For Firms' Addicted Lawyers, Staff Plays Key Role
Dear Patrick:What is the role of law firm staff when it comes to the addiction or mental health problems of lawyers they support? What do you suggest…
October 02, 2017 at 02:11 PM
5 minute read
Dear Patrick:
What is the role of law firm staff when it comes to the addiction or mental health problems of lawyers they support? What do you suggest we do when we observe these problems?
Martha in California
Dear Martha:
Great question, and one I am glad somebody finally asked! In short, your role is entirely pivotal, yet often completely overlooked. For a variety of reasons, staffers are theoretically often in the best position to know when a lawyer is struggling with an addiction or mental health problem, yet practically speaking, they are frequently either ill-equipped or not empowered to make the difference that they could.
Let's start by examining why staff are well positioned to know when a lawyer might be struggling. First, they tend to work closely with the lawyers they support, and often are in regular—if not constant—contact with them. This level of interaction is typically far greater than lawyers in a firm may regularly have with each other, unless they happen to be part of the same small practice group, or are working on the same client matter. The sheer volume of lawyer-to-support staff communication makes it more likely that staff will have a better sense of what's happening in the lawyer's day-to-day life, as well as any changes in behavior or marked departure from routines.
Second, staff frequently see the unfiltered—or at least less filtered—version of a lawyer's personality. As a group, lawyers can be obsessive about managing their images and reputations with clients and other lawyers. The one group with whom they are more likely to let their guard down is staff, the same people who are often “in the trenches” with the lawyer and working hard to ensure that he or she is successful. This is not to say that the heightened candor and authenticity that may exist in a lawyer-staff relationship means a lawyer is always going to confide the personal challenges to an assistant or paralegal. It does mean, however, that staffers have a much better chance of catching a glimpse behind the curtain than other lawyers in the firm might.
Third and most unfortunately, support staff are sometimes directly involved—wittingly or unwittingly—in the ongoing dysfunction of the lawyers they support. It is common for lawyers with a substance use or mental health problem to rely on their staff more than usual to bail them out of problematic situations, cover for their mistakes, or pick up additional slack to ensure a client matter doesn't get botched. While this sort of safety net that many staff provide to impaired lawyers is exactly what a firm (and the client) should want, it's critical to understand that in such a scenario, staffers are also functioning as enablers of the addiction or mental health disorder. The longer it takes for a lawyer's problems to become apparent and for some sort of intervention to occur, the worse the underlying condition is likely to become, and the greater the ultimate risk to the attorney, the client and the firm.
So, what should firms do to ensure that staff is playing a positive and productive role in this area? Educate and empower. Before I address those points, however, let me briefly acknowledge the perverse structural incentive that many staff mistakenly perceive to exist around attorney addiction and mental health. Put bluntly, staffers sometimes believe that by covering for or enabling a dysfunctional attorney they support, they are protecting their own interests—meaning, their jobs. Although on some level understandable, this thinking is both wrong and shortsighted. Staffers are employees of, and duty-bound to, the firm, not the specific lawyer they support. Personal allegiances must be put aside. Furthermore, the progressive nature of untreated addiction and mental health problems means that by covering for an impaired lawyer, they are likely delaying the inevitable and all but ensuring worse consequences when truth eventually surfaces.
Returning to the education piece of the puzzle, at a minimum it is crucial that firms provide staff at least some training or educational materials related to addiction and mental health distress warning signs. Not only could such training help staff recognize problems in themselves or another staff member, it could make all the difference in the world in understanding and acting upon the strange, uncharacteristic, or troublesome behavior they may be witnessing in the lawyers they support.
Equally as crucial as the education, staff must feel empowered to do something about warning signs or problematic behavior they observe. Firm management should ensure that staffers understand (and believe) that they will not face retaliation or retribution for reporting a problem, and that they in fact have a duty to do so which is just as important as their other essential job functions. In other words, failure to report a problem should carry the same consequences as failing to perform in any other area of their job. Only when staff personnel feel comfortable in their knowledge of what to look for, and secure enough in their position to take action, will a law firm realize the full potential that staff have to reduce the incidence of addiction and mental health distress among the lawyers they support.
Have a question? Send it to [email protected] and I'll see you back here soon!
Patrick R. Krill is the founder of Krill Strategies, a behavioral health consulting firm focused exclusively on the legal industry. Go to www.prkrill.com for more information.
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
© 2024 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 AllOvercoming Hurricane Helene: How the Western North Carolina Legal Community Managed Court Closures, Sanitation Concerns
Hurricane Helene's Impact On Asheville, North Carolina: How Public and Private Attorneys Dealt With Closures, Safety and Sanitation
More Young Lawyers Are Entering Big Law With Mental Health Issues. Are Firms Ready to Accommodate Them?
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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