Path to Well-Being in Law

Path to Well-Being in Law - Episode 29:Julian Sarafian

Chris Newbold: 

Hello friends. Welcome to the Path to Well-Being In Law podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being In Law. I'm your co-host Chris Newbold. I'm always thrilled and to be with my co-host, Bree Buchanan. Bree, how are you doing? 

Bree Buchanan: 

Doing great, Chris. How are you? 

Chris Newbold: 

Good, good. As our listeners know, I just want to reset this. Every time we do a podcast, I think we're welcoming new listeners in to the wellbeing movement. And Bree, one of our passions is to continue to introduce thought leaders doing meaningful work in the wellbeing space within the legal profession and in the process build and nurture a national network of wellbeing advocates intent on creating a culture shift in the profession. And I think we are super excited about our guests today because the ability for us, I've always thought that the secret sauce of creating a culture shift in this profession is the ability to engage in storytelling and the realities of what people's lives have been like in law and to give people platforms to tell their story. 

And we are really thrilled to be welcoming Julian Sarafian to the podcast, a noted social media influencer who is really a champion for mental health based upon his own personal story and what appeared to be just a straight direct success track in law. And so Bree, why don't I hand it off to you to introduce Julian, and we're really excited about where the conversation's going to take us today. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Absolutely. And I think Julian and his ability to do the storytelling and pull people in, and another thing I'm excited about, Julian, having you today is somebody that is of a younger generation than us because that's critical. One of the things I often say is that the legal profession will change. It will, because as the younger generations come up to positions of power, I truly believe they're not going to tolerate basically the working conditions that predominate through the legal profession right now. So it's inevitable. But I would say Julian is somebody who is accelerating that change to his work. So I'm going to give you a quick introduction of him and then we'll get to meeting Julian really quickly here. And I also will say, Julian, that you have such a humble bio. I am really impressed with that. So I try to refrain from pumping it up, but there's a lot of humility here and I see that as a great sign for somebody. 

So Julian Sarafian is a lawyer and content creator, but owe so much more. That was my editorial. His law firm For Creators by Creators PC is the premier law firm focused on representing content creators and social media influencers. As a content creator himself, Julian produces videos and blog posts related to the legal profession, law and mental health on TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Instagram where, drum roll here, his cumulative following is nearly 350,000. He's given multiple TEDx talks, the cost of success that he did dove into what originally made him viral, his mental health story as a high achiever who faced mental health challenges along the way, culminating in him quitting his job in Big Law during the COVID pandemic. And there's a story there. He has written and published op-ed pieces in the American Lawyer, Law360, Business Insider, Bloomberg Law, and CNBC. And his advocacy for mental health has been covered by the New York Times and Bloomberg Law. So Julian, welcome. We are so delighted that you're here with us today. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Thank you Bree and Chris for the very warm introduction, and I'm very happy to be here, excited to talk about these really important issues with you guys. 

Bree Buchanan: 

One of the things I really appreciate so much and looking at, thank you for giving me this excuse to spend a lot of time on TikTok, by the way. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Oh man. I don't know if I'll say you're welcome to that one. 

Bree Buchanan: 

But it's been, you really are such clearly a spokesperson for what I find is so important, which is humanizing the practice of law, realizing that we are human beings with basic needs and honoring that. And so tell us a little bit about why you're so passionate for this work, because it really does come through. You've been doing this work for a good number of years and are so consistent, never let up the throttle on this. So tell us your story. 

 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah, yeah, very happy to. And I'll give the shortened rundown version of the mental health story that you alluded to earlier, and this is the thing that brought me into social media. I've always been the stereotype and archetype of "success in academic world." Valedictorian in high school, UC, Berkeley in three years, worked at the White House when I was there, onto law school at Harvard, and now I'm in Big Law at 24 years old, making the $225,000 salary, including bonus at the time. But it wasn't all starry-eyed and fun and games on the inside. When I was studying for the LSAT, I had panic attacks. There were periods of extreme loneliness and isolation in college. I had a nausea and breathing disorder for most of my twenties. That was stress and anxiety induced, but I didn't know that at the time. 

And throughout this entire period, the world is telling me, you're doing fricking awesome. You are getting the best grades, you're going to the best schools. You're getting the best job opportunities. You're a winner, Julian. This is exactly what you should be doing. Everything you're doing is right. Even though on the inside there was a lot of turmoil and my life in many ways could have been a lot more enjoyable and fulfilling. This culminated in the pandemic when I think I'm not alone as a lawyer or even as a professional when I say that it was a very tumultuous and rough period on the mental health front. Personally, I was stuck in the same room week after week after week after week. And Big Law at the time was only getting busier ironically, I think clients wanted a way to feel powerful and in control, and an easy way to do that was to boss around their Big Law associates and their attorneys that they have on staff. 

So work accelerated. My mental health and the habits that I had built to this point in my mid-twenties were not sustainable, to put it mildly. That resulted in burnout. It resulted in anxiety developing and taking over more and more of my life, basically making me feel like I couldn't enjoy or even sit and relax something as simple as a TV show or a movie. And that eventually led to mild depression and feeling like everything was turning gray. I didn't feel like I had purpose anymore, and I felt completely helpless, no matter what I did to try to fix this it wasn't working, working out wasn't going to work, watching TV wasn't going to help, playing video games that didn't cure this. So I took the step of accepting, you know what? I have no idea what I'm doing here. I'm going to go and check myself with the mental health services with my then medical provider, Kaiser, and see what they say. 

I get handed the diagnosis of severe anxiety and mild depression at the time, and it was definitely a wake-up call. Okay, this is a lot more serious than I realized. This is going to take a lot more effort, energy, and time to heal from and learn to manage than I originally thought. And so that led ultimately to me investing time in therapy, in journaling and meditation and all of these fundamentals that I encourage everybody out there to practice regardless of how they feel their mental health is, because I think it's just a good balance, especially in our day and age of being constantly overstimulated, speaking of TikTok, Bree, that's what that app is. And eventually it came to a point where I felt like I was gaining a lot more out of my time spent advocating and working on my mental health than I was doing the Big Law associate corporate job at my old firm, Wilson Sonsini, which was frankly earning me a big paycheck and looking good on a resume, but I didn't find the work intrinsically gratifying or fulfilling. 

And certainly the culture was not one, in my opinion, that was steeped in innovation, pushing the envelope or prioritizing wellbeing. And that's not to say that Wilson specifically was bad, if anything, I think my old firm is excellent in that regard, but it's an industry-wide phenomenon, which I'm sure we're going to talk about in this conversation. So I ended up quitting that job outright, not knowing what I was going to do next, posted my mental health story, which I just described to you on LinkedIn, out of the blue and on a whim, no real impetus or motivation behind it other than if this helps one person, then great. Because I went through this and I think it's important for people to know that, and ended up going viral. I get thousands of messages supporting me, telling me that it made a huge impact on people's lives, and I see that there's clearly value here. 

And I ran with that momentum. I went onto every social media platform that I could think of. I wrote articles about mental health, and I continued telling my story everywhere that I could, which led me ultimately to TikTok of all places, which at the time in 2021 for a millennial like me was, isn't that the dancing app for people in Gen Z? But it's very much more than that. And it's been the engine of growth for thousands of creators. And now being a creator, myself and attorney for creators, we can talk about that angle of its importance and relevance. But to make the answer short, Bree, I think the thing that led me to social media was the importance of advocating for mental health because I thought that it was important for other people out there who may be going through similar things that I went through to know that they're not alone, number one. And to know number two, that there is a path out of it and that there is a sense of community out there for them that welcomes them. 

Now, that said, when it comes to humanizing the legal profession, it's been an unfortunate reality in my own platform building that talking about mental health for 60 seconds versus talking about a Big Law firm for 30 seconds, the first video is going to get 5,000 views, the second one's going to get 50,000 views. And this was something that I realized and faced very early on in my creation career, a constant tension between what people actually want to hear and in my opinion, what is more relevant and pertinent and important and purposeful. And so I don't mind, and I have no issue unpacking the legal profession for folks outside of it who don't have easy access to a lawyer that they know. Our profession is very buttoned up, it's very guarded. And I think because of its extreme importance in how we function as a society, it's really important that people understand the basics of how it works and what it means. So anyway, long-winded answer, but happy to continue. Go from there. 

Chris Newbold: 

Yeah. When we think about going to law school, when we think about what practicing law is going to be like, when we think about success, when we think about all those things, I think I continue to remain convinced, and we've talked about it on this podcast before, that there's this notion of an expectations gap as to what you think it's going to be versus what it is. And then the natural realities that once that sets in, you made a very bold move to depart and to leave. I think a lot of folks in your situation stay cross their fingers, turn to self coping mechanisms and other things that just then start to couch them. 

When we think about wellbeing, when Bree and I do, we try to think about it in a holistic, how do we set people up for professional success? And then just that reality that oftentimes more often than not, there's just a lot of people in our profession that when you ask them whether they're professionally satisfied, the answer is no. Yet they stay and endure. And I don't want to say they suffer, but they suffer and oftentimes they suffer in silence. Is that fair based upon your followers and what you're seeing from your community? 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yes, it's exactly correct. And it's what I saw in the industry in Big Law when I was there. And I think again, at my old firm, I was at one of the better places that was more human. It was a West Coast based law firm. I worked with the most relaxed, relatively speaking, and most humane partners. And yet I could still see in so many of these partners' eyes and the way that they carry themselves, the inherent unhappiness and not being able to spend more time with their family, or in my associate colleagues feeling like they were trapped and not knowing what to do or feeling powerless to make a change. 

And it's no surprise if I say I think that lawyers tend to be risk averse people. And I think that combination of being so risk averse with the system that we're going to discuss but has a lot of things pushing against folks' wellbeing, especially in Big Law, it creates a perpetual cycle of folks feeling trapped, feeling powerless, feeling hopeless, and like you said, turning to self coping mechanisms a lot of the time looking like substance abuse disorder, which is rampant in the profession, certainly binge-drinking and these days, I think increasingly marijuana use and even opioids. 

Chris Newbold: 

Yeah. Julian, your story again, it feels like your first viral video was your three minute, This Is Me, This Is Who I Am, This Is My Story, launched or struck a nerve with a community that has built into a following, and I'm just very interested in how that occurred, and how you embraced that and how your followers have reacted to not just your story, but now your position as the champion for mental health. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah, I think social media to some degree is a formula. So when I first started it was experimenting with having fun while trying to advocate for mental health. Let me do a skit that roasts Harvard kids for avoiding saying Harvard when they're asked, because it's fun. Why not? It's so different than what I was doing in my old job. It was refreshing. But then let me do a trend and talk about three signs that you might have anxiety, see how that goes. But I saw over time that something that really sticks on the app is raw authenticity and being vulnerable and showing up in front of the camera as a human being as you are and just saying your piece, whatever that is. Clearly I knew what that was for me at the time, and I still do. It's not like it's changed a whole lot. 

It's showing people that outside the sheen of everything that they look at and think is the greatest and the perfection and what they aspire to be, that it could be much darker on the other side. And it's something that many people refuse or don't ever talk to because their pride gets in the way or they're afraid that people will judge them or things of that nature. So you're right. When I initially posted my mental health story, that was the first thing that went viral. It got me up to, I think 12,000 followers let's say, but I didn't stop there. I continued that narrative and that discussion of tearing down what you think success is people and what it actually can look like on the other side. And I continued telling my mental health story in different ways, wearing a suit in one video, embellishing certain parts and focusing on other elements of grief, for example, or the pressure of going to law school and the videos continue to go viral time after time after time again. 

Obviously it was a lot to adjust to at first suddenly having hundreds of thousands of followers, none of whom I know. These are people that chose to hit the button on the internet. I couldn't tell you the first thing about them for the most part, other than that they're an incredibly supportive group of folks, and many of them relate to what I was talking about in one way or the other, be it because they're a high achiever or they've struggled with schizophrenia or they have a family member that they've lost to suicide. I think all of them felt connected to what I said in some capacity, and that drew them to me initially. And in the long run, they've been only supportive and kind both to each other and to me as the leader and creator of the community.  

Bree Buchanan: 

That's really so impressive. And I'm not surprised, I guess I'm a believer in the goodness of people. And when you create a community around that, we do see that. And I'm just wondering what kinds of strategies you've used around your mental health and just in life and being your very best that you've shared with them that seemed to resonate. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah. Honestly, this part of the discussion I think is a lot more boring than some people would prefer because a lot of it is the basics. It's 10 minutes of meditating every day. It's going to therapy and accepting that you don't have the answers, and that's okay. It's reading books about mental health to educate yourself and gain perspective. It's journaling when you feel overwhelmed. And probably the most important, especially for high achievers who struggle with chronic overwork is learning how to set adequate boundaries. Because certainly for myself, being a chronic workaholic my whole life, you build habits of consistently and continually multitasking for one. And on top of that, when you're always working, you don't really need to set boundaries because you're always working. That's the default. When you're not working, okay, you're not working for those X number of hours per day. 

But the problem with building those habits and lack of boundaries is that it bleeds into everything else in your life, your personal relationships, the way that you manage things outside of work, even basic things like exercise and dieting and eating well. And if you don't set those boundaries in the long run, that's how things become really dangerous when you don't feel inspired or fulfilled by your work, which a lot of lawyers, as we've discussed don't, and that makes these mental health conditions and the misery exponentially worse. So I think if I had to summarize it in one sentence, what's resonated the most with my community is remembering to take things slower and that that's okay. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Great. Wonderful. 

Chris Newbold: 

Julian, is there anything that you've learned from your audience, from your followers that you've found either interesting or insightful as you continue to see their stories come back to you? 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah. For me, the biggest thing is that there are always more people than you realize out there that are struggling that you'll never know. So many people message and comment about being in similar situations where they feel isolated and alone, that no one understands what they're going through, that everybody thinks that they're one thing, but on the inside they feel a certain way. And for me, that's just a constant reminder of the trope that you hear when you're young, that you should never judge a book by its cover because you have doctors and high power lawyers, partners in law firms that reach out to me, Am Law 50 firms who tell me in a similar vein that everybody thinks one thing of them, but they don't think the same way and they don't feel the same way to a point that it's very concerning for them. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Imposter syndrome at the highest levels. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Some of that certainly yes, definitely. And also a mismatch of I think their internal sense of worth and what they want versus the external validators that they're receiving, which are very easy to define themselves by. What I mean is being a partner of a Am Law 50 firm as an example, it's going to be hard for somebody not to be impressed by that. And they're going to get respect from everybody around them. They're going to get praise, they're going to get a ton of money, they're going to get power and influence. All of those things are external validators telling them, this is good. This is what you want. This is positive. We like this. But on the inside, that's probably not what they really want in some cases. And no number of external validators can change that and will alter that feeling. They have to take action to find something else that better resonates with them. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Yeah, big disconnect. 

Chris Newbold: 

Julian, one of the interesting things, I think, a couple weeks ago I spoke in front of the National Conference of Bar Presidents on the future of wellbeing, and one of my observations was that one of the things that has me optimistic about where things are going is a couple things. One, that society's talking about mental health more, just more engagingly everywhere in all facets of life. That's good that more people are telling their stories, more people are hitting the pause button saying, I have an issue. I need a space to be able to talk and clear that before I reengage. That's healthy. 

And then the other part that I think is, Bree mentioned earlier is there's a generational shift that's clearly in play right now in society and in particular the legal profession. You got the baby boomer generation that's reaching that retirement age, although retirement sometimes doesn't come traditionally for most lawyers. And I'm curious about just some of your perceptions on the incoming generation of lawyers that we're going to entrust the legal system too, and as it relates to wellbeing, some different opinions frankly about what they're hoping to have as an experience as a lawyer or in law or sitting on the bench or whatever they ultimately pursue. I just think that there's some things that are in play that are very different than historically have been the norm. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah, I think that's exactly right. Our generation and certainly the younger generation realizes that the world moves really fast. And in our day and age, especially with social media, you can become an entrepreneur from your bedroom with a camera in a month making six figures a year just like that if you know what you're doing and if you create valuable content. And that's just one example of the way that innovation in our current day and age leads to economic opportunity and prosperity. All of this means when they work really hard, when we work tremendously hard to get into the best law schools, to get the best grades, to get the best Big Law summer associateships and full-time jobs, when we get there, there is some expectation, some, that the firms are going to be high caliber, are going to be innovative, are going to be pushing the envelope, are going to represent that level of thinking, analytical mindset and hustle that got us to that associate position. 

That's certainly what I expected, and it was something that I was disappointed to find when I got there that as you mentioned earlier in our conversation, our profession is very slow to change and it's very resistant to change. And because of that, there is, I think, a shock factor that hits people in their twenties. We're talking about the younger generation of attorneys when they get there as a first year associate and they realize we're doing things operationally that we could have improved on 20 years ago, the culture seems to be stuck in the mid 2000s. Why are we still using email when we could use project management software like Asana, for example, that's more efficient? And I think the folks that get impatient and try to change it from within, myself as one of them, eventually self-select themselves out of that industry because of this frustration, because we're devoting the vast majority of our living waking hours to this employer. 

And clearly it's a transaction, we get money in return, but when we put in all of our energy and purpose and time into this institution, we want it to match similar values to the ones that we have. And when they're too slow or they're too dismissive of what the younger generation thinks, because that's just not the way we did things last year, that's just not the way we do things, period. It doesn't encourage buy-in or build morale amongst the younger associates and the younger generations of lawyers. And what will probably result in the longterm is an increase in folks flocking to the areas of the legal profession that are more open to innovation and more open to new ways and lines of thinking and more focused on wellbeing. For one example, being a solo practitioner like myself, I never expected to be a solo practitioner when I quit my job in Big Law. And yet here I am in large part because I enjoy legal work, just not on the terms that Big Law was offering. 

And being a solo practitioner, obviously you can run your own schedule, but it's not just being a solo practitioner, it's going in-house at progressive companies. It's starting a smaller firm with multiple associates at the same time. And I think that self-selection is important, but it's also important to note that when we're talking about Big Law specifically, I don't see it changing much in the long-term or even the midterm because I think the people that stay in it, even from my generation and the younger generations, I think are ones that are more or less okay with what the culture offers and what that lifestyle is like. And so though there will be movement on the edges, more benefits for folks to get therapists, maybe a mental health day here and there, maybe a reduction in the billable hour requirements, I think it's going to be really, really slow and too little, too late for a lot of people who value the things that I've been discussing earlier, innovation and open-mindedness, et cetera, et cetera. 

