryl S. Nowell, Director, Counseling & Psychological Services Center on this topic. Mr. Cohen (and to some extent Dr. Nowell) asked us to consider why we were entering the legal profession? Were we doing it for “internal” or “external” reasons? The recurring theme is that people that enter the legal profession solely for the money, power, and prestige quickly become disillusioned with it and fall into various professional and ethical problems as a result. Dr. Nowell found the statistics in the reading material to paint a very negative picture of the profession. This prompted her to ask, “Why would you pursue law?” Mr. Cohen emphasized an important point, however, -
The statistics are true, but they don’t have to be for you.
What do you think?
No Comments