Long Overdue Step Taken to Remove Mental Health Stigma in Law
For decades, applicants to the Connecticut bar were required to answer questions about and provide documentation regarding mental health diagnosis as well as drug and alcohol use.
April 12, 2019 at 11:41 AM
4 minute read
On Jan. 25, 2019, the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee voted to remove mental health questions from the Connecticut bar application, ending long-standing criticism from advocates about the overreaching and discriminatory practice.
For decades, applicants to the Connecticut bar were required to answer questions about and provide documentation regarding mental health diagnosis as well as drug and alcohol use. In 2014, the CBEC changed the questions to focus on an applicant's behavior and not the underlying diagnosis. That same year, the Department of Justice issued a finding that the Louisiana bar could not ask about mental health diagnoses but could ask about behavior. This ruling provided validation to disability and mental health advocates, who had been fighting for the removal of mental health questions based on violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In August 2015, the American Bar Association House of Delegates passed Resolution 102, calling on bar examiners to focus on behavior and conduct that impairs an attorney's ability to practice in a competent, professional and ethical way.
Despite the rule change in 2014, the impact of the former rules remained. Law students still hesitate to seek treatment, fearing that they will have to disclose treatment to the bar examiners. Law schools across the country, but specifically in our state, have long focused on the well-being of their students through wellness programs, providing access to mental health providers, and collaborations with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers (LCL) to ensure that students get the help they need. Despite the resources, the overriding fear that the diagnosis and treatment records for mental health illness would prohibit bar admission led many students to not seek appropriate treatment for mental health issues.
The study of mental health and addiction issues of lawyers and law student mental health and well-being was renewed after a number of attorneys and law students died by suicide. In 2014, the Survey of Law Student Well-Being was released, noting that 17% of law students surveyed struggled with depression. Data from the Dave Née Foundation further highlights the issue, noting that before matriculation law students have levels of depression equal to the general population (approximately 8%). After matriculation that number increases to 27% after one semester and up to 40% after three years.
In 2016, an ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs and Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation study on lawyer well-being reported that a significant number of attorneys suffer from anxiety (19%), depression (28%), and stress (23%), highlighting what we already know: the practice of law is stressful. Viewed in tandem with the law student study, the research was troubling.
In 2017, “The Path to Lawyer Well-Being: Practical Recommendations for Positive Change,” the report of the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being was released. The report served as a call to action for law schools, bar associations, regulators, lawyer assistance programs, insurance carriers, legal employers and the judiciary. It examined the studies referenced above and provided concrete steps we can all take on reducing the stigma of mental health and addiction so that lawyers and law students can focus on well-being.
In 2018, the Connecticut Bar Association created a lawyer well-being task force, comprised of attorneys throughout the state, to explore ways to reduce the stigma of mental health issues, support law student and lawyer well-being, and engage in conversations about the diversity of our profession. The task force, which includes members of the bar examining committee, LCL, law schools, local and affinity bar associations and mental health professionals, launched a website which provides resources and tools for legal professionals in need of assistance for themselves or their colleagues.
The CBEC's decision to remove the mental health questions from the bar examination is powerful and a long overdue step which will hopefully serve to reduce the stigma surrounding mental health issues, ensure that legal professionals seek treatment, and create a more inclusive profession. The decision is also a testament to the Connecticut legal community as a leader in lawyer well-being.
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 AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
- 1US Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Brought Under NYC Gender Violence Law, Ruling Claims Barred Under State Measure
- 24th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
- 3Lawsuit Against Major Food Brands Could Be Sign of Emerging Litigation Over Processed Foods
- 4Fellows LaBriola LLP is Pleased to Announce that Alisha Goel Has Become Associated with The Firm
- 5Law Firms Turn to 'Golden Handcuffs' to Rein In Partner Movement
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