Chris Newbold: 

So the sense there is that they would look to make sure that people knew what they were getting into and find that group of folks that are willing to do that. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yes, that's right. And the people who are not willing to do it will self-select themselves out, like myself and many colleagues at my level, good friends of mine who were like-minded all left the industry too. 

Bree Buchanan: 

And many women, for example, are leaving or self-selecting out too, because it's just not, what they get in return is not worth what they're asked to give up basically.  

Julian Sarafian: 

Yes. A 100%. 

Bree Buchanan: 

It's a huge issue right now. I'll just say we having a high level discussion and about these things and the image that's popping into my mind, Julian, is one of your TikToks where talking about the inefficiencies and old school style of law firms where you're going on about having to go through and insert Oxford commas- 

Chris Newbold: 

Oh, yes.  

Bree Buchanan: 

... a thousand pages or something. That was just such a great little demonstrative piece there. I love that. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Oh yeah. And among many other stories, one of the moments I had before quitting that made me really realize I had other things I wanted to do was spending 45 minutes copy and pasting entries from an Excel document into a Word document and billing a client, whatever it was, 750 an hour for it. And that was the task. That was what I was expected to be doing. That was good job, Julian. And in the same period of time I realized I could write an article about getting into law school and probably help some underprivileged kid out there reframe their expectations. What am I doing? Copy and pasting for a big paycheck. Yeah. 

Chris Newbold: 

Well, Bree, should we take a quick break? And I think this is a good time, obviously so this podcast is being sponsored by ALPS Malpractice Insurance. Obviously that's my employer, so I'll be a little favorable to that. And it's interesting that one of the things that we see at ALPS is, again, a large number of folks coming into the solo space and the small firm space looking for something different, looking for something that has the type of balance that they're seeking. So it reflects, Julian, a little bit of your own personal journey of just that reality of maybe there's a different pathway for me and maybe it is in an area that has a little bit more flexibility and balance. And so I think that's interesting. So let's take a quick break and we'll be right back. 

Okay. We're back with Julian Sarafian and who's just got a really compelling personal story and has leveraged that story into becoming a champion for mental health, particularly through social media channels. Julian, I think it's fair to say that one of the things that's resonated in your ability to attract a following has been, one, your authenticity, and two, your willingness to be a truth teller when it comes to the realities of the legal profession. Tell us again, just your perspective on both where the profession is today, what some of your inclinations are about where it's heading. And I know you probably to be more likely an optimist than a pessimist, but just tell us what you see on the horizon as you think about this particular issue and the intersection of our ability as lawyers to deliver in a high functioning legal system. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah. Well, I think you're right, Chris, that I am an optimist and just since I quit my role in Big Law and started speaking out, I can't count the number of stories of similar folks that have come forward on and off social media talking about similar issues, the lack of purpose, feeling like there was other things in life calling them, realizing that being locked into this bubble of working as a mid-size law firm or Big Law attorney or even solo practitioner just wasn't for them, and they wanted to explore other things. On top of that, social media has accelerated the ability for culture to be built and normalized in not just the legal profession, but everywhere. And what that does has, and what it will continue to do is shed a light on, first of all toxicity. And one example I think that's prominent as of late is the Barbara Rainin scandal where folks had sent racist and sexist emails around and the internet went wild over it. And I don't know what these folks are doing now, but certainly I can promise you they're not well-liked in the public sphere. 

Things like that for me speak to the power that every individual has in our system to use their voice to both inspire other people and call out toxic or unreasonable expectations or habits that folks in the profession put on them, which in the long term I think will lead to mental health and wellbeing and being more reasonable with our expectations on ourselves, being cool and being normal and being the default setting. And those are the things that we need to make happen if we want these old ideologies to fall by the wayside. And I think it will happen and it already is happening. It's just going to take time for that culture shift to actually impact institutional policy and the structural incentives, for example, the billable hour that I think are holding the profession back irrespective of the culture, but I am optimistic and I think it's only going to get better from where we are now, and it's already gotten a lot better in my perspective in the last few years since the pandemic and coming out of it. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Yeah, I'm glad you said those two words, billable hour and the third rail of the legal profession here, and since you invoked it, I was going to ask you about it anyway, but what about that and any other barriers you see that are just endemic to life in Big Law, but the billable hours, something that people say, if we could just change that- 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah. Well, I think the problem is in the American culture of work, the goal is to be number one at all times and make infinite money, period. Legitimately that's the goal. There's never a target, okay, for any business or firm, certainly the most competitive amongst us. It's make as much as possible. And when you tie your revenue to the number of hours that you work, which is what the billable hour is, this is the result that we get. When you mix that with the American culture of work, it's chronic overwork, it's continually billing all the time because you want to make more money for your boss, or the partner wants to make more money for themselves, or you want to look really good for your senior associate because you want to go up for partner eventually, and you know that that will help. All of it comes down to money, and the reason that it comes down to money is because it's being tied to the hours that we work. 

On top of that, there are psychological damages that come with the billable hour structure. When I was in Big Law, I remember thinking every day, okay, I could either get lunch with a friend for 30 minutes or bill half an hour. I'm going to probably bill half an hour most of those times because every moment that you weren't working felt like an opportunity cost to be getting more work done and hitting that target for your bonus, or again, looking better for your bosses. You mentioned things that firms or the industry can do to push back or help restructure itself to avoid some of these problems. For the life of me, I can't tell you why firms don't do this, but this is partially why I left the industry. It would be the easiest thing in the world to just create different segments of salary and bonus structure based on how many hours you bill. 

This is basic math. I'm talking fourth grade math. Okay. If you bill 1500 hours, you get paid a 150. If you get 1700, you get paid a 170. You hit 1950, you get paid 200. And magically suddenly, I think firms will find, okay, if we make less money from this person, that's fine because we also pay them less. The try hards are going to continue to try hard because that's what they want to do and they want to make more money, but there won't be an inherent pressure on every single associate to fall in line and work their tail off. There also won't be an intra competitive mindset amongst associates to out bill each other or a stigma, oh, you didn't hit the bonus, you're screwed. That's a big no-no, you're not going to rise up the partner now, and you're probably not even well liked. You'd get rid of all of that. 

Instead, you'd have a more healthy system of people who, okay, they want to work a little bit less hard, they'll make less money for it, and that's okay. Before I quit my job in Big Law, I actually went part-time at Wilson, and part-time in Big Law is literally that, it's a pro rata percentage of hours that you take on is the percentage of the salary full-time that you receive. I don't see any reason why that sort of structure cannot be institutionalized broadly, not just in Big Law, but in Midlaw and small-law too. And I think that that would just give people a lot more autonomy and feel a lot more in control of their own destiny, which can help alleviate a lot of these pressures. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Yeah. And the consulting that I do with Big Law, I see a real issue around the billable hour, and it's not just it in and of itself, it's the lack of transparency around what the law firms really want. And so like you said, the default is that you just keep working. When you're not really clear what's expected of you, then you always, always just work. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Pretty much. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Yeah. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Well, and honestly, I don't know if the firms even know what they want to be blunt. The partners are moving around half the time to other firms because they're getting offered more money, and the partners themselves are overworked. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Absolutely. 

Julian Sarafian: 

If the leadership team is overworked and can't spend inadequate amount of time thinking and processing what the community, broadly speaking, needs, we shouldn't be surprised that things are getting lost in the shuffle. 

Chris Newbold: 

And Julian, is that a business model reality or is it just a lack of an awareness to one, talk about what the employee's objectives are versus what the firm's objectives are and to make sure that those are in part aligned? 

Julian Sarafian: 

Yeah, go on.  

Chris Newbold: 

Well, I was just going to say is it... Because it still seems like we're lacking the conversation as to what the collective ambitions are, and again, there's an employer and an employee, and so there is a power dynamic there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that both objectives can't be met if there's transparency and communication on the front end. 

Julian Sarafian: 

That's exactly right. Big Law and many law firms, not just Big Law, will tout themselves on annual growth rates of 10%. Okay, let's go to the other side of the economic spectrum of technology companies or startups where 10% means that your stock is going to nose dive because that's a joke, 10% for some of the smartest, you're telling me the smartest, most ambitious, hardworking lawyers all in the same bucket and under the same umbrella, you can only grow 10% a year? What are you guys doing? But they tout themselves and they're proud of that because as a collective that is, let's just do what we did last year. That's the norm. It's a short-term model of thinking, in part because I think partners are looking at their own paychecks, they're compensated based on the performance of the firm that year. They're not going to see the value in generating long-term revenue 10 years from now because they're looking one year ahead. 

So to your point, I think the cost of training a new associate is something to the tune of $200,000. By the time an associate is a mid-level in Big Law as an example, that is the most profitable time for the law firm, when nearly 80 to 90% of their worked hours and billed hours is pure profit. When these firms don't curate themselves or open themselves up to what the younger generation, junior associates have been asking for basic things, more strict boundaries on weekends, maybe a more flexible dinner reimbursement policy, all of these collective things that lead them out the door before they reach that mid-level stage, the firm loses hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential revenue. I'm just one example of the type of person that I didn't dislike the practice of law. I do a very similar practice now on my own. 

I would've stayed if certain conditions were being met, if I felt that the culture were more cohesive, that associates were taken care of, that there was a long-term vision that included me in it, rather than what felt like a very short-term model in between distractions meant to, Bree, to your point, shield leadership from being truly transparent with the younger ranks. So I think in the long run, it's something that technology companies figured out a long time ago, that happier employees are more productive employees, more productive employees generate more value for the business, but the legal profession hasn't really cared to adopt that, and so I think it's pretty obvious that it would be financially beneficial to them in the long run. But that requires long-term thinking. And I question if these firms- 

Bree Buchanan: 

That's right. That's right. 

Julian Sarafian: 

... I question if these firms really have that or care about it, because truthfully, the people leading them are folks that are looking at their annual paycheck every year, and some of them, dare I say, have no real loyalty to the institution of the firm because when another firm comes along next year and offers them three million more for their book of business, they jump. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Yeah. Yeah, I was about to just comment on that. Absolutely. 

Chris Newbold: 

Well, good. Julian, I guess the last thing that I just wanted to explore is, again, thinking about creating a culture shift in our profession. It could take decades, it could take, there needs to be education awareness. We know that that's probably at its peak right now relative to historical norms, a lot more folks doing, it's hard to not go to a state bar annual meeting in your jurisdiction and not hear something or see something about wellness. That's good. That doesn't necessarily amount to a culture shift, but it's definitely a precursor to most social movements that there needs to be an education awareness, understanding and appreciation that there's a problem and that we can all be part of the solution. So there's that element of it. 

I have to think that some of the work that you do on social media has the potential to be an accelerator of that culture shift, because again, you're providing platforms for people to come forward, tell stories, share experiences, and the more that we normalize those experiences, the more that we can appreciate that it's okay to come forward and share those experiences because that will serve as a catalyst to change. As you think about the future, how do you think about that and how do we try to do this more quickly than await decades if we're really serious about achieving a mission of putting wellbeing as a core centerpiece of professional success? 

Julian Sarafian: 

Well, first of all, I think what you guys are doing with your work in providing a platform like this podcast and opening up a space for these conversations, that's incredibly important. Working directly in the space, creating content about it, starting the conversations with employers or colleagues or friends, all of that is crucial. But in the longterm, I think the power of the internet and what social media provides is, and this is changing, but right now I still believe this is true. If you post a piece of content, you're entering the 1% of the folks on social media who are creators, whereas 99% of people on the internet are consumers. And so my platform and what I've built with advocating for mental health, breaking down barriers in the legal profession, in some ways, I hate to say it, but it's not that special. When I talk about Big Law firms and what people talk about and what Cravath feels like on the inside, these are things that everybody in my law school talked about openly and knew about, but they just never cared to put that on social media or talk about it openly. 

And I understand that there's a lot of apprehension with putting yourself out there on the internet and with social media. The Internet's written in ink. You can't take back what you say, and it will potentiall chase you around forever, and you have haters who are going to potentially disagree with you and attack your character or how you look, et cetera, et cetera. But at the same time, you can be part of that process and inspire who knows how many people with a simple post, even reminding your own network about the importance of mental health and wellbeing. It doesn't need to be a tell all mental health, raw vulnerability story like I did. It could just be an insight that somebody learned talking to a colleague about how Big Law wasn't always cracked up to be, or I'm a lawyer and I thought I'd love the work, but it turns out it's really draining. 

The more conversations and the more courage that we can have to bring these things to light, I think the more encouraged and inspired other people will be to do the same and to actually accept where they are at, which in the long run will lead to the important thing, which is action, putting pressure on employers, signing onto petitions, attending wellbeing conferences, supporting creators who talk about these issues, writing and creating content about wellness in the legal profession and its importance, or just crafting and being part of leadership initiatives in state bar associations, for example, to help the process move forward. So I think something that everybody can do at a baseline is talk about the issues. And if they're feeling courageous enough post about it digitally, even if it's something they've never done before. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Lots of tales of courage here. It takes a lot of... Yeah. Especially- 

Julian Sarafian: 

The internet right now is not a fun place. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Yeah. Yeah. 

Julian Sarafian: 

Let's be clear, in 10, 15 years, I think it will be, and I think LinkedIn is the safest platform right now, but when you normalize anonymity and the ability of people to say things behind masks, which is what TikTok and Twitter and Reddit are all pretty much normalized, have normalized, it could be ruthless on top of the harass of effects. If you talk about something controversial and have people harass your home and send police to your door and all that, it's not a great system we have right now, and our 9,000 year old Congress folk have yet to regulate it adequately. So I'm not holding my breath on that one, at least right now. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Absolutely. 

Chris Newbold: 

Well, awesome. Julian, thank you for joining us on the podcast. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Thank you so much. 

Chris Newbold: 

We certainly want to continue to build bridges with you and between I Will and other influencers like you. Again, I think it's a critical component to what we're working to do, to be inclusive of the strategies and the techniques that have really proven to be so successful for you and your aspirations to do your part, and sharing your own personal story and sharing that authentically with your followers. And again, so many of them are coming forward with reciprocally and sharing their stories back. That's the type of, I think, interaction that does lend itself toward culture shift. And we're very thankful for the work that you're doing. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Absolutely. Thank you, Julian, for your work and your courage. 

Julian Sarafian: 

You're very welcome guys, and the feeling is very mutual. 

Chris Newbold: 

All right, so we'll be back in a couple of weeks. Bree and I are exploring some variations in doing some different things with the podcast, introducing some different segments and so forth. Again, storytelling a big part of what we want to be able to aspire to do. Start making some predictions, start focusing on some of the research that's coming out in the wellbeing and law space. There's just a lot of opportunity for us to be able to, as Julian said, get more content out there into the public domain and be initiators of dialogue in this important area. So we hope that you'll tune in for that. So signing off, be well out there, friends. Thank you. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Take care. 

 

Path to Well-Being in Law - Episode 28: Tara Antonipilla

We are on the cusp of one of IWIL's most notable programming events of the year, Well-Being Week in Law, and we have a very special guest with us today to talk about one of IWIL's highest priorities. That's Tara Antonipillai, who is serving this year as our Chair of Well-Being Week in Law.

—

Transcript:

Chris Newbold: 

Hello and welcome to this special edition of the Path to Well-Being in Law podcast. My name is Chris Newbold and I'm here with my co-host Bree Buchanan. Bree, how's it going? 

Bree Buchanan: 

Great, Chris. How are you? 

Chris Newbold: 

Good. I'm actually pretty excited actually because we are on the cusp of one of IWIL's most notable programming events of the year, Well-Being Week in Law, and we have a very special guest with us today to talk about one of IWIL's highest priorities. That's Tara Antonipillai, who is serving this year as our Chair of Well-Being Week in Law. Tara, how's it going? 

Tara Antonipillai: 

I'm great. Thanks for having me, Chris and Bree. It's nice to be here. 

Chris Newbold: 

Yeah. So let's first of all get right to the dates. Tara, when are we queued up to go on Well-Being Week in Law for 2023? 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Well, Well-Being Week in Law is exactly two weeks away. So it's May 1st through the 5th, 2023, Monday through Friday. 

Bree Buchanan: 

And what amazes me is that this is our fourth annual, boy as time go by. So tell us, Tara, is how this week is structured, how is it set up? 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Sure. So just a little bit of background. Well-Being Week in Law occurs the first week of May to launch Mental Health Awareness Month. So it is meant to focus on folks in the legal profession who may be struggling with mental health and alcohol use disorders, but also on those that while not dealing with a diagnosable illness, may not be fully thriving in their work in their life. So the aim of this is really to raise awareness about mental health and encourage action and innovation across our profession. So the week is structured in themes. So each day has a theme and as you look through it, you can see Monday is physical wellbeing, Tuesday is spiritual wellbeing, Wednesday is career or work wellbeing. Thursday is social wellbeing and Friday is emotional wellbeing. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Wonderful. 

Chris Newbold: 

I was going to say, one of the things that I think is really awesome about this particular week, and I want to give a lot of credit to the founder of this particular week, and that was Anne Bradford back several years ago. She said, "Listen, if we can get a date on the calendar in which we can shine the light on wellbeing as an issue, we can organize around that. We can talk about issues, we can set out the welcome mat, so to speak, to organizations, law firms and individuals to advance the dialogue." And it certainly feels, Tara, like that concept has really worked and worked well. And we continue to see growth in this opportunity. 

Tara Antonipillai: 

That is definitely true. I mean, we owe a huge debt to Ann for both the idea and also for the structure and many, many of the resources that serve as the foundation for Well-Being Week in Law. She put a tremendous amount of her intellectual capabilities and her really just her hard work into this and so to build it into what it is today. And I think we should be thankful to her and I think she's very happy to see what Well-Being Week in Law has become. 

Bree Buchanan: 

And Tara, one of the things that is so amazing about this... Well, two things. It's free for everybody, but also the amount of resources that are available on our website, lawyerwellbeing.net. Can you talk a little bit about what some of those resources are and how people can have their own Well-Being Week in Law? 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Yeah, for sure. So the way that we have set up the website is so that really it's a hub for folks to plan their own Well-Being Week in Law if you happen to be inside an organization or if you are an individual to participate in Well-Being Week in Law using the resources that are there. So each day there is a live event. So we sponsor one live event each day this year. Those are at 1:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, each day for 60 minutes. And they key to the daily themes. Those webinars are free to participate in, although you do have to just register so that you get the link. 

