On the heels of "Well-Being in the Law Week," a refresher on the importance of attorney well-being as a matter of professional competence is appropriate. While we routinely understand competence to include expertise in the field of law pertaining to a particular matter, the concept is so much more. Often, a lack of competence in providing legal representation has nothing to do with the attorney's experience in the area of the law, but instead arises from external factors that impact the lawyer's ability to operate effectively in his or her practice. Thus, on the one hand, the Pennsylvania Bar recognizes the well-being challenges faced by attorneys in this commonwealth and strives to support attorneys facing such challenges. On the other hand, attorneys must be held to a standard that includes providing clients with effective representation, notwithstanding the attorney's personal life. Thus, attention to well-being is critical from the perspective of a lawyer's own health and the attorney's law practice.

Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires attorneys to provide competent representation to their clients. "Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." See Pa. R.P.C. 1.1. In the context of disciplinary matters, mental health, addiction, and other well-being issues are routinely found to impact questions of attorney competence. While such matters can be mitigating factors in considering the imposition of discipline, the Disciplinary Board must also consider the risk an attorney facing such issues poses to clients and potential clients in the commonwealth. Thus, these matters are often only mitigating factors to the extent an attorney recognizes and strives to address these issues. In ODC v. Childs, 160 DB 2022 (2023), the respondent was suspended for two years on consent after he failed to comply with court orders in several matters pertaining to one client, made misrepresentations to opposing counsel and his client, falsified letters and failed to respond to the DB-7 request for respondent's statement of position. The joint petition for discipline noted as a mitigating factor that the respondent suffered from mental health and addiction issues which may have been a factor in his misconduct and, importantly, that respondent had sought treatment and was continuing to address those issues.