'Like a Band-Aid Over a Bullet Wound': The Disconnect Between Firms and Lawyers on Well-Being Efforts
Law firms are trying, associates aren't buying it and there may be a bigger fix needed than any individual contingent can offer.
June 30, 2019 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
In the less than two months since the launch of Minds Over Matters, our yearlong examination of mental health in the legal profession, I've had dozens of conversations with industry professionals on a personal and organizational level. What has emerged is a disconnect between the institutional efforts to effect change and the individual professional's view on what is needed.
Both sides are well-meaning, but the problem of mental health struggles in the profession is complex and comes up against a business model that neither side has the power to significantly alter with the current resources and backing.
I routinely have heard two narratives in my conversations with legal professionals, and I'll share a specific set of back-to-back exchanges that really revealed the divide to me.
Generally, from the institutional perspective, they can talk about the programs they offer until they are blue in the face, but no one seems to know they exist, or the lawyers and staff don't take advantage of them. And then there is the issue of privacy and how much they can really do or track or force.
From the individual perspective, it's an issue of meaning and mixed messages. The programs can sometimes appear to lack the teeth to address the toughest of the issues. As one Am Law 200 lawyer told me, "The fruit my firm puts out and the yoga classes it offers are great in keeping people on track to stay balanced. But it does nothing once real depression hits." That's when lawyers and staff need to know the firm has the resources and, more importantly, an acceptance that professionals may need to take time away to properly address their illness.
A well-being conference I recently attended presented perhaps the starkest example of the disconnect. Two back-to-back exchanges had my head spinning a little bit. Now mind you, this is a room full of people all with the same great goal of improving the lives of those working in the legal profession. And they are doing amazing things, but often with different goals or a different lens through which they view the problem.
A Big Law professional with an HR lens who is focused on their firm's wellness initiatives said to me that the firm heard loudly from associates about the programs they wanted, whether it was meditation sessions or something else, and the firm went ahead and created those sessions. Only five people attended.
"What advice do you have to get buy-in from those who work in our firm to utilize these programs?" this person asked me. I immediately felt unqualified to answer. I mean, if you are giving them what they asked for, what more can you do?
I sheepishly walked away feeling bad for the law firm and bad for the person I could offer no sound advice to. As I turned around, an associate, so thrilled that we were undertaking the Minds Over Matters project, was waiting to talk to me. The associate was passionate about the need for something to be done, and this lawyer quickly went beyond sugarcoating, noting the lack of meaningful change in this space. More needs to be done, the associate said. Lawyers are so unhappy. It's such a difficult environment to work in. And the fixes being offered are "like a band-aid over a bullet wound," the associate said.
I can say that this associate is at a firm that has been vocal about its efforts on wellness. So if a disconnect is occurring there, imagine how associates feel at firms not openly talking about the issue.
I don't mean to spread hopelessness in writing this. Only to identify that contingents of people are working to improve the situation, but they sometimes aren't on the same page. Let's start a dialogue around how they can get on the same page. Organizations need to be honest with themselves as to whether their mental health and well-being programs are truly effective. Lawyers and staff need to meaningfully participate in the solutions to these challenges. But the mixed messages sent when a firm says "go use our meditation room but make sure you bill 2,000 hours or you won't get your bonus" need a broader fix that may require more people in the room than those focused purely on mental health.
Read more: MInds Over Matters: An Examination of Mental Health in the Legal Profession
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChange Is Coming in the Trump Era. For Big Law, Change Is Already Here
6 minute read'If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions During Q&A
The Growing Antitrust Scrutiny of DraftKings and FanDuel
Trending Stories
- 1Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
- 2Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 3'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 4Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 5Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250