And then we also have daily posts, which are very popular. Those are great for people who might be very busy. They have some really small things that again, are related to the daily themes. So each day there is a read this watch or listen to this and do this item. So those are meant to be small things that you can do to improve that element of wellbeing. And then the other thing that is on the website are a tremendous amount of activity guides and really detailed planning guides for organizations, for bar associations as to how they might go about organizing a Well-Being Week in Law inside their organization. 

Bree Buchanan: 

So Tara, I was just going to say, what's the first step to get involved? What are we asking folks to do? 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Yeah. So the best thing that you can do is, you can register as an individual or you can register as an organization. And that allows us to directly funnel the information to you, send all of the webinar information to you and make sure you receive all of the daily posts as well as access to the webinars. And then the other thing is if you'd rather not register, it's not required, it is free, but you can also go ahead and just start to check out the website and see what you find. One of our other really popular resources that's been updated for this year is the Mental Health Awareness Month calendar. And many, many people and organizations have told me that they use that calendar extensively throughout the month of May. It is linked to a lot of our resources. It includes an activity, something small each day that people can do to improve or focus on their mental health and wellbeing. So really that's just another way that you can use what we have available in a way that suits you. 

Chris Newbold: 

So again, just to reiterate there, all of the resources for Wellbeing and Law Week are on the lawyerwellbeing.net website. I think everything is easily accessible through a click in the upper right-hand corner of that. Tara, I think it's fair to say that once they click on that, there's then a pathway to say, are you an organization? Are you an individual? You pick your journey so to speak. And I think one of the things, and I know that we're still two weeks out, but if memory serves me, we already have a over 150 different organizations who have already come in and registered to participate. That's an incredible number. And again, I think it demonstrates a couple of things. One, how much this issue is being talked about within the legal community. How many different types of organizations and stakeholders ultimately want to get engaged, and how many of them are ultimately coming to IWIL as part of us being able to provide resources to help them structure a very productive week in that first week of May. 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Yeah, I think that's really true. I have been really floored with how many people have registered. I think right now we have 172 organizations registered as of today. And it's fun to see how people are participating, which actually reminds me, we do have a participation challenge again this year that relies heavily on one of our sponsors, Canyon Ranch, who donates a really great three day prize getaway for anyone who participates. And all you really have to do is fill out a survey that's very easy to access online. You'll see it multiple times on the website that just says, tell us how you're participating in Well-Being Week in Law. And it can be anything from participating in one of our webinars to I've gone for a walk every day at lunch. It can be very simple and that enters you for a chance to win some really great prizes. So it's been very popular in years past and I expect it will be this year as well. 

Chris Newbold: 

Just give us a brief sampling of, because again, I think when we say organizations that are participating, I got to think that there's a real interesting diversity not just in diverse groups, but diverse stakeholder groups that are opting to participate from, I got to guess, law schools and perhaps regulators, insurance carriers, law firms. I'm guessing it runs the gamut because everybody is looking at the issue just from a different perspective or lens. 

Tara Antonipillai: 

That I think is very true. So even if you look at the first few on our list, we've got Akin Gump, it's a large law firm, and then we've got the Alabama State Bar Quality of Life and Health Wellness Committee. We have the Aramark Legal Department and then Armstrong Teasdale below them. And then we have the Brooklyn Defender Services and several law schools, the North Dakota State's Association. So just this really wide cross section of organizations that are not only participating but are collaborating with us to get the word out and encourage their members to participate. 

Bree Buchanan: 

That is really exciting. Tara, one of the things we like to talk with our guests about too is, if you could just tell us what has driven your passion for wellbeing and law? How did you get to working in this space? 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Well, I was a lawyer. I was a tax lawyer at a large firm in Washington DC. I did mostly nonprofit tax work and I have a lifelong interest in yoga and meditation. So when I stopped practicing law, I found my way, coincidentally back into law firms. My old firm, Arnold & Porter asked me to come back to teach some stress management programs and I just became super interested in it. I never really thinking that it would be a second career for me. Ultimately, I went back to graduate school and to coaching school at Brown and to graduate school at Penn in applied psychology. 

So I became really interested in how we could help people and focus on maybe some small changes. My husband was a partner in a law firm and he runs a company now. So I think I really understand that people are very busy and don't always have a lot of extra bandwidth. So in my research and in my work, I really am focused a lot on behavioral economics, behavioral changes, ways that people can harness and use the time that they have and not necessarily trying to find a lot of extra time towards promoting wellbeing. So that's the angle that I come at it from, and really where my passion is, which is that overlap between busy people and wellbeing. 

Chris Newbold: 

Good. So any last words of advice or counsel? Obviously we want to invite as many listeners and their respective organizations or as individuals to become an active participant in Well-Being Week in Law. I would say probably the easiest thing for folks to do if they're interested, and again, you can do this all the way up until the day before, or you can actually do it during the week of that, I would guess, Tara, advise folks to go to the Well-Being in Law or lawyerwellbeing.net website. So the IWIL website, is that the easiest way to start their journey? 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Yeah, for sure. The IWIL website is definitely the way to go. And my final words would just be that there's a path for everyone when it comes to Well-Being Week in Law. You can participate as little or as much as you would. So I encourage people to check it out and maybe just lean in just a little bit, try out one or two things and see how it goes. But I hope that you will join us and participate in the way that works for you. It's really a week, a program, a system that's designed for everyone and to be used in multiple ways. So we hope you will join us. 

Chris Newbold: 

Yeah. And like I said earlier, I mean, this is an offering that you should feel free to take your own journey. As long as you're doing anything in the space of wellness, you can certainly opt into the structure that we can help provide you and the resources and the communication toolkits that are available. But if you want to do one thing during the week or organize something in your respective law firm around wellbeing, I mean, you have the ability to lean in to the greatest extent or the least extent that you want to. We're just here to obviously support you and anything that you want to do to advance the cause of Well-Being Week in Law. Anything else, Bree, that you would mention? 

Bree Buchanan: 

I think that's it. I think it's time to get out and go take a walk or something from Well-Being. 

Chris Newbold: 

I do want to give a special shout out to sponsors, upcoming Well-Being Week in Law. One of them has obviously already been mentioned Canyon Ranch. And we're going to be, I think, raffling off a three night all-inclusive pathway experience at Canyon Ranch. And then two other supporting sponsors that I want to give a special shout out to. And that would be Virgin Pulse. And obviously they're doing work in the wellbeing space. And then the good folks over at Unmind who are also providing resources to folks interested in advancing wellness in their particular organizations. 

Bree Buchanan: 

And we have this a daily sponsor Guide and Thrive as well. 

Chris Newbold: 

That's right. That's right. Excellent. Well, Tara, thanks for joining us. Again, a very heartfelt thank you for the work that you are investing. Tara is a volunteer with the Institute for Well-Being in Law. She has stepped in as... Anne has taken a little bit of a breather. Tara has stepped up and done so in just a really thoughtful, big time way. And we're really proud of you, Tara, and everything that you've done to advance this particular week, and we're really excited about what lies ahead. 

Tara Antonipillai: 

Awesome. Thanks for having me. I can't wait. 

Bree Buchanan: 

Thanks, Tara. 

Chris Newbold: 

Excellent. Thanks. 

 

Path to Well-Being in Law – Episode 27: Nathalie Cadieux

In the latest episode of the podcast, Chris and Bree sit down with Professor Nathalie Cadieux, Ph.D. with the University of Montreal, a specialist on the mental health of professionals in a regulated profession, to learn more about her national research project on the mental health of Canadian lawyers.

Transcript: 

Chris Newbold:

Hello, wellbeing friends and welcome to the Path to Wellbeing and Law Podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Wellbeing In Law. My name is Chris Newbold, I'm executive vice president of ALPS Malpractice Insurance. And we're excited to kick off our 2023 menu of speakers.

And as most of you know, our goal here on the podcast has always been to introduce you to thought leaders doing meaningful work in the wellbeing space and within the legal profession. And in the process build and nurture a network of wellbeing advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. And I have, am always excited to introduce my co-host, Bree Buchanan. Bree, how are you doing?

Bree Buchanan:

I'm doing great, Chris. And I will just say even better that now I am immediate past president of I-Well presently.

Chris Newbold:

Kind of exciting news for us on the institute front that after two really incredible launch years for the Institute for Wellbeing and Law, Bree Buchanan was our president and in many respects also our executive director. And she was the one who steered us to just an incredible launch of the organization.

And I know on behalf of our board of directors, Bree, a heartfelt thank you for that commitment. You're not going anywhere and I know that you're going to be actively engaged as we continue to move ourselves forward. But again, it's been a real honor watching Bree lead this movement in the United States. And I know again, her contributions, there are many on the horizon sure to come.

Bree Buchanan:

Thank you, Chris. That's so kind.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah.

Bree Buchanan:

It was a pleasure.

Chris Newbold:

And so the other part of that is then who did the baton go to? And, Bree, do you want to drop that news?

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely. And so I looking at who would be the best person. We brought along, I reached out to Chris and he was gracious enough to agree to take the baton from me. And so I've gladly passed that on. And Chris is just the right person, the right leader at this time as we really start to develop a long-term vision.

And that's something. He is a visionary and that's something that he's really great at doing. So after two years it was time to have a switch of leadership. And so Chris has stepped into that place, my podcast co-host. And I'm really excited about what the future holds.

Chris Newbold:

And again, it's an exciting time for us. Bree was really visionary in getting all of our leaders together back in August to kind of launch a strategic plan for us. And, Bree, I think it's safe to say that the pillars that we created in terms of the areas that we wanted to focus our work. And just want to take a quick minute to ensure that all of our wellbeing advocates are aware of where that's going.

We've done such a great job I think on the raising of education and awareness around wellbeing. In fact, this is a perfect time to make a plug for our upcoming Wellbeing in Law Week, which is set for May 1st through the 5th this year. Again, contact us at I-Well, if you're interested in plugging into what will be just a fantastic menu of activities going on each day during that week.

So education and awareness. I know, Bree, you've been very vocal about our need to continue to be a strong voice, particularly when we think about systemic opportunities for change in favor of wellbeing. And so we're looking at amplifying our advocacy voice. We're definitely also looking at on our strategic plan, the ability, which is the focal point of our podcast today. Which is elevating our research and the data accumulation to understand where the opportunities are, how we outline our priorities, and where we go next?

So we'll obviously spend a lot of time on this podcast talking about research. And then the last part that I think is noteworthy is I-Well's opportunity to be a facilitator of dialogue amongst stakeholders. And whether that's wellbeing directors at large law firms, whether it's solo practitioners, regulators, professional liability carriers. There's a real opportunity for I-Well to bring these stakeholder groups together to advance action oriented plans to continue to move toward our ultimate mission of the culture shift.

So again, really excited about the future of where I-Well is and where we're going today. But let's turn to the podcast today. And again, I've previewed it a little bit. That I'm really thrilled today to kind of broaden our scope a little bit and actually look beyond the US border. And we're really excited to welcome professor Nathalie Cadieux, who's an associate professor and researcher with the Sherbrooke University's Business School.

Bree, I'd love it if you could, I know that you've met Nathalie before and talk about groundbreaking research related to the Canadian legal profession. We're really excited about the conversation that's on tap for today.

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely. And so yeah, I had the pleasure of meeting Nathalie at a conference in Canada a few years ago. And it really, what it seems, it's a Federation of Law Society's Conference, which is the bar there is organized a little bit differently than the United States. But we all came together, this was a focus on regulators. And out of that conference there were so many ideas around wellbeing for lawyers and it truly became an incubator for great ideas.

And so it is so exciting to be able to report and bring Nathalie in to talk about what all has transpired and has come out of that one conference. And then just the beauty of being able to bring together passionate advocates and the law and see what can come from that.

So just a little bit more about Nathalie. She is been leading a national research project and is the principal investigator on mental. Then this project is around the mental health of Canadian lawyers. And the project, the research was conducted on 7300 lawyers, which is a really great population group to get data from.

And it's a two phase project and have completed the first phase and published that report and recommendations. And we're going to hear some more about that from Nathalie. So we are thrilled to bring Nathalie Cadieux to you, to our listeners.

And Nathalie, one of the things that we always start off with is just to learn a little bit about the background of our speakers, our guests, to find out what has drawn you to this area. So how did you become interested in researching the legal community? Because you're not a lawyer but an academic and a researcher. And what makes you so passionate about this work?

Nathalie Cadieux:

In fact, Bree, it was at the intersection of several events that led me to become involved in the topic of mental health among lawyers and later among other legal professionals. Not many people notice, but I will tell you a confidence, Bree, I was in law school myself when I started my university and I left after only a few days.

And I have to admit that it was really difficult. And I have to admit that the culture particularly and the pressure to perform and the competitiveness between the student, for example, killed my career intention at the end. And nevertheless, it was just a coincidence that I became interested in the mental health of legal professionals, because after leaving law school I began studying in industrial relations, particularly related to my interest in the labor law.

And then I did a master's degree in professional ethics and I realized that professionals in a regulated profession, are subject to particular stressors on a daily basis. Such as decision making in complex situations, professional accountability, ethics, and ethical pressure. So I therefore did the PhD thesis to better understand these stressors.

And my thesis demonstrated that the models, the stressors that we included to understand occupational stress or wellness in the knowledge-based economy, do not capture the complexity of the professional realities of regulated professionals specifically. So once my PhD was completed, I was determined to go back to the real world and to better understand.

And as I began my career as an academic researcher in 2013, I observed a very significant increase in request to the Quebec Bar Member Assistance Program. And I therefore concluded a partnership with the Bar of Quebec to understand why, and later with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and the Canadian Bar Association.

So in short, to answer your question, these last 10 years I've been invested in the Legal community and there are so many challenges. So I could never think of being interested in another profession. So it's a coincidence that I went through a law school, but you can understand that today with the benefit of this perspective, it helps-

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely.

Nathalie Cadieux:

Me to make sense of this trajectory and to be sensitive to the challenges that professional face from the moment they enter law school.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah, absolutely. So yeah, today obviously we're talking about the first comprehensive research on mental health in the Canadian legal profession. Nathalie, tell us about how we got there. Who commissioned the wellness study? What led to it being a priority? We're just always kind of interested in the kind of how did you get to the point of idea to publication?

Nathalie Cadieux:

The following first study conducted between 2014 and 2019 in Quebec, in the province in Canada, in which more than 2700 Quebec lawyers participated. We were able to establish that a significant proportion of lawyers experience psychological distress and many are also exposed to professional burnout. And we developed a data collection tool that included the several stressors specific to the practice of law, such as pressure related to billable hours for example.

And I was then invited, as Bree explained before, by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in October 2019, to present these results to Hall Canadian Law Societies. And it was the first study of its kind in Canada. And this presentation was used after to initiate further discussions with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, but also with the Canadian Bar Association, to conduct a Canada-wide study involving all societies for this project in two phases. The first phase was founded by these partners. And the phase two of which has just begun is founded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Bree Buchanan:

Great. Digging into a little of the details about the survey. Who did you include in that? Which I think is interesting for Americans. How many joined in? And why did you feel it was so important to include these different groups beyond just a lawyer?

Nathalie Cadieux:

Yes, as you explained before, more than 7300 legal professionals, mostly lawyers, participated in the first phase, which was published in November 2022. But our sample also included young professionals in articling, paralegals, it's paralegals in Ontario and notaries in Quebec. And even though there are fewer of them compared to the lawyers, we choose to include these different groups for two reason.

The first because daily life in many legal environments is difficult and not only for lawyers. And we want to reflect this reality and be as inclusive as possible. And second, because we also want to understand the dynamics sometimes common, but sometimes slightly different, that may exist within each of these groups.

And finally, articling students are our future lawyers and we felt it was very important to include them in order to evaluate different mental health indicators in this population. But also to understand the determinant of mental health. And these young people are the future of the provision and is therefore essential to pay attention to them now in order to prioritize action.

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely. And, Nathalie, just for our listeners, could you tell us Americans, what is an articling student?

Nathalie Cadieux:

It's the last moment before the entry in the profession. You have, it's the last part of the training, the academic training at the end of your university. When you entry in the law society, you have a period when during this period, you are supervised by another lawyer. Like mentoring, but it's not a mentoring, it's a condition to entry in the profession.

Bree Buchanan:

Great, thanks for that.

Chris Newbold:

Nathalie, you measured rates of psychological distress, depression, anxiety, burnout, and suicidal ideation. What was most concerning about your findings?

Nathalie Cadieux:

You know all health indicator are very high, but we anticipated this before to start. Prior to the pandemic, Chris, indicators related to mental health among legal professionals were of concern. In the 2019 study that we made in the province of Quebec, the indicators related to mental health were already higher than in the general population. Around 40% of psychological distress, for example, compared to 25% in the working populations.

So not surprisingly, the indicators that we measured in the last study are not only high, but they are even higher than in the general population. So a majority now of legal professionals are experiencing psychological distress with a proportion of 59.4%. So it's more than 10 to 20% of the estimates made in the Canadian workforce during the same period. And I think across the different indicators that we measured over, I think that we have many concern about the percentage of legal professionals who experienced suicidal thoughts since the beginning of their professional practice.

It's just over 24% and it's a high proportion compared with the general population. Because when we compare with physician, for example, for the same question for Canadian physicians, it's around 19%. So it's very high. And beyond the health indicators, and while health issues are very important enough concern for sure, I believe it's also important to highlight other consequences that sometimes arise from these wellness issues, namely commitment to the profession and the intention to leave it.

The work of professionals is a fulfilling environments and wellness issues can challenge future career paths. For example, more than half of respondent consider that they could stop practicing law and take another job at the same pay level at the moment of the data collection. And less than a half of participants said that they look forward to starting a day's work.

More than one out of four of legal professionals frequently dream of working in another profession. And one out of three with less than 10 years of experience, regret having chosen their profession.

Bree Buchanan:

Oh, my.

Nathalie Cadieux:

I think it's very important to highlight this kind of collateral damage following wellness issues.

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely. And I just want to tell our listeners, we will provide you, or are providing you a link to the study. It's a beautiful document with lots of graphics and so an easy and helpful read, so that you'll have a link to all of that.

I wanted to just dig a little bit deeper on another topic, Nathalie, which is around help. What we talk about in the United States is help seeking. The willingness of somebody who's experiencing one of these problems to actually reach out and get some professional help for it. And in really the foundational research for the wellbeing movement in the United States, it was very clear from the answers that both lawyers and law students were extremely reluctant, unwilling to seek help for psychological issues that they were experiencing. A lot of it around the role of stigma.

But what are you seeing or what did you see with Canadian lawyers and students here? Or the entire population that you researched?

Nathalie Cadieux:

It's a very good question, Bree, and a relevant questions because it's one thing to live some or some experienced psychological distress, but if the professional don't seek help, it can can lead to worst problematic. Like depressive sometimes anxiety problem and the use of the lead to coping, negative coping strategies for example.

And while a large proportion of legal professionals in Canada have sought health help in the past, many other have been not able to do so. When we ask, "Have you ever felt the need to seek professional help for psychological health problems but now don't?" So almost half of professionals who provided an answer on this question stated they did not seek help despite needing.

This is especially important because of this percentage, two out of three of professionals experience suicidal ideation during their practice. And why? Many we ask different question related to the confidence in the assistance program linked to their law society. Confidence related to the assistance program of their organization.

But we ask people why? Despite this confidence or beyond the confidence that you have in your assistance program, why? And many responded, said it will pass. Other did not have the energy to engage in such a process. Lacked the time, the financial resources. Some professionals were unsure, yes, whether professional help was appropriate.

And we can excluded that seeking or not seeking help may also be the result of a sense of stigma associated with mental health issues and sometimes limits professionals from seeking help. And in this study specifically on this subject, we measured personal stigma and we develop a scale about the personal stigma and the perceived stigma. So we asked many questions to the professional, related to their perception about professionals in their profession with mental health issues. And we asked after the same question, what do you think that people in your profession think about that?

The same question. And what do you think the gap is, Bree? The gap is just over 40%. That's a huge gap. This gap is related to the fact that few professionals have a negative perception of professionals or colleague who experienced mental health issues during their practice. But many perceive that people in their profession have a negative perception of mental health issues.

And there is a significant gap, not support by real and measurable facts, but it does create a significant barriers to seeking help. And I think that we have to discuss about wellness, we have to discuss about wellbeing in the profession. And I think we have again, a lack of communication about health. And I think this stigma, yes, is feed by professional culture. But also on individual beliefs fueled by a lack of collective communication related to wellness. So I think we have to talk about it in whole settings and raise a awareness to break down taboos.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah, it's fascinating. I think one of the things that, I don't think it's a surprise to me, but it's interesting how much to the research that you've done with respect to the Canadian legal profession, really in fact mirrors the US legal profession, right? And when you hear the things about, again, the stress, the depression, the regret of going into the legal profession in the first place.

You just hear some of the same themes, which again kind of moves us to the question of why is that? And what was expected? What the realities are? What's driving the realities? And I think it's just very interesting that two countries, two different legal systems, so to speak, same profession, same realities when it comes to the challenges of wellbeing.

Let's do this, let's take a quick break, hear from one of our sponsors. And want to delve in even further to some of the other I think key findings from your really impressive research of legal professionals in Canada. We'll be right back.

Speaker 4:

Meet Vera, your firm's virtual ethics risk assessment guide. Developed by ALPS, Vera's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots, from client intake to calendaring to cybersecurity and more.

Vera:

I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you a summary of recommendations to provide course corrections if needed and to keep your firm on the right path.

Speaker 4:

Generous and discreet, Vera is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS to help firms like yours be their best. Visit Vera at ALPS Insurance.com forward slash Vera.

Chris Newbold:

Welcome back and we are really honored today to be talking to Professor Nathalie Cadieux, who was at really at the forefront of the first comprehensive national study of its kind in Canada when it comes to wellbeing.

Again, Nathalie, thank you so much for joining us. You researched the factors also in your study that impacted wellbeing, both work and non work-related. And I'm just curious of kind of what you found in terms of the things that are additive to wellbeing and also corrosive and detracting from a legal professional's wellbeing. What were some of your findings when you looked at the research kind of underneath the surface?

Nathalie Cadieux:

It's a very important questions and we measured in this study more than 100 risk and productive factors. Including different individuals, social, and organizational, and professionals factors. And regarding risk and protective factors for wellbeing in the organizational sphere, it is important when phases, that the results indicate that risk factors have a prep on their own weight on health.

And this means that actions aim at adding resources, will often have a limited or insignificant effects on health. Conversely, any action aimed at acting on risk factors will have a very important effect. Among the risk factor, emotional demands are the most important risk factor for sure. And a majority of lawyers are confronted with these demands and they are not like any other's demands. They have a short term effects but also longer term effects.

Among the effects, we include a part in the report about the competition fatigue and vicarious trauma for experience many professionals. We also identify consultative overload, work and security, and hour work that are the main stressors in the working condition.

The result also indicate that professionals who have billable hour targets to meet, that are more likely to experience mental health issues. And this is related to the pressure felt by many professionals to meet billing targets. But also to the fact that billable hours represent an average of actual hour work in the sample, and the percentage is around 62%. So it's just 62% of your overall hour work in a week.

And if the risk factor are not surprised, we founded many interaction between some of these risk factors which contribute to generate explosive cocktails for practitioners. For example, related specifically to billable hours, professionals who have a billable hour targets within the first two years of practice are particularly at risk. And professionals who are exposed to high emotional demands and have a billable hours target to meet, are also particularly at risk.

So it's the risk that we identify. And among the protective factors, because I think despite the impact is the impact of protective factor is less than when we compare with the risk factor. I think it's important to talk about these protective factors in combination to the diminish the reduction of risk factor.

We founded that case skills like assertiveness for example. It's the ability to set limit and say no. And psychological detachment are particularly relevant to protect wellness in law. And we also found that autonomy, consistency of values, career opportunities, tele-work or the adaptation to tele-work, and the support from colleagues, are among the main important factors to protect the wellbeing of lawyers.

Bree Buchanan:

And I was just interested in hearing how much that, as sort of rhymes with what's going on in the United States in regards particularly to younger lawyers and what the research found here too. About them being so disproportionately impacted in the early years of the practice. And making that a focal point really for all of us in providing resources and solutions in this.

Another thing on I-Well, the institute had made a point of highlighting how lawyers and legal professionals of varying race, ethnicity, gender, and identification as LBGTQ, may be impacted more dramatically than the historical figures that we've had in the legal profession and leadership of that. How did that play out in Canada? What did you find in regards to those different groups?

Nathalie Cadieux:

Beyond the health indicators which are higher for these professional, we also found that these professionals are particularly impacted by discrimination in the practice of law. And on this point, we included in the study, many questions related to the live. It's the experience stigma, but it's the concept of discrimination in the practice of law.

So it include 10 or 11 questions like I have been discriminated against at work. We ask the question at work because I identify as LGBTQIA2S+, or because I'm indigenous, or because I live with a disability. And after we ask 11 question, I have been discriminated against, I have been ignored or taken less seriously. I have been given fewer career opportunities, for example. So we include this kind of questions.

And you will be surprised. And I asked many question in my team about it and we found the answer why LGBTQIA2S+ community felt less discriminate. I was really surprised of this result. And I found why it's because close than a half of professionals who identify as LGBTQIA2S+, as a member of LGBTQIA2S+ community, don't discuss about it in their workplace. So this is the reason why. People don't know in their organization so they don't feel discriminated related to this.

But I think it raised the importance of this because when you come back of your weekend for example, and you discuss about your weekend with your colleague. And you are not able to discuss that, "I was with my husband to go skiing," for example, because you don't share any information about your personal life in your workplace. I think it's an issue because we pass more time with our colleagues in the week compared to our family.

So I think it's very important. And not surprising, the main group, the higher proportions of discrimination are observed among women, again today in 2023. And among professionals with a disability. It was an area of concern too.

Chris Newbold:

Now your research group, one of the things I love about when folks engage in research is not just the identification of the data but also the endeavor to identify solutions. What were some of the most impactful recommendations that you believe were made as a result of the research and in the report?

Nathalie Cadieux:

We made 10 main recommendations at the end of this report. These recommendations are in core in the data that we obtain in this project. And the first one is to improve preparation of future professionals and provide them support to deal with psychological health issues. And it means insure for example, a balance between theory and practice in university or in college curriculum.

But also to include critical transverse skills in the education of legal professionals. That will benefit them throughout their professional life. Like time management for example, or emotion management. And promote also a healthy lifestyles to increase awareness about mental health issues.

But beyond the preparation of future professionals, we also suggest to improve supports and guidance available at the entry in the profession. And I think it will means for law society to evaluate the possibility to create a professional integration plan in the first or two first years of practice. Promote also mentoring for those entering in the profession.

And for organization, it will mean remove billable hour targets for professionals in their first two years of practice. Just to give the chance for the young practitioners to develop the case skills they need to be well in their profession after. We also develop a recommendation around the importance to improve the continuing professional development offered to legal professionals. Because we've seen that we don't have at this point, an evolving vision of professional development needs throughout one's career.

And I think it's very important to develop this kind of evolving vision, but also to better structure mandatory trainings' hour for professional and develop a training aligned with risk factors. Because in many profession, stress decrease and psychological distress decrease when you have a higher, better experience, and when you progress in your career. But it's not always the case for legal practitioners and for lawyers.

And why? It's because it's the overlap of stressors and the stability of some stressors throughout the career too. So I think that we have to work on this to improve the professional developments. We also suggest we are relevant to evaluate the implementation of alternative work organization models. Because when I give conference everywhere, I exchange with professional.

And I like this kind of moment to when I'm able to exchange informally. And I said, "Why some engineer, for example, engineer work with billable hours? But they are not stressed related to billable hours." When you exchange with engineer, you don't talk about their billable hours. It's not an area of concern.

But why? Why when I discuss with the lawyers, it's always a subject of discussions and we discuss about the stress about it. The reason is the stricter of work organizations. Because engineer work by project. And lawyers will have the responsibility of a case and he will work alone on their case. So he will be alone to manage the emotional demand related to their case. And he will also alone to manage the risk associate to the time that he will be involved in their case. And the billable hours and the expectation related to billable hours.

But if we share the responsibility in a team and work in team in a case, I'm sure that we will limit the impact of billable hours. So I suggest to revise the organization of work. And I think it will be a very important recommendation in the future to implement in some organization. And we'll have for sure to work on the distinct messaging, mental health issues in the legal provisions, and implement some action related to this.

Improve the access to health and wellness support resources and breakdown barriers that limit access to these resource. For example, by promote the use of available resources and increase the willingness of professionals to seek help. But also too, we will have to work on the perception of confidentiality, to increase trust in the Law Societies' Lawyer Member Assistance Program.

For example, I suggest to remove any question related to wellness in the form when you make your application to the Law Society. To remove the fees on your professional fees when you, for your license, remove all fees on your bills related to the Law Society Assistance Program. Because I think that if I see this on my bills for sure, it suggests a proximity between the assistance program and the Law Society.

And for sure, work on the promotion of diversity. Considered the health of legal professionals as an integral part of the justice systems. I don't know if you have the same issues in United States, but in Canada, the access of justice is a very important subject. And the pressure on the system justice have an impact of wellness issues in the profession.

Bree Buchanan:

And it's interesting to see that in the United States there's studies done about lawyers and showing that we are the loneliest profession of all the professions out there. And having worked for years with the Lawyer's Assistance Program, I was really able to see the detrimental effect that isolation has.

Isolation, working on your own for a long period of time is really a breeding ground for depression and substance abuse, et cetera. So that really resonated with me. What lessons should the American legal community learn from your research? And are there ways you'd like to see us work together?

Nathalie Cadieux:

For the first part of your question, Bree, I think we have three things are important. The first thing that should be learned from this research is the demonstration of the complexity of mental health in the legal practice. The direct consequence of this complexity is the multidimensional nature of risk and productive factors.

The second thing of this research demonstrated is the dominance of risk factors compared to protective factors. The first reaction when we are managers, or as professional association, is to invest in resources. For example in the assistance program, access to psychologists in organization. A better pay, more flexible hours. And this is normal because it's much easier to do.

However, the very marginal weight of these resources compared to the risk factor, highlights that the only way to achieve a sustainable and healthier practice of law is to act on the risk factor. Work overload, number of hour worked, technical stress, the feeling and invasion of technology, work organization, emotional demands.

I recently explained this to the Law Societies in Canada and I using the metaphor of a float. Imagine you are in your basement and your basement is full of water and a huge wave is coming near your house. If I give you a cup, it will certainly help you, but it won't stop the water from rising.

The cup here is the assistance program and the wave is the major stressors that influence the lawyer's daily life. The water in the basement is the cumulative stress from years of practice. So I think we need to keep this metaphor in mind when we take action to avoid acting on the symptoms rather than the causes.

And finally, the third thing that this research has highlighted are explosive cocktails for the practice of law when we observed an overlap of some stressors. Intense emotional demands and high expectations in term of billable hours. High emotional demands and high workload. These cocktails must be considered from an intervention perspective in order to limit as much as possible the combination of stressors that have a significant weight in the balance of wellbeing.

And regarding the second part of your question, I certainly dreamed that the significant progress made in this study could allow us to work together. Who knows, maybe by conducting this kind of survey in the US but to compare us. But also maybe working together to develop, for example, a wellness index in the practice of law. An index for which the evolution could be evaluated through a longitudinal survey every three or five years.

I think it's important to measure us and to follow the evolution of wellness. To be proud of the action that we made and we move forward. And to evaluate this progression and the better wellness in the proposition, for sure.

Chris Newbold:

Nathalie, as we conclude, let's spend a quick minute just looking forward. If we were to have you on the podcast 10 years from now, how would you hope the legal profession in Canada is different? And what needs to happen to get us there?

Nathalie Cadieux:

It's a good question. In 10 years, first I hope it will be easier for professionals to talk about mental health and also more automatic to seek help. I hope that talking about mental health over the years will have significantly reduced the sense of stigma for those experiencing mental health issues. I hope a more inclusive and diverse practice of law.

And finally, I hope that we will better protect the younger lawyers. First by better preparing them for what is coming down, but also by taking care of them when they come into the profession, by reminding us that they are the future of this profession. And at the end, none of this result are the result of a single action or a single stakeholder. It's the result of a dynamic within the legal profession in Canada, but also elsewhere in the world. And we have, if everybody taking action and small action, I'm sure that it will be better.

Bree Buchanan:

Well, Nathalie, thank you so much for being here and joining us today. It was such a pleasure to meet you in Canada. And I am thrilled to see the amazing work that has come in Canada since that time. And I'll just say I hope we can find ways to work together because clearly there are so many similarities between our two countries and the profession.

And so I want to thank you very much. And to our listeners, thanks for joining us today. Thanks to Chris for my co-host. And we will be back to you very soon with additional podcasts to help you and us find a better way towards wellbeing in the law. Thanks to everyone.

Chris Newbold:

Thanks, Nathalie.

Nathalie Cadieux:

Thank you so much. Take care of you, Chris and Bree.

Chris Newbold:

Thank you.

 

Path to Well-Being in Law – Episode 26: Jennifer DiSanza

Transcript:

CHRIS NEWBOLD:

Good afternoon, well-being friends. Welcome to the Path To Well-Being In Law, an initiative of the Institute For Well-Being In Law. I'm your cohost, Chris Newbold, executive vice president of ALPS Malpractice Insurance. Most of our listeners know why we're here. Our goal is to introduce you to thought leaders doing meaningful work in the well-being space within the legal profession. And in the process, we're working to build and nurture a national network of well-being advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. Let me be the first to introduce my co-host, Bree Buchanan. Bree, how are you?

BREE BUCHANAN:

I'm doing great, Chris, thank you. I am so excited, you know, about this episode because we have just increased our staff at IWIL. I'll let you finish, but I'm just excited.

CHRIS:

Well, I was going to say that there's a couple notable things about this, right? Bree, you and I have been at this for least going well beyond five years now, but a couple things that I think are really unique about this particular podcast, first of all, our 25th podcast. I'm totally excited about just the incredible people that we have met on this journey. It's a reflection point, so to speak. I just think it's been a great ride for us as we've introduced people from around the country and welcome in new listeners to the podcast.

BREE:

Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, it's been a lot of fun.

CHRIS:

It has. And then I think the big point and I think maybe a little bit of historical perspective is good to share with the listeners today that obviously the Institute for Well-being in Law started now just over 18 months ago. Really the intent was as a natural outgrowth of the National Task Force on Well-Being in Law was that we wanted to look toward a greater level of sustainability for the movement. Bree and I and many other leaders in the movement got together and we ultimately decided that the creation of the institute as a national think tank to be able to work and lead efforts on a national basis was the move.

CHRIS:

A lot of that was with the intent of being able to hire a full-time professional staff that could work on this issue, not just for the short-term, but for the long-term. Again, without further ado, we are super excited about today's guest, which is our friend Jennifer DiSanza, who is the first executive director of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. I know that we are really excited to introduce her to our listeners, talk about the vision, talk about where the organization's going, talk about her own personal journey as it relates to well-being.

CHRIS:

Bree, why don't I kick it to you for an introduction of somebody who I think will be a pivotal leader, spokesperson. I know she's thoughtful. Again, we're just super excited to have Jennifer on board.

BREE:

I'm going to let Jennifer talk about her background, but I'm going to talk about as way of introduction how we got her to us. Like you said, there was this whole plan of how we were performing IWIL and then be able to fundraise and then be able to hire staff, and Jennifer's the first one of that. We went out and did a national search, really cast the net wide and far. We had over 80 applications to the position. It took us a good number of months to go through all of those, many interviews. Ultimately, I'd say at least it was a six month search process, we found our Jennifer DiSanza. Jennifer, we're finally going to let you talk now.

JENNIFER DISANZA:

I have to say, after that introduction, I feel like an athlete, like I should have had play on music or I should have some theme music, because that was quite the introduction. Thank you, both.

BREE:

It was really a buildup. What I was thinking is that in the old radio shows that they had the button you could hit with the applause. All that too.

JENNIFER:

I heard it all in my head, Bree, so it was good. But no, I appreciate both of you so much. It was a long process, but one of the things that attracted me to this, and I've told this story, so those people who know me who are listening know this story, is that I was really looking for an opportunity to be entrepreneurial. But I didn't necessarily want to go out on my own. For those people who can work for themselves, that's great. When this position was posted, I had been following IWIL because my background is in legal education and nonprofit work. I'd been following the organization and just wonderful things that I knew about it.

JENNIFER:

I had friends on the advisory board involved in different ways. I really believed in the mission. I have never felt so strongly about something as I did when I saw IWIL was hiring an executive director. What brought it home for me is so many people sent it to me because they knew what I wanted to do. It was a confluence of events, I feel. I am so grateful to the search committee, to the board, because I really feel like I'm doing my life's work here at IWIL.

BREE:

Wonderful. Wonderful. Well, Jennifer, we're going to start you off the way we have started off all of our guests, which is to ask you about what are the experiences in your life that drive your passion for well-being in the legal profession and clearly you have a passion? Tell us about that.

JENNIFER:

Again, it really comes from my background and experiences. A lot of times you go through your career and you're doing things that you're well-positioned for, that you're well-skilled for, but not necessarily something that drives you past just an everyday job. From a personal standpoint, it really came to me when I went to law school oh so many years ago. Actually, not to date myself, this is our 20th anniversary from graduating. It's been 20 years since I was in law school. But from a personal standpoint, even before that, I struggled with depression and anxiety throughout my life, but law school was the point where it was at the most difficult.

JENNIFER:

I faced my most difficult challenges. I chose to go to school part-time while working full-time and getting my master's degree. There were a lot of different layers on that, but I really didn't have the resources. I actually didn't even have the language at that time. I was very much of the standpoint, "I got to get through it, I got to get through it," without really thinking about what toll it was taking on me mentally and on my health just in general. Well, I didn't realize the context. I was a first gen student. I never had met anyone that went to law school. I really thought it was going to be like graduate school.

JENNIFER:

I'd go a couple nights a week. I'd do my homework on the weekends. After being in law school education for almost 20 years, I realize that's an impossible thought. I incorrectly assumed that. It's no secret to those people who know me that I really did not enjoy my law school experience.

CHRIS:

It's so interesting when you go back and you talk to folks who have went through that experience. Some love it, some it was a terrible experience. That forms a lot of how you think about coming to the law and making some decisions about, "Boy, did I make the right decision here?" Jennifer, I think one of the things that's interesting I know as on the hiring committee that we thought was really pertinent was your career in legal education. Can you tell us a little bit more about your professional journey after graduating from law school that you think has prepared you for taking the leadership baton here and running with it?

JENNIFER:

Sure. I think most people are like, "Well, if you hated law school so much or didn't enjoy the experience, why did you stay there for an additional 20 years?" But the reality is that I was lucky enough to have someone at my law school who I could go talk to, and it made my experience better and I realized that I could continue doing that. I could be that person for other people. I had been in human resources, in manufacturing and well-being at that time, it was the late '90s, early 2000s, I had safety as part of my human resources responsibility and it was really about physical safety. There was no holistic approach to employee well-being.

JENNIFER:

But I took what I learned as an HR manager to law school student affairs. I worked at three different ABA-Approved schools. You get students. They come in as you find them, basically. Some of them have preexisting issues, whether it's mental health or substance use, whatever it is. But I knew once they got to law school, whatever it was either started in law school or became much more exasperated while they were in law school. Really over the years of working in legal education, I tried to focus on ways to make the experience better.

JENNIFER:

The majority of my time during those almost 20 years was counseling students or developing programs to support students in finding out better ways to handle their stress or their anxiety, providing accommodations for students. But I also think one of the things that's sort of a catch 22 in the legal education world is that we're preparing people to have resilience. I was just having this conversation with a law firm well-being person last week. Resilience in itself says there's something you have to be resilient about. There's going to be something difficult in this process. I'm not saying law is easy or should be easy, but we're creating this expectation that they're already going to find difficulty in it.

JENNIFER:

Well, we had to, in the law school environment, create these programs to deal with life after law school. The reason I love IWIL is we want to fix those issues. We want to look at it and say, "What's causing the burnout? What's causing the turnover so we can make it better?" Even with my last position for the last three years, I was working in financial wellness issues with law students, it's also better to understand the financial pressure students went in, why they went into maybe big law or different world, different jobs.

JENNIFER:

They went to law school and they were willing to sacrifice their health because they wanted to make a lot of money or because they were hoping for public service loan forgiveness. It really is this confluence of events, like I said, to bring me here now.

BREE:

Jennifer, I think one of the things that was so attractive for me with you, many things, but also this law school background because we really are there for the groups of law students, judges, and lawyers. And because law students, of course, it's corny, but they are the future of the profession and we know that the youngest lawyers suffer the greatest level of behavioral health problems, it just seemed like a really great way for us to ensure that we're focusing on this critical group. Listen, I've got another question for you just about how you're kind of doing, what's going on now.

BREE:

I'll date this episode. We're in August. You've been with us for two months now. You've been through a strategic planning session that we had in Chicago with a board a couple of weeks ago. Talk to us now about what are your priorities for IWIL over the next couple of years, which, to be fair, is not just your priorities, it's the board's too, but talk a little bit about that.

JENNIFER:

The strategic planning session was really eye-opening for me, not because there was a lot of new information, but just having this group of well-being advocates in the room committed to improving the profession. It was inspiring actually. One of the things, probably the most important thing that we focused on during that strategic planning is really focusing on where we can have the most impact. It's nothing new, but we helped articulate it. We're already doing education and awareness.

JENNIFER:

We have wonderful programming through our biennial conference and our Well-Being Week in Law. We are getting started with a research agenda that's very exciting. And our policy work. We have wonderful initiatives coming up in our policy work and our technical assistance. We work with state task force, getting them up and running, supporting them, looking at opportunities to comment on policy change, that's really one of my priorities, and making sure we are involved in every conversation that impacts well-being in the legal profession. We need to be the thought leaders in this. I want to see those ongoing research projects.

JENNIFER:

I want to see those comments. I want to see us out in front of everything and being the thought leader in that. I also want to be the gathering space for well-being advocates. I want them to come to us for those questions on how we can support them.

CHRIS:

That was a great day for us, right? Because I think for the listener's perspective, a lot of us... Obviously IWIL was formed during the pandemic, right? While we probably have spent hundreds of hours together on Zoom calls, the ability to be physically together and meet people that you feel like you know, but you never know people until you're physically with them, right? It just was a fantastic experience to bond with people in a physical setting. Again, Jennifer, I'll just kind of come back to the notion of, I think it's fair to say that going into that retreat, your vision of where you thought the movement was heading was probably a little bit blurry.

CHRIS:

Coming out of that session, do you feel better about what that outlook looks like relative to where IWIL and other constituencies will be able to put their time, talent, bandwidth, and resources to advance the movement and to advance the culture shift in a more accelerated way?

JENNIFER:

Absolutely. As I have said over and over again, those first couple months, I really felt like I was drinking through a fire hose. And that's typical of any new job. You're getting up to speed and there's so many things. But I really feel good about where we landed because one of the most common things I hear is, "What are you doing, or what are you going to support?" They want deliverables and they want action items. I feel like defining those pillars as we did and coming up with action items is something that is important.

JENNIFER:

It also helps to hold us accountable in what we dom and that is really important. We have sustaining donors that we need to be accountable. We have the general public. We have our volunteers. We need to be held accountable, and I feel like we can do that.

CHRIS:

Jennifer, one of the things that I think is just really interesting about your role is in some respects, our "business model" is premised on the notion of effective volunteer management. Obviously, I mean, one of the things that I think has been one of the great accomplishments of IWIL thus far in its kind of short history has been the manner in which we've offered an on ramp to people interested in this issue to become more involved.

CHRIS:

Whether it's through a committee structure, whether it's through service on a state task force and then connecting with IWIL through that, whether it's through participation in the annual conference or Well-Being Week in Law, we have created an opportunity for people to come together. I just would be curious on your opinion as to how has it been for you to meet them, that volunteer base, and how important is that group obviously to what we're trying to do relative to our mission?

JENNIFER:

Well, we do not exist without our volunteers. I mean, it's as plain as simple. I am one person, right? I am one paid staff member. But my listening tour in these first few months has been the best part of this job, because I've become connected to so many of these well-being advocates that are out there. Not only they have their primary professional career, that they have committed their time and talent to moving this shift forward. I'm just amazed by all the time and thoughtful comments and the way they have embraced me, I mean, it's just been phenomenal.

JENNIFER:

I'm so grateful to them. I would also like to thank those of you, those volunteers out there, who have been very transparent with me and saying they love being a part of IWIL, but they need more focus, which is one of the reasons why we needed a strategic plan. It really helped inform that.

BREE:

I think one of the things that seems so unique, you look at other think tanks, a couple of people had an idea that they want to dig into and they form a think tank and go forward. We did this, but we also opened up the doors to bring everybody we could along. Just so people know, between the state task forces that we work with regularly and the committees, we have over 200 volunteers that are working with IWIL monthly. It's a very large, very active volunteer base.

BREE:

Jennifer, we're going to go ahead and take a break at this point in time to hear from one of our sponsors, and then we'll be back and continue our podcast. We'll talk a little bit about DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging with Jennifer and how that fits into the whole well-being puzzle.

—

Advertisement:

You expect most things to be easily available online. So why should your malpractice insurance be any different? Your job as an attorney is already hard enough. You deserve an application that's easy. With ALPS, you can apply, view rates, and accept your policy 100% online and all in about 20 minutes. Get back to your practice faster and add valuable time back to your day. Want to talk to a real person? Call, chat, email. ALPS is here for you.

—

BREE:

Welcome back, everybody, and we have the most special guest today, our new executive director, Jennifer DiSanza. Jennifer, tell us about... The first thing that the IWIL board did was pass a resolution, a statement, a policy around diversity, equity, and inclusion and how imperative it is to be looking at those issues alongside contemporaneously with the work that we're doing on well-being, because you can't really do one without the other.

BREE:

Could you talk a little bit about your views on that? I know that you've heard a lot of discussion about this at the board level. What are you thinking about the future of where we meld, raise awareness, et cetera, these two things of DEI belonging and well-being?

JENNIFER:

I think most importantly that this has been something that was articulated very early to me in the interview process. I have seen it play out throughout my time here. It's great that we're including diverse points of view and supporting them, but you hit the nail on the head when you talked about belonging, right? There's enough room at the table for everyone. We need to make sure that we are not only including people, but we have a place where there's psychological safety. We have a place that people feel comfortable and they feel belonging, because we know that's key to well-being, right? We know that belonging is important.

JENNIFER:

That is on the premise of everything we do. We know that DEI and B has come to the forefront lately, but there was definitely a struggle to get there. But we have a unique opportunity as we build this movement and create it to really create it as a foundational premise of every single thing that IWIL does, that we have an eye to ensuring this inclusivity and this belonging. Because without it, we're not serving all our stakeholders, we're not serving the profession, and we're not holding to the policy that we stated we would do. We have to live it.

BREE:

Right. Well said. So well said. I accept that I am privileged white woman, cisgendered lawyer, and I have to be continuously vigilant about these issues. It doesn't just happen without really paying consistent close attention to it. I'm just thrilled that you are here to help us in that endeavor. I have no doubt that you will keep us on that path.

JENNIFER:

Thank you. I am excited about the opportunity, but I also am glad that we have such a wide variety of volunteers who can keep us accountable on this point too.

CHRIS:

The reality is, if you've met one lawyer, you've met one lawyer, right? We all come from perspectives that are unique, different, all across the spectrum. Again, this notion of how people struggle for inclusivity and belonging in our profession is something that just has to be at the forefront of everything that we do. I was proud as part of our strategic planning process that we continue to, again, ensure that we're looking through the right lens in our discussions. We always are striving to be a little bit better than we were previously, because sometimes even the most well-intentioned folks can sometimes have a little bit of blind spots here and there, right?

JENNIFER:

Absolutely. I agree.

CHRIS:

Jennifer, one of your first achievements was a recently announced partnership and establishment with Thomson Reuters. Can you tell our listeners about what that entailed and how that came about?

JENNIFER:

Sure. This was actually very exciting for me because I was pleasantly surprised when within the first few weeks of me starting with IWIL, I was able to connect with Thomson Reuters. And more importantly, I was able to reconnect with somebody who I went to law school with. Bree had already established the relationship, but I was able to connect with Ina Camelo, who is leading the space in their global large law firm area. She and I went to law school together. She was year or two behind me, but it was really nice to have this conversation with her about all the wonderful things that Thomson Reuters and IWIL can do together.

JENNIFER:

This is different than a traditional sponsorship. They have unique areas that we can leverage, whether it's their research, whether it's their practical law area, even marketing and technology. I believe that this partnership might be example moving forward of some of the things that IWIL can do. I feel like the sky's the limit, and it's just harnessing all of that and figuring it out. We've been having continuing meetings with them about some of the work that we can do together. It's very exciting.

BREE:

Absolutely. Jennifer, what else interests you and excites you and I'll say worries you, of course, because as an executive director, you do a lot of worrying about the future of the well-being in law movement?

JENNIFER:

Well, obviously being a startup has its pros and cons. As I talked about earlier with diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, we have the opportunity to build something from the ground up and thinking about all the pieces. We have the opportunity to be the preeminent think tank on well-being in the legal profession. We also have to expect there's going to be growing pains. As I talked about drinking out of a fire hose and trying to figure out where we're going to focus our energies, we only have that staff of one.

JENNIFER:

We do have dedicated board members, advisory board members, and volunteers, but we need to make sure IWIL is sustainable. It's an ongoing process to make sure we're thoughtful as we grow and how we fund initiatives to make sure that we're here for the long-term. It's very exciting from a startup perspective, but we also have to be thoughtful about where we put our energies and time.

CHRIS:

Jennifer, I think one of the things that's always interesting about the roles that we have as leaders is obviously working to leave the profession a little bit better than we found it. As we think about your tenure and our mission, if we were to look forward a decade, if we were to do a good job around changing attitudes, hearts, and minds, how will the legal profession be different?

JENNIFER:

In my dream scenario, I want legal employers to set the standard on employee well-being. I want to see organizations highlighted for their employee first approach to the work environment. I really would love to see the profession to be able to put up against some of the other professions that are already doing a lot of work in well-being. I'd love to see those shifts. We're seeing these issues debated right now that were accelerated by the pandemic, remote work, vacation. But the truth is, the issues we're coming regardless. I want to make sure the legal workforce is able to be agile as these things change and generations change as they come up into the workforce.

JENNIFER:

I want the legal profession to be able to weather any future crises like a pandemic because their employees feel psychological safety. I also want law schools to embed well-being from day one. I don't want it to be an afterthought or trying to fit it in here where you can. This is not a function that can come easily because there are a lot of rules and regulations, but it needs to be inextricably tied to the curriculum culture. Because as we said earlier, law schools are preparing people for the practice of law, but we want that to be a holistic approach.

JENNIFER:

They're charged with preparing students for practice, but that includes not only doing the job of being a lawyer, but it also helps informing that professional identity and understanding the culture of the legal profession. Wouldn't it be wonderful if that base, that foundational culture of legal profession is now well-being at the forefront?

BREE:

Absolutely.

CHRIS:

For sure. Jennifer, as we look to wrap up here, again, I think one of the things that's interesting as we think about the future is, how do we know whether we've made progress or not? Do you have any just early inclinations as to the business world? They talk about key performance indicators. Do you have any early sense of, as we talked about this phrase of engineering a culture shift, any sense of how we might want to be thinking about the measurement of progress?

JENNIFER:

I think there are some standard measurements of progress, retention, burnout. I know there are law firms out there looking at their employees, there are some larger scale surveys, but we talk about different groups of lawyers leaving the profession or changing or moving areas of practice because of the type of their work they're doing. If we see some of those things change, I think we'll be making progress.

JENNIFER:

If we see the path to partnership change that allows more flexibility, if we see more alternate work environments, if we see some of those things as a standard, remember, because there are firms that might be able to do it and employers that might have to do it, but then it becomes the standard, I think we will have made a difference.

CHRIS:

Awesome. Jennifer, again, on behalf of everyone who I know has labored on this particular issue and set us up, I mean, we're so excited that you're joining us as a leader in this journey. Our best days continue to be ahead of us. We know that there are some things going on both in society and generationally that might give us a little bit of tailwind for some of that acceleration of activity. I think one of the most important things about this podcast is how can people reach you? Because you are now in some respects the face and the day-to-day kind of operational execution of some of the mission. I would love it if you would let the listeners know how do they get a hold of you?

JENNIFER:

As I often say, I have a virtual open door. I've been taking meetings regularly, but you can reach me at my email address, jdisanza@lawyerwellbeing.net. Feel free to reach out. I have plenty of availability on my schedule if you just want to chat with me and talk about your thoughts about the Lawyer Well-Being movement or how you'd like to contribute to the Lawyer Well-Being movement. I look forward to talking to many more people.

CHRIS:

Again, Jennifer, thank you so much for joining us. I have a hunch that you will be on the podcast again at some point down the road. In fact, you could even probably be a guest host on the podcast in the event that Bree or I have to take a little bit of a leave or a vacation. Again, I know that for us, that labor on this issue is something that we've made as part of our professional opportunity to give back. It's certainly refreshing to be able to have someone of your talent join our team. I know that you've been passionate about this issue from the forefront, but now you get to work on it day-to-day and that's awesome for us and it's awesome for where this movement is ultimately going.

BREE:

Absolutely. Jennifer, we're so glad to have you. And me on a personal note, I love working with you. Delighted you're onboard.

JENNIFER:

Thank you both so much.

CHRIS:

Well, again, thanks everyone for listening in. We'll be back probably within the next couple weeks, two to three weeks, as we look forward into the fall. It's going to be a busy fall for both IWIL and well-being activities. We will see you down the road. Thanks for tuning in.

Path to Well-Being in Law – Episode 25: Helen Wan

Today, on the Path to Well-Being in Law podcast, co-hosts Bree and Chris hear from Helen Wan, a lawyer and the author of the 2013 novel, The Partner Track, which just launched as a new TV series on Netflix. On this episode, Helen discusses her journey towards writing her novel, how to get other stories told, and how getting senior leadership to show up for important discussions on inclusiveness and equity can shift a firm's culture from one of competition to one of community.

Transcript: 

CHRIS NEWBOLD:

Hello, well-being friends. Welcome to the Path To Well-Being In Law Podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. I am joined again by my great co-host, Bree Buchanan. My name is Chris Newbold, Executive Vice President of ALPS. Bree, I'm pretty excited about our guest today. How about you?

BREE BUCHANAN:

I know. We've got somebody who's really famous.

CHRIS:

That's right. That's right. It's always great to bring... I think it's fair to say that the legal profession in general, perceptions of it can be driven by media, television, movies, books. And I think that we are super excited to have a guest today that is really kind of sharing her novel was the basis for a Netflix series that is pretty popular right now. And so our guest today is Helen Wan. And Bree, if you could quickly talk a little bit about Helen and who she is.

BREE:

Absolutely. I would love to. And Chris, when you were talking about the history of portrayal of law in the media, I first thought of Legally Blonde.

CHRIS:

Yeah, Yeah. I always think of L.A. Law, right? Again, these are not oftentimes real perceptions of the legal profession, but the reality is people, particularly folks considering law school and other things, I think it does have, even going back to the old Perry Mason days. I think it does actually have folks look at the law through the lens, and I think the media creates some of that lens. So that's why I think this will be a really fun conversation, particularly given Helen's, the subject matter that she tackled based upon her own personal experience.

BREE:

I know, and I think of Helen creating this lens through which so many up-and-coming law students may see the profession. So enough about you, me, Chris. Let me talk about Helen. Helen Wan is an author and a lawyer and a graduate of Amherst College and the University of Virginia School of Law. She's the author of the 2013 novel, the Partner Track, which just launched as a new TV series on Netflix. Incredibly exciting. It's the story of an Asian American woman and her law colleagues as they compete in the culture of a prestigious global law firm. The book is taught in colleges and law schools and first-year seminars and ethics courses, and is used by law firms and companies in dialogues about DEI. And the book is being translated into several languages, including Turkish. I just think that's so interesting that partner track began as subway scribblings on a legal pad when Helen was a first-year associate at a large New York law firm.

She writes primarily about how race, gender, socioeconomic, class, and culture impact am ambition in our pursuit of happiness, and I will add wellbeing. And Helen has written for the Washington Post. In fact, she has appeared on the cover of the Washington Post magazine, CNN.com, The Daily Beast and The Huffington Post among others. Before becoming a writer, Helen practiced media and intellectual property law in New York, both at law firms and as an in-house council. At the time, Inc. Division of Time Warner, Inc., A&E television networks and the Hachette Book Group USA. You could follow her on Twitter, @HelenWan1, the number one, and visit her website, at HelenWan.com.

Helen, we will now let you speak. How are you? Welcome to the podcast.

HELEN WAN:

Hello. Thank you both for having me. It's really a pleasure to be here.

BREE:

Yeah, it's so great. And so Helen, I'm going to jump in and ask you just the question that we really like to start off our podcast, to take us into a place that is personal and just in our background and where we come from and how we see the world. So tell us about what are the experiences in your life that made you care about and be, I would say, even passionate about the wellbeing of those and the legal profession, particularly those from a diverse background?

HELEN WAN:

Sure. Well, just by way of a little background about how I even came to law school, I was born in California, but raised on the East Coast. And I went, went to undergrad in Massachusetts and then I went directly to law school. And it wasn't based on any sort of burning desire to be Perry Mason that I went directly to law school. It really was that when I was a senior trying to decide on a career path. I grew up the eldest child of first-generation Chinese American immigrants. And so there were certain kind of family-approved or culturally or society-approved careers such as law, medicine, engineering, finance, accounting. I was trying to decide on a career path and I thought, well, what is it that I'm passionate about? And it was words, working with words. And so truly, the calculus was not much more complicated than that. It was really kind of like, okay, well out of this group of careers, well, lawyers work with words.

BREE:

Yeah. Right.

HELEN WAN:

I guess, great. So I suppose, let me try the law school, the legal profession path. And I went and took the LSAT and I did well enough, I got into law schools and I picked the one where I knew I was going to get a good legal education, plus in-state tuition, because I had grown up in the northern Virginia suburbs. So there I was in law school. And then my first job out of law school was literally like Ingrid, the protagonist of the Partner Track, my first job was in the corporate mergers and acquisitions department at a large law firm in New York City.

CHRIS:

And Helen, obviously, I think a lot of law students, when you make that jump into that first career position, what'd you think? Did you like it? Did you detest it? Talk about your emotional mindset as you went and took that leap.

HELEN WAN:

Sure. So when I first landed at that firm, I truly didn't know what to expect. To be perfectly honest, I didn't have any specific expectations for that first job. But when I got there, I realized, "Oh wow." I might as well have landed on the moon because it was such a, to me at least as a young freshly minted lawyer to have landed there, it just felt like such an alien culture to me.

And at that point in time, now, obviously, just to date myself, it's been decades and decades obviously since I have been in law school. But I felt like law school did not really prepare people for the cultural entry into your first law job.

BREE:

Right, right.

HELEN WAN:

Everyone there obviously had the academic goods, otherwise you're just not going to be at a place like that. But on top of that, there needed to be this extra kind of familiarity or knowledge of how the game was played, what rules really applied, and what rules nobody followed. And I just kind of felt like I didn't have the decoder ring. I felt like everyone else did. Somehow I was absent the day they passed them out.

BREE:

Helen, can you give some examples of that? Anything?

HELEN WAN:

Just the very, very first weeks we were there, they had us attend a very thorough, well-executed and beautiful orientation for the new recruits, for the new associates. And it was in a hotel ballroom. And the person sitting next to me, also, obviously another entering junior lawyer, turned to me and said, he introduced himself with his law school name and that he was on law review and that he hoped to, in three years, have done X and, in six years time have done Y. And then had everything all mapped out, his whole career plan.

And I just thought to myself, oh wow, I just kind of want to get through this orientation week. He turned to me and he said, "Well, what about you? Where to you see yourself in five, 10 years from now?" And I said, "I just want to have found meaningful work and be pretty satisfied with where I am with my career and family, or what other things that I've chosen to do in life." And he said, "Oh, okay. Well, I'm in it to win it." He said to me, "Well, I'm in it to win it."

BREE:

I know that guy. I think we all know that guy.

HELEN WAN:

Oh, Bree, you know him as well? Oh, okay. It's a small world. And he said it totally unironically, totally unironically. I actually am still in touch with him, and he is a partner now. He's a senior partner.

BREE:

Of course.

CHRIS:

There you go.

HELEN WAN:

So it worked.

BREE:

Oh my gosh. Well, tell us about your book, Partner Track.

HELEN WAN:

So my novel, the Partner Track, which I think as you mentioned, was originally published back in 2013. It's been very interesting and I feel very fortunate that it's kind of gotten, I guess, fresh life breathed into it now, almost a decade later. I think, because there's more of a cultural lens focused on these topics, on these DEI topics now. It's timely.

But I started writing the book because while I was working these 80-hour work weeks and I just needed sort of a creative outlet. And I literally started putting literal pen to paper, on paper, and I would journal about these observations and patterns that I was seeing, like who was sitting with whom in the corporate cafeteria, in the law firm lunchroom, who was being invited along on certain client pitch meetings and who was not, who was finding themselves spending good quality bonding time with certain mentors or sponsors, and who was not getting that kind of face time. So all of those kinds of things I began writing down as little sketches. And then when I found that I had a critical mass of sketches and pages, and I started showing them to a group of trusted friends, like confidants, who by the way, were not all lawyers, they were working all different kinds of industries and roles. But they had faced similar experiences in their jobs.

I shared some of those pages. And then people, my friends responded like, "Nobody's telling these stories. No one's talking about these issues. Why don't you try to get some of them published?" And I had no idea how to go about getting something published. So I literally went to the bookstore and got one of those, how do you get a first book published for Dummies type books? And literally, I followed those rules and it kind of worked.

BREE:

That's great. I love it.

CHRIS:

And Helen, can you, just for our listeners who have not read the book or seen the series yet, can you just set the storyline of at what point is the book focused on? And just kind of set the table a little bit for the setup of the book.

HELEN WAN:

Sure. Yeah, happy to. In a nutshell, the novel follows a young Chinese American junior associate who is trying to make partner at a very, very large and prestigious and rather traditional global law firm in the New York office. And it follows not only her, although it focuses primarily on her POV, but it also focuses on the experiences of her cohort, that she's up against, competing against for partner. And what I was trying to accomplish with my novel was... Well, just personally as a reader, I love really tight ensemble cast-type novels and movies myself that talk about group dynamics in a tense kind of pressure cooker-type environment. And so that was what I was trying to bring across with my book. And I just wanted to show an underrepresented perspective on navigating that kind of corporate culture.

BREE:

Yeah. So this podcast, we really have spent our, I guess, 25 episodes plus, Chris, and counting on amplifying the voices of those in the wellbeing and law space. And your book, which is now a TV show, really has added to that conversation. So I'm wondering if Helen, you could have 30 minutes in a room with law firm leadership, maybe you could throw in some of the leadership from the firm you worked for, I don't know, and could talk to them about what you think they should do differently, what would you say?

HELEN WAN:

Well, I actually have been pretty encouraged by the evolution in the, I guess decade, since initial publication of the book until now, with the launch of the TV series, because in that intervening time, I've been lucky enough to have spoken with and seen the behind the scenes DEI strategies at a lot of different legal employers, primarily law firms. But a lot of other places too, like in-house legal departments or even the academic world. And there definitely is a lot of progress left to be made, but at least progress is being made, I think. Because when the book was first published in 2013, and I was speaking to audiences of lawyers and law students, a lot of times at a firm, it would be a beautiful, gorgeous, gorgeous cocktail party and no senior management in attendance.

And hey, we're talking about diversity in the legal profession here. It would be a whole bunch of summer associates, which is great, but not a lot of visibility with the firm senior leadership. Nowadays, I think that I truly have seen a change in that way. So I see more firms really kind of putting their money where their mouth is. I have seen firms do things such as, well make it basically mandatory for all senior managers, all partners, to show up for one of these dialogues and discussions about increasing inclusiveness at the firm, the feeling of inclusiveness and equity at the firm. They do use often my book as a teaching text. And I've seen some particularly just, well, really carefully planned events where the firm even has prepared a list of discussion questions and breakout sessions and breakout groups, et cetera, that are pretty thoughtful. And the discussion turns into a really fairly meaningful one. I am encouraged by the changes that I have seen.

BREE:

And it seems like that kind of tracks I'm thinking in just to the general wellbeing space in that what we're seeing now is that it's become a part of the conversation.

HELEN WAN:

Yes.

BREE:

It's a start. You got to start there. You got to get people talking about it and thinking about it. But there's still a long way to go to bring about real change. Absolutely.

HELEN WAN:

Right. Yes, I totally agree.

CHRIS:

And Helen, one of the things that I think is really powerful about what you've written about, and now what the big screen is, is the perspective of associates. Because we all can envision a scenario in which, let's just call it the power structure is not tilting in your favor, which necessarily has folks competing against others in ways that sometimes are, let's just be honest, unhealthy, and then a lack of a willingness or a wherewithal to speak loudly when there are things that are unhealthy going on within the firm for stigma reasons and otherwise. And so I just think one of the things that's really interesting, and I think one of the areas of wellbeing that I think there's an associate community out there that probably really empathizes with the plight that both, you write about you went through, and just that it certainly feels like there's more on-ramps to be able to vocalize challenges that you're facing. But let's face it, 20 years ago that might not have actually been the case and actually might have been more summarily frowned upon.

HELEN WAN:

Yeah, absolutely. That is, I think, one of the reasons why I started my little journal scribblings to and from work, is that I was observing the same patterns happen in terms of really talented people, really talented lawyers taking themselves off the vine very early on. And then I'd ask them or have some private candid conversations with them, everyone essentially said more or less the same thing, which was, "Oh, well I could look around." And I could see that my career was not going to go smoothly here in the same way that X, Y, Z perhaps.

CHRIS:

And then obviously, you add gender issues and diversity issues into the mix. And boy, I just think that the story and the nature of it with kind of historical cultures in the legal profession... What you're bringing and what you're raising in terms of the consciousness and the awareness of some of these real issues that continue today, I think is a really powerful element of what will come out of your work. Hey, let's take a quick break here, hear from one of our sponsors and come back and talk a little bit more about the show and the book.

Sponsor Announcer:

Meet Vera, your firm's virtual ethics risk assessment guide. Developed by ALPS, Vera's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots from client intake, to calendaring, to cybersecurity and more.

Vera:

I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you a summary of recommendations to provide course corrections if needed, and to keep your firm on the right path.

Sponsor Announcer:

Generous and discrete, Vera is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS, to help firms like yours be their best. Visit Vera at alpsinsurance.com/Vera.

BREE:

Welcome back everybody to the Well-Being In Law Podcast. And today we have author Helen Wan, who wrote the book Partner Track in 2013, and has now been turned into a television show that was just recently released, because I started to watch it and I love it, Helen, it was the beginning I think, of August 2022. But what was it like to work on turning that book and to a TV show?

HELEN WAN:

Truly, it's been a very thrilling ride. Because I just never, never, never, over two decades ago when I began writing the book, I never would've expected that the stars would align in this way and that one day I would be walking, literally would be able to be walking through Times Square in Manhattan and look up and see the Partner Track featured on the big old gigantic Netflix digital billboard.

BREE:

Helen, that gave me chills.

HELEN WAN:

Yeah, it really did. It really did, Bree. I stood there and I just stood there for a couple minutes. It just was amazing because I just stood there and watched the loop several times. So there's Ozark, Stranger Things, Squid Game and Partner Track. I was like, "Wow. Okay."

BREE:

Oh my gosh, I wish I could have seen a film of that, of you seeing that.

CHRIS:

What's been the biggest surprise to you since the launch? And obviously, Netflix has a worldwide audience. And so I got to imagine that quite a few folks have come out of your history and your background to reach back out to you. And I'm just kind of curious on what the biggest surprise was?

HELEN WAN:

Yeah, you kind of hit the nail on the head. I have been lucky enough to be hearing from so many old dear friends and colleagues and I heard from my high school prom date. I heard from my prom date, I heard from my a middle school English teacher. And it's just been pretty amazing. Who knew so many people read Variety or Hollywood Reporter.

BREE:

Yeah.

HELEN WAN:

It's been amazing. And the other, probably the best and happiest surprise for me has been just the tremendously positive and enthusiastic support that the show has gotten. But not just from lawyers or groups of law students or even groups of women lawyers or Asian American lawyers or what have you, no particular this community or that community or that community. Just people in general just from all quarters. And that has been just really positive and encouraging for me to see.

BREE:

No kidding. So Helen, looking back, now that you have the benefit of being able to deploy hindsight, a 20/20 vision, what would you have done differently? What do you wish that you had known when you started? What was the decoder? [inaudible 00:26:54].

HELEN WAN:

Now that I'm a lot older and a little bit wiser, I would like to think... I think I just would've walked in there with more self-confidence, to be honest. I think that I would've walked into not just that particular law firm role, but every job that I have helped since with, just with more confidence that I could try to bring my, I know this is kind of a cliche way to say it, but bring my authentic self to work. And if it didn't work, then I would know that, hey, perhaps it's time to seek out someplace that perhaps is more where I would feel more included or would feel more valued, or perhaps the values of that particular workplace would be more aligned with my own.

So I think that I would've just walked in with more confidence and not hold the belief that, hey, okay, what a legal employer wants is someone who just lives, breathes the law 24/7. Because that's not true. What they want is, I think, happy people who are pleasant to be around. I wish I had come to that conclusion sooner because I think that I would've wasted less time kind of spinning my wheels.

BREE:

Yeah. And being able to have the belief that when you walk into that space, you deserve to be there. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

CHRIS:

I'm curious, as you reflect on the book, the storyline, and so forth, do you see it as a cautionary tale, an expose, a tutorial? I think you shared in the storylines just a number of, I think, very interesting elements to a journey. Again, with gender, with race, with first-generation elements and even remarking upon the person who's like, "I'm in it to win it." But I'm just curious on how you look at the storyline today versus obviously when you wrote the book almost a decade ago.

HELEN WAN:

It's funny, I did not think of it as an expose when I was writing. Truly, what I was trying to do when I first began this project, it was just kind of like my creative outlet, my written therapy from a stressful week at work. But then it eventually evolved into a proper story arc and it populated with different, more perspectives and more characters. Truly, I wrote it just as of my creative outlet. It was sort of my way to have well-being in the law. I needed to have a creative outlet, and so that was mine.

BREE:

Absolutely. And do you have advice for law students or those contemplating a legal career? What could you say to them?

HELEN WAN:

I think the best advice someone could have given me back when I was trying to embark on my first steps in my legal career would be just to take more time to really ask the savvy questions about the workplace's environment and culture before making any decisions. Because I realized fairly early on when I got to my first law job that, oh, okay, I don't think that this culturally is the right fit for me. Now, that's not to say anything about anybody else's decision because personally, I have very good friends who are senior law partners now and are really good at their jobs and just amazing lawyers. So it's each person. It's person by person, obviously. For me, that was not the right fit culturally. And I think that I would've taken the time to do a little more research, to ask smarter questions, to understand before making any decisions. And also to realize that hey, just because just you can continue grabbing more gold stars, you don't have to.

CHRIS:

Yeah, I think it's very interesting that one of the things that I makes me optimistic that well-being will continue to become a more prominent conversation topic, particularly in the big law community, is the fact that I think the most talented law students coming out are asking more of the tougher questions on the front end.

There used to be, I think again, oh, I really want to get in at that particular firm because that will cement a pathway for me to success. Where generationally now, there's a little bit more of a, I know that I have a lot to offer, but I also am coming at this with more appropriate expectations as to what my work-life balance might look like and are asking those questions as part of the interview process. So it's a two-way hiring street versus kind of a one-way. And if we've gotten there, that I think can be a catalyst to the culture shift that firms, what they value in terms of talent acquisition and talent retention, changes the game quite a bit. And I think that your story and the Partner Track sheds some interesting new light on some of those kind of realistic elements of culture in firms that I think will play out, I think, in very interesting ways in the years to come.

HELEN WAN:

Yeah, Well thank you for that compliment because yeah, I've been fortunate enough to be speaking with lots of groups of law students and their law profs. And these students are really just asking very wise questions, questions about their future employers. And not just about future employers, but just about the state of the profession generally, or really asking things like, okay, well at this place, what is the partner group makeup? How long did that person take to make a partner? How many partners? And what is the path to partner? Is it clearly laid out? What happens... These are all very savvy questions that I, to be honest, I personally did not even know to ask when I was a 2L or 3L.

BREE:

Yeah. I think Chris and I both are first generation to go into law. And absolutely, you don't have somebody laying that down for you. You don't know what you're supposed to ask and those questions and things.

CHRIS:

Yeah. And the waters can obviously be pretty choppy when you don't have perspective and then you come into environments in which, let's just say that the environment can be some welcoming, some not so welcoming and then with undertones that you would've never known before.

HELEN WAN:

Right, yes. And I will add too though, that sometimes some of these instances where I did not necessarily feel very included in conversations or whatever the circumstance was, I don't feel that it was intentional or necessarily intentional or blatantly racist or sexist or anything. It's what you know, who you know, what is comfortable and familiar to you. And one thing that happened to me, which really made me want to start writing this, was that I was invited, see, I was invited along to a lunch along with some other, my cohort, who had also just entered the firm recently. And it was at a fancy steakhouse-type restaurant. And the conversation turned to sailing and sailing camp. Now, I had never been to sailing camp in my entire life, but apparently everybody else had, or I don't know, but apparently, to me, they all had.

So he was talking about, "Oh my gosh. Well okay, I went to this sailing camp. Oh my goodness, do you know," blah, blah, blah. "Yes, we went to summer camp all of the time together and then we went to this academy together before college and law school." So I was like politely trying to listen and trying to get a word in edgewise. And sometimes I would succeed, but then no one was intentionally trying to exclude me from being a part of the conversation, obviously, it's just that I had no way to join that conversation and no one was allowing that foothold into the conversation. And so when I would try to get a word in edgewise, inevitably, the conversation would soon quickly turn back to sailing. And that's when I was like, hey, I'm going to take the legal pad and start writing this stuff down. And decades later, now it's on Netflix though.

BREE:

There you go.

CHRIS:

Yeah. Well, so much of what... I know that we did a kind of mini-series on the podcast on the nexus between and the inherent nexus between diversity, equity, inclusion, and this sense of what I think you're getting at, which is also the sense of belonging, right? And sometimes not having the context to feel like you can be part of conversations because you don't have the shared experience. And I just think that's a real element that sometimes has people feeling like they're just, maybe this isn't my place. And that maybe not be intentional, but the reality is that there are elements to that and they're real.

HELEN WAN:

Right. Yes, absolutely.

CHRIS:

Well, Helen, this was a great podcast and I appreciate, we had a chance to meet back in August in Chicago. Helen was the keynote speaker in front of the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, where I had a chance to meet her before the series dropped. And I could immediately tell that Helen has a passion for seeing people want to ultimately find professional satisfaction in the practice of law. And again, her willingness to be able to, I think, identify some of the real issues that associates face in their journey in the legal profession, I think will kind of continue to serve as an important part of the well-being conversation moving forward. So Helen, thank you so much for joining us and we continue to want to incorporate you into well-being activities with the Institute for Well-Being in Law, and thanks for sharing your experience.

BREE:

Absolutely. Thank you.

HELEN WAN:

Thank you both so much for inviting me today. It was a pleasure.

CHRIS:

All right, we will be back in a couple weeks with the next podcast. And until then, be well out there friends.

 

Path to Well-Being in Law - Episode 24: Kori Carew

CHRIS NEWBOLD:

Hello, wellbeing friends. Welcome to the Path To Well-Being In Law Podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. As you know, my name is Chris Newbold. I serve as executive vice president of ALPS Malpractice Insurance. You know, our goal here on the podcast is to introduce you to thought leaders doing meaningful work in the wellbeing space within the legal profession, and in the process, build and nurture a national network of wellbeing advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. As always, I am joined by my co-host, Bree Buchanan. Bree, how are you doing today?

BREE BUCHANAN:

I'm doing great, Chris. Great to be here.

CHRIS:

Good, good. As you all know, Bree is the president of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. Bree, we have some really exciting news to share about the institute and the journey that we're on to engineer this culture shift. Would you maybe give us a clue as to the breaking news that I think that we were so excited about?

BREE:

Nobody could be more excited than me because you said, you know, Bree is the board president. Well, up until this news, I had two jobs. I was the acting executive director, so I am just delighted to let people know we have hired our first full-time staff person and that is our inaugural executive director. Her name is Jennifer DiSanza. She comes to us with a whole host of experience in wellbeing issues and particularly with the law students. For many reasons, we wanted to bring Jennifer on board, but also strategically, we really realized that's where she's coming from is the future of our profession. And also, aside of where we know there's a lot of behavioral health distress and stress on the youngest members of our profession and the law students. So we're just thrilled to have Jennifer on board.

CHRIS:

Yeah. See, I had the privilege of serving with you Bree on the hiring committee. Boy, we have a dynamic leader now that will be working day-to-day to think about advancing wellbeing in our profession. You know, there's so much work to be done as you well know. We're actually planning on having Jennifer as our next podcast guest, which will be awesome to be able to just talk about the vision, why she's passionate about this work. It will also happen to be after the conclusion of some strategic planning that we as a board will be doing. So things are just really aligning well with both what has transpired, where we're going, and then focusing on what lies ahead in terms of some big issues that we have to tackle as we think about the wellbeing of lawyers and legal professionals in the profession. With that, today we're going to circle back to, we've spent considerable time in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion. You know, we had anticipated a three part series on this, but sometimes you extend an offer and you get somebody who's so awesome that you sit there and go, we have to expand this even further. Right?

BREE:

Along came Kori. Yeah.

CHRIS:

That's right. Along came Kori. And when Kori came along, we're like, okay, we're breaking the rules. We're totally bringing Kori into the mix. And so we were really excited to welcome Kori Carew to the podcast. Bree, would you be so kind to introduce Kori? And again, this is I know a podcast that we've been very excited and looking forward to.

BREE:

Absolutely. So Kori is a people inclusion strategist, an advocate, a speaker, a writer, a status quo disruptor. Got to love that. Child of God, wife and mother of two curly-haired, wise, energetic, fierce, spitfire daughters. Her family is multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious and spans multiple nationalities. She brings a fierce love of community and belonging that transcends differences to work, ministry and life. She loves to sing, cook, entertain, dance in the hallways at work, we need a video component of that, and read. Equipping leaders to be inclusive, to interrupt bias and disrupt the status quo. At her day job, she focuses on developing and implementing strategies for individual career and diversity and inclusion success, and helps organizations build bridges across differences and improve inclusion.

BREE:

When she's not working, she focuses her voice and talent on issues of gender equity and rights, inclusion, and human and civil rights, serving in her church and community, and cherishing her phenomenal tribe and community. She's energized by helping people live their very best lives. Kori was the Director of Strategic Diversity Initiatives for seven years at Shook, Hardy. And then she came over to Seyfarth and is now the Chief Inclusion and Diversity Officer there and oversees their really spectacular wellbeing program, Seyfarth Life, and a whole host of other initiatives we're going to hear about. So Kori, welcome to the podcast.

CHRIS:

Yay.

KORI CAREW:

Thank you. I appreciate you inviting me to be on this podcast and also very much the work that you are doing. This conversation of wellbeing for attorneys is such an important conversation. It's one that we probably started having too late, and it's one where diversity and inclusion, there's more work to be done than time. I'm super thankful for all that you do and all that you do to help our profession be better, so thank you very much.

BREE:

You bet. Kori, I'm going to start off. We ask all of our guests a variation of this question. What experiences in your life are drivers behind your passion for work around diversity, equity, and inclusion and belonging and wellbeing?

KORI:

Thank you for that question. And of course, you're causing me to go down a bit of memory lane. You would think this is an easy question, but it actually is not. It's not as easy because it forces you to look in the rear view mirror and try to understand where the dots connected to where you are. Before I do that, I do want to make one small correction. Seyfarth Life is an incredible initiative at Seyfarth that I am super proud of and one of the things that energized me about joining the firm. It has a steering committee that leads it. It's four partners at the firm, all of whom have a connection to wellbeing and mindfulness. My department and my role actually does not oversee Seyfarth Life, but we do work very closely with them. Because as one of the founding members, Laura Maechtlen noted from the very beginning, there's that intersection between inclusion and diversity and belonging and wellbeing, and the two work very closely together. But my department does not oversee Seyfarth Life. So just wanted to make sure I give credit to the right people.

BREE:

Absolutely, give credit where it's due.

KORI:

You know, because they're awesome and they do great work. In fact, if I may brag on them, out of the steering committee members, one of them is the chair of the largest department in the firm and an executive committee member and co-chair of the national diversity and inclusion action team. Oh, wait a minute. No, that's not right. Three are office managing partners. They're part of this steering committee, this leadership group, because they actually practice wellbeing and mindfulness and meditation in their own personal lives and allow it to influence how they lead. So I know Seyfarth didn't pay me to do a promotion, but I felt like I needed to shout some guys out.

BREE:

Absolutely.

KORI:

Our talent team helps them quite a bit in terms of organizing programs and handling the administrative and logistic things. Okay. So to answer your question, what are the experiences? I often say this and it is true that when I look at my life in the rear view mirror, how I ended up where I am makes a lot more sense as I connect the dots in ways that I probably couldn't have foreseen. For example, I never intended to be a diversity and inclusion professional. I actually never intended to go to law school. I started my university career as an electrical engineering major. When I came to the U.S., I wanted to build planes. That was my thing. I wanted to be an aeronautical engineer. I wanted to build planes. I loved science. I could spend hours in the lab. One of the best gifts I ever got was a lab coat. My dad had a custom drawing board built for me when I was a teenager that I carried with me everywhere because technical drawing, engineering drawing was one of my top subjects.

KORI:

So a lot of things make sense in hindsight. I look at my family composition and my sisters and I were all born in different countries. We have different passports. We grew up in Nigeria, a country with over 300 different ethnic groups with different languages and traditions and customs, so there's that. My family is multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-racial and there's just so much diversity there. You know, in the family tree, there's a granduncle that's a Methodist church bishop, and one that's an Imam. And my grandfather's father was a teacher, was a teacher of the Quran. And so all of that diversity is there in the family, but it probably influenced how my parents raised my sisters and I and how even through childhood, I was always the person who was connecting the dots between similarities between people. And today we would call that cultural fluency, this ability to recognize cultural differences and not judge them but just adapt to them and be able to say, okay, you know what?

KORI:

It looks to me like person A is looking through a lens that's different than person B, but they're looking at the same thing. So how can I get these two people to be on the same page? So there's that family dynamic. But another thing that happened when I was growing up that I do think influenced me quite a bit. I grew up in Nigeria. Most of my childhood, we had one military dictator after another. So I grew up with coos happening more often than I would prefer. There were times that things broke out into religious violence. You're talking about incidents where a few people are killed or a lot of people are killed and everything goes to standstill, everybody's on edge. You don't leave your home. When the students go on riots because they're protesting something and things get out of hand, you're turning off the lights in your home and sort of huddled together, trying to make sure that you stay together as a family until everything passes over. So that was also something that I grew up around and experiencing.

KORI:

And then my parents are from Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone is actually my home country. If you ask me where I'm from, I will tell you I was born in Canada, grew up in Nigeria, but I'm from Sierra Leone. Because in my culture, you're where your father's from. So my entire identity has always been that I am from Sierra Leone. In the '90s, Sierra Leone began to experience a very brutal civil war, which calling it a civil war is actually inaccurate. You have a bunch of people with weapons who terrorize the population for 11 years. And it's been one of the most brutal wars that the world has seen at least in recent times. And that impacted my family in the sense that we lost people, in the sense that I hadn't been back to Sierra Leone for a long time. And it kind of started with my mom not feeling it was safe enough for us to go and visit, with grandparents living on the run and being sick and dying and me not seeing them in a long time because of just this state of chaos.

KORI:

And all of this fueled how I ended up going to law school, wanting to do human rights work, wanting to be a human rights lawyer, feeling as if I learned so much about the American system and the role that the legal profession played in terms of maintaining democracy and freedom and wanting to multiply that. Right. But then I go to law school. I graduate. I fall in love with a boy who I actually started dating in college, and I ended up in Kansas City because I followed a boy. You know, career took a different turn, ended up being a defense lawyer. And then you fast forward to doing an evaluation and me going through a process of saying, okay, I've done a lot of the things I wanted to do. I've achieved a lot of the things I wanted to achieve. I wanted to try cases. I wanted to build this reputation. I wanted to be successful in A, B, C, D.

KORI:

And I started taking inventory of the things I was passionate about, the skills I developed, the experiences I had and where I was losing time. You know, where was I given my time in community? What were the things that I could lose myself doing in such deep flow that I don't even recognize that time has gone by? And that journey ended up leading me to inclusion and diversity work and I haven't turned back since. There's some aspects of the legal profession I miss. I miss trying cases. I miss solving problems for clients. It may sound like the weirdest thing, but boy, playing around with evidence, rules, and figuring out how to get things in or keep things out is a nerdy love of mine. And so those are just some of the experiences that I would say led me to this love for helping people build bridges and I'm empower people to succeed despite the challenges, and being able to create just a level of cultural fluency amongst groups of people so that we understand how much better we are together as opposed to isolated from one another. So that's a long answer.

BREE:

Well, what an amazing life you've had to date and an incredible background that informs your work at a depth that I know Chris and I can't even begin to imagine.

CHRIS:

For sure. Kori, how long have you been more squarely centered on the inclusion and diversity side of things?

KORI:

I have been for 11 years now full-time diversity. What I realized, you know, somebody asked me a question similar to this, how long have you been doing diversity work, which is different from what I usually hear. I actually did the inventory and realized that, you know, 29 years ago, when I first came to the U.S., that was when I actually started doing presentations. At the time, we called them multiculturalism. We started doing presentations on bridging differences, on being able to understand different cultures and how you navigate it. And so I've been actually teaching on diversity, inclusion, cultural fluency leadership topics now for 29, 30 years. But it being my full-time job, that happened when I left litigation and moved over to Shook, Hardy & Bacon.

CHRIS:

Okay. I think a good point to maybe start the conversation is, you know, again, your perspective is so unique and informed. For diverse members of the profession, can you talk to our listeners about some of the more challenging aspects of the last couple of years?

KORI:

Yeah. So the last couple of years have been tough for everyone. This pandemic, it's been brutal and it's impacted us in so many different ways. We've lost our sense of certainty to the extent that we didn't had any. We've lost our ability to have some kind of predictability, something that is a core need, a core need for many of us. Well, not for many of us, for everyone. It's actually a core human need. And so we've been sort of thrown into this whirlwind of uncertainty with no deadline, right? We went from thinking, well, I'll speak for myself. You know, since I'm not a scientist, I foolishly thought, well, maybe in two weeks I'll go back to the office. And then it was a month. And then I thought six weeks. And then I thought for sure by summer 2020 we'd be able to go out and about and things would be quasi under control. And here we are, you know, some 28, 29 months later and we still have COVID. I'm sick right now recovering from COVID after avoiding it for almost 30 months, I get it.

KORI:

So you have that benchmark that is impacting everyone and the uncertainty that we've seen with everything going on around us. But as with everything, I think people from historically underrepresented and marginalized groups, what happens is the things that... There's this saying that the things, and I'm going to probably say it wrong. And it may be an African American saying, but it's this thing that what gives some people a cold will give others the flu. And so what you've seen then is populations that have been historically marginalized and underrepresented and haven't had access to full equity, had been impacted very differently by the same storm that we're all in. So we're all in the same storm, but we're not in the same boat. We're experiencing it differently. So communities of color, we know got hit by COVID much harder.

KORI:

And you have that intersection between race, between housing inequity, between education inequity, between healthcare inequity and healthcare access, all of those things coming together to adversely impact some groups more. So if you are someone who is Brown or Black, or from one of these historically marginalized communities, and you are going to work during the pandemic, or you're working from home, you are more likely to have family members who have been directly impacted by COVID, right? You are more likely to have lost family members. You also, generally speaking are more likely to be in a position where you are in an extended family situation where you are responsible for more people than just yourself. You know, one of the things that we know, for example, that impacts generational wealth is that those of us from communities of color oftentimes are responsible not just for ourselves, but for extended family members.

KORI:

So you have that dynamic playing, then you have the racial pandemic, which has been going on, but in the last two years have come to fevered pitch. And so the daily trauma of dealing with racism and microaggressions then gets compounded by all the incidents, George Floyd, Charles Cooper, and all the other incidents that have been bombarding us from our television screens, from the news reports, from articles. And so now all of a sudden everything is right in your face and you're dealing with all of it at the same time. And so those are some of the things that are professionals from "diverse communities," from underrepresented marginalized communities have been dealing with. And our reserves have been tapped into and overstretched to where for some of us, it feels like it's been just too much.

BREE:

Absolutely. It's unimaginable just how much to carry on in that space. All of the things that you just described, this litany of horrors is on top of just the day-to-day difficulty as been expressed to me, and reading in my friends of people of color, just the microaggressions and just how hard it is. Just take away pandemic and everything else and the racial reckoning, how hard it can be just to get through the day. I can't even imagine. It is absolutely just too, too much. Kori, there's so much to unpack here. I wanted to kind of pushing us along here talking about diversity, equity, and inclusion and talking about belonging and overlaying that. I mean, when I started looking in the legal profession, we talk about DEI, it was diversity then DEI, and now we're getting into some of the really, to me, needy and interesting stuff around belonging. I know that you created a belonging project at Seyfarth. Could you talk to us about the importance of that, and also about this project that you got started at Seyfarth?

KORI:

Sure. Let me separate them out. Belonging is a conversation that more and more of us are having, and it is fairly new to the conversation when you're talking about diversity and inclusion. It started with we talked about diversity, and then we started talking about diversity and inclusion, and now we've included equity and belonging. Belonging goes to that sense, that feeling that each of us have when we belong and we feel like we are part of a group and that we belong to something that is bigger than us. It is also a core human need. Brené Brown has this phrase that she says that we have three irreducible needs, and they are to be loved, to connect, and to belong. What we know from the research is that when we don't have belonging, it impacts us. It is wired into our DNA to belong to something.

KORI:

So we will either have healthy belonging, or we will seek a belonging that may not be healthy and may not be good. This is where you can queue in hate groups and cult because they will do anything to belong. We will also conform to fit in so that we have a quasi sense of belonging. The problem though is that when we don't have belonging, we actually see physiological, physical, spiritual, mental, psychological impact on our wellbeing. It impacts our sense of health. Forget our sense of health. It actually impacts our health, right? We know that exclusion and the lack of belonging actually results in increased depression, increased high blood pressure, increased diabetes. Incidentally, a lot of the same things that racial trauma and microaggressions also causes on the human body. And so if we don't have that sense of belonging, then we are not able to actually actualize that sense of inclusion where everyone is able to be leveraged and their differences and their strengths leveraged so that they can succeed as they want to succeed.

KORI:

And without belonging, you don't get wellbeing. But conversely, without wellbeing, you can't cultivate that sense of belonging. And so those two things are intertwined as well as this concept of engagement, which also is in the mix, right? You can't create engagement unless you have social connection and belonging. And so all of these things come together. Unfortunately, in many of our organizations, they're treated as separate, right? In many organizations, you have the wellbeing function being managed in a way that it doesn't speak to diversity, doesn't speak to belonging at all. So imagine now we just talked about COVID and we talked about how COVID has impacted everyone. Then imagine you're developing a wellness initiative or a wellbeing initiative and you're not stopping to think, oh, wait a minute, because of diversity, this pandemic has impacted people in different ways.

KORI:

And so I can't just trot out a wellbeing program without factoring in diversity and how diversity has resulted in different people experiencing this pandemic differently. Similarly, we fail when we try to, for example, have a wellbeing initiative that doesn't stop and think, oh, wow, we're not talking about racial trauma. We're not talking about microaggressions. We're not talking about the impact of implicit bias and exclusion on the psychological and physical wellbeing of the people in our organization. And so what's happening is these concepts are tied together, but in our organizations and most of our organizations, we're not doing DEI and incorporating wellbeing and we're not doing wellbeing incorporating DEIB. Instead, we're acting as if they're completely separate and they're not.

CHRIS:

I mean, I think it goes without saying, we, I think as human beings, sometimes we compartmentalize of there's this and then there's that. I think that from the infancy of the institute, I think we've emphasized the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion as part of, has to flow through everything, every lens that we look at from the wellbeing perspective. But I have to admit, it's been more challenging than I think, than we've appreciated because sometimes we look a little bit myopically at some of these issues without broadening our lens. That's the perspective that I think that you can bring our listeners that, again, this intersection of diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging with wellbeing, I guess I'd be curious on just, how can we merge? Right? Because again, even the fact that there's organizations that work over here and organizations that work over here, and we really should be just the coalition and the umbrella and the totality of how it all works together is something that I don't know that we appreciate the magnitude of.

KORI:

Well, and the only way we can appreciate the magnitude is if we have these honest conversations. But we also have to have the conversations around the structural and the cultural underpinnings, right? How do we have conversations about wellbeing that take into consideration differences? That take into consideration, okay, we're telling people, hey, we have therapy or we have EAP, or we have whatever the organization offers. But how do you do that and also acknowledge that for some communities that there is a stigma around maybe going to a therapist? How do you have that conversation with those communities? Or that racial bias and racial aggressions are having an impact on people, but you have an entire generation of Black people, for example, who have survived by plowing through all the challenges that the world has put in front of us. And to sit down and talk about the way in which racism has impacted us is asking us to put our shields down, which means opening up ourselves to attack, which means possibly being accused of playing the race card. Right?

KORI:

All of things that you may have grown up in a time where we just didn't talk about that in mixed company, we only talked about that with each other. And so there are all these layers, all these layers. I recently listened to a friend of mine, Ratu Basin, and she was talking about how it feels for her as someone of Indian heritage to see how much yoga, for example, has been whitewashed. There's so many conversations to be had even in the wellbeing space, even when we're talking to people about things like self-care. Well, what are you recommending? Because some of the things we tell people to do for self-care, go get a massage, who can afford that? What culture support that kind of self-care? And is that really self-care or is that treating a symptom? Should self-care and wellbeing be about a way of life and a way of working such that we don't need these emergency [inaudible 00:32:26] like solutions to fix the symptoms, right?

KORI:

And that's the big conversation and that's the conversation I'm hearing some lawyers begin to ask where they say, the organization says they care about wellbeing, but we're getting these other messages that say it's productivity and hours and billables that matter, right? How do we shift the culture and how we're embracing these topics in a way that makes it more meaningful? I just realized, I didn't even answer your second question about the belonging project, but yeah, this is the stuff that to me, I see a lot of potential for us to have really good conversations that can lead to solutions that are more inclusive of a diverse profession.

BREE:

Kori, you're clearly such a thought leader and a visionary in this space. Can you talk a little bit about how do we get change to occur in a profession, the legal profession that is so reluctant to change? Even more so than general society. Where do you see the bright points of really being able to make some change?

KORI:

Can you repeat that question?

BREE:

Yeah. Just about how do we get change to occur in the legal profession? You know, this is a profession that is just so stayed and slow and bound up in tradition. This is the way we do it, that sort of thing. And here you are with these fabulous ideas, working with a very large law firm, having come from another very large law firm so you're in this space. What are your ideas for actually getting real change to occur? Where are the pressure points, I guess?

KORI:

Well, I think some of the pressure points are actually external. You asked me a question earlier about the last two years, something that I didn't mention that has impacted a lot. It's impacting individuals from underrepresented groups, but it's also impacting our organizations. Is this fake cultural war that is also going on, you know, regardless of what political party you're in, I think we can acknowledge that for the last six years, there has been an attack on everything that we are trying to accomplish in diversity and inclusion. White is now Black, Black is now white. And if we are in a state of being, for example, where I'll use Florida as an example where someone can say, we want to ban any training if it makes someone uncomfortable. What you're essentially saying is let's keep the status quo the way it is, even if the status quo supports white supremacy.

KORI:

Even if the status quo is inequitable. You would rather keep the status quo than have an uncomfortable conversation. When it comes to the legal profession, in particular, law firms, because of how we are constructed. A law firm essentially has multiple owners. It's not like a corporation that has a board of directors and has shareholders. Let's say you have a law firm of a thousand people and 300 of them are partners. You have 300 people running around who think that everybody should have an equal say in every single decision. It's one of the reasons that law firms function so differently from other companies and why decision making is so different. Everything we do is different. You know, we put people in leadership positions not because they're leaders, but because they're great trial attorneys or they're great business generators or whatever, whatever the criteria is, but rarely is it because someone actually is a good leader.

KORI:

And so we have this culture that we have built that really makes it difficult for us to have real hard conversations on the things that really matter, on the things that really can make change. So imagine that law firm now sitting in the last six years and even more so in the last three years. I can tell you when it comes to diversity, inclusion, many of us are throwing our hands up and saying, so how in the hell are we supposed to have this conversation then? If you're saying, oh, we can't talk about white privilege because someone says, oh, that offends me. Or we can't talk about systemic racism because someone's going to say, oh, wait a minute, if you say systemic racism is real, then that's anti-American. So we are living in a time where the terms racism, the terms CRT have been completely redefined to where they mean nothing that even resembles what they actually mean.

KORI:

And then we're over here arguing about these fictitious decisions, these fictitious definitions, and we're not actually doing the hard work that needs to be done, right. Because if you won't even acknowledge that systemic racism is real, then how do we evaluate the systems to see where we may be having inequitable results and then changing those systems? Because if you deny a thing exists, then we can't even address it.

BREE:

Absolutely.

KORI:

And so that's probably one of the biggest challenges I see, but also the biggest opportunity. And if anything is going to change when it comes to diversity, we have got to get more courageous about having difficult conversations, but conversations that are worthwhile, they are important. Nothing about creating equity is comfortable and cozy and touchy-feely, it's hard work. It requires us to say some things that we maybe may not have faced before, but we don't get to change what we won't face, what we won't acknowledge, and what we won't be honest about. It's like, you can't write a new end into the story if you won't acknowledge the truth of the story. That's the whirlwind that I think we are in now, not just as a profession, but as a country and a society.

BREE:

Absolutely. What an incredibly difficult place to be? Yeah, go ahead, Chris.

CHRIS:

Well, I was just going to say, I want to unpack that more. Let's do this. Let's take a quick break and come back because I mean, my burning question and Kori began to sort of thinking about it, which is what's the pathway to better, more productive, honest conversations, right? Because I think that you're right. The question is, how do we create the environments for ultimately that societal discussion to occur in the most productive way? So let's take a quick break and we'll come right back.

—

ADVERTISEMENT:

Meet VERA, your firm's Virtual Ethics Risk Assessment Guide developed by ALPS. VERA's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots from client intake to calendaring, to cybersecurity, and more.

VERA:

I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you a summary of recommendations to provide course corrections if needed, and to keep your firm on the right path.

Generous and discreet, VERA is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS to help firms like yours be their best. Visit VERA at alpsinsurance.com/vera.

 

—

CHRIS:

Okay. We are back with Kori Carew, our esteemed guests and the chief inclusion and diversity officer at Seyfarth Shaw. Kori, we were just getting into the, I think the discussion. I feel like we're going deeper than even I had thought we would in the conversation, which I love. You know, as we think now about we need to have the honest conversations, right. And so I would just be curious on your opinion as what's the pathway to get there. If we appreciate that there's a lot of noise and the volume levels are high, and there's a lot of yelling, frankly, on both sides of the equation. What's the pathway toward problem solving, thoughtful discussion, intentional discussion that ultimately advances the dialogue?

KORI:

Thank you very much for that question. Honestly, it's one I've been thinking a lot about. You know, I did do a TEDx in 2017 and the impetus for that TED really was that question that you just asked, which was, there's a lot of yelling and not enough dialogue that allows us to move into action. Since I gave that TED, I've sort of watched what's been going on in organizations and in the country. I don't think I would change anything about that TED, except that there are a few more things that I would emphasize. One of the first things that we have to do if we truly want to make progress, and I'm going to steal a Nigerian thing, tell the truth and shame the devil. We are avoiding being honest with ourself about so many things. Whether it is just being honest about the experiences people have in the organization, or being honest about where the gaps are, or being honest about what the failures are, or even individual honesty.

KORI:

That self-awareness to say, you know Kori, you talk a lot about wellbeing and you talk a lot about leadership, but the reason you talk about those things is because you were searching for something that you did not have in the leaders that you grew up under, right? So you were trying to create something for others that you didn't have, but you are also trying to create it for yourself. And there are many days that you totally suck. There are many days that you are making very bad wellbeing decisions. There are days that you are not as inclusive as you would want to be, but it's okay. And the only way you're going to get better is by acknowledging where you're not doing it right. Now, think about that when we're talking about gender or race or LGBT inclusion or disability inclusion. If we as individuals and we as organizations are not willing to be honest about our history, what has happened and what is happening, then we don't even have a starting point.

KORI:

And the way that we do that is very, very cliché. Getting comfortable with what is uncomfortable. I remember when I first started saying that, when I was at Shook, Hardy & Bacon and it wasn't even a thing many people were saying, and now people say it so often that it has lost its meaning. But it truly is the beginning point. And in too many of our organizations, we are shutting down any discussion or any movement in the name of trying to get consensus, or in trying to water things so much that they're meaningless, right? Or being so hyperworried about future possible hypothetical litigation that somebody may have over something that they don't like that they heard as opposed to possible litigation over people who do not feel like they are being treated equitably. You know, it's like we have to choose our heart. And so it's either the heart of sitting in the discomfort and learning things we may not want to learn, challenging ourselves, reaching deep to say, you know what? I don't really like that.

KORI:

When you talk to me about Christian privilege, this is a true story. Okay. True story. A [inaudible 00:46:22] of mine talked about Christian privilege. We're talking about something. She said, "Yeah, but there's also Christian privilege and people never talk about that." And can I admit to you that I was like, "Oh, is she for real? We're talking about racism and she's talking about Christian privilege." That was my initial reaction. But I sat with it. You know what? She was right. Because she was Pagan and I'm Christian. I've never had to use PTO for Christmas. My holidays are respected, they are recognized, they are centered, they are prioritized. But other people in this country who are not Christian do not have those privileges. Now that's a benign example because it's not one that makes people get as upset as some of the other topics.

KORI:

But the first step has to be a commitment to sit through the discomfort, sit through what may rub you wrong, and acknowledge that just because something is uncomfortable or just because something offends you does not mean the thing is wrong or it is offensive. And in many of our organizations, we haven't even gotten past that first part. Then the next part has to be a commitment to learn more. We have to operationalize being able to say to each other, tell me more, and not just, oh, I didn't like that training, or I didn't like what I was learning. But to say to yourself internally, okay, I didn't like that. But rather than projecting how I'm feeling it in this moment, I'm going to put myself in the position of saying, tell me more, help me understand why that bothered you, help me understand why you feel that way. Because until we're willing to do that, we're not going to learn.

KORI:

And without knowledge, we have no opportunity for growth. Growth comes with new knowledge. Growth comes with practicing new skill sets. Growth comes with trying things that you haven't done before. But if you're more invested in protecting the status quo than you are fighting for change, then the status quo will always win. And the status quo right now, it's not working for a lot of people from a lot of underrepresented and marginalized communities. Those are some of the things that have to happen. Oh, Chris, something else I want to add. Both sides. We got to talk about this both sides thing. Not every opinion and argument is equal, and that's something else that we're not willing to address head on. We've allowed inclusion to be so redefined that some people think it means anything and everything is of equal footing, right.

KORI:

But someone saying in the workplace, we need to be more inclusive of people with disabilities is not the same as someone saying, I don't think disabled people should have to work here. And sometimes what is crouching in is people want to hide behind inclusion to spew hate or bigotry or an excuse not to make the change and growth that is consistent with the so-called values of our organizations. I'll pause there because you're about [inaudible 00:50:05].

BREE:

Yeah. I just want to comment to our listeners Kori's TED Talk, just in your browser, put in Kori Carew and TED Talk. I really encourage people to check it out. It is powerful and profound. So Kori, I'm going to ask you a question here that we also tend to ask this sometimes near the end, if you could look for, I don't know, five years or even a decade. If we can do a decent job around changing hearts and minds and attitudes around diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging and wellbeing too, hopefully, how would the profession be different? What do you want to see?

KORI:

My goodness, my goodness, my goodness. Excuse me. That cough came up. If we could actually accomplish all these things that we've been talking about for 20 years, we would see leadership teams that are more humble in their approach, leadership teams that are people-centric, organizations that are listening to employees and actually care about what employees want. We would no longer be having conversations as if it's either you focus on the bottom line or you focus on employee happiness. Like we will understand that without happy employees who are engaged and doing fulfilling and meaningful work, we actually don't have a great bottom line to talk about. Right? Our organizations would look like inclusion and wellbeing and belonging, it's just part of the business strategy. It's not this separate siloed thing. It's not this thing that we talk about when we are worried about how the woman or the gays may react. Right.

KORI:

But it's just something that is operationalized into our values, into our competencies, into how we evaluate people, into how we promote people, and that we are constantly in humility, learning from each other. Right. So that even when somebody who's a chief inclusion and diversity officer, here's a phrase and someone says, "Did you realize that that was ableist?" That I would say, "I didn't. Tell me more." And once you tell me more, I changed my language, because we understand that we're always going to be moving. We're always going to be learning something new and there's always an opportunity to be better. And if we do that, we will also see different representation at all levels. We will actually have critical mass of diversity in our organizations. And then I would be unemployed.

CHRIS:

I was going to wrap up with this though, Kori, like if I was to serve up to you 500 managing partners, that were, again, I think one of the things that you've already mentioned is every individual in an organization is either additive or perhaps distracts from the culture that you're ultimately trying to create. A lot of the wellbeing discussion is about connecting and emphasizing wellbeing with decision makers and those who set the tone of organizations. And so my question to you is this, if I served up 500 managing partners of all sizes of firms around the country and they came and Kori was the keynote, what would be your message to them?

KORI:

My message to them would be that they are ridiculously in charge, that things happen in their organizations because they allow it, or they create it. And that by choosing to focus a hundred percent on their inclusive leadership skills and up in their ability to interrupt bias, to be culturally fluent, they could transform their organizations because where the leader goes, everyone else follows.

BREE:

Right.

CHRIS:

That's great. That's awesome. Well, again, Kori, you have certainly cultivated my curiosity, which I know is one of the things that you strongly advocate for. Couldn't be prouder to have you on the podcast and the sharing of your perspective. We got to get you more platforms for you to be able to shout loudly about these particular issues, because again, we got a lot of work to do, right. We know that there's a lot to be done in terms of realizing the potential of this profession, to realizing the potential of historically underrepresented and marginalized lawyers within our profession. Bree, I think that we all would agree that even as we pursue our wellbeing mission, that so much more has to be done on the diversity, equity, and inclusion perspective that integrates in the intersection there between those two that lanes need to merge in a much more substantive way.

KORI:

Thank you.

CHRIS:

Thank you, Kori.

KORI:

I appreciate it. I appreciate you having me. I appreciate you allowing Justin to come and hold my hand because she's my blinky today. I appreciate you inviting us to talk about what we're doing at Seyfarth and just my perspective as an individual separate from Seyfarth. Again, I've said this before, the work you're doing is so critically important. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for everything that you do to promote wellbeing in the profession. So important.

CHRIS:

Awesome. Well, again, thanks for joining us. We will be back with the podcast probably in a couple weeks with our executive director, Jennifer DiSanza, which we are so excited to be having her join us as we talk about the future of where this movement is going. Thanks again, Kori. And to all our friends out there, we will be back in a couple weeks.

Path to Well-Being in Law - Episode 23: Manar Morales

Chris Newbold:

Hello, wellbeing friends. Welcome to the Path To Well-Being in Law podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. I'm your co-host Chris Newbold, executive vice president of ALPS Malpractice Insurance. As most of you know, this is the place that we are welcoming advocates and activists in the wellbeing space, all intent on building and nurturing and national network of folks intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. Very exciting that we are about to wrap up our third installment of kind of a mini series on the interconnectedness of diversity, equity and inclusion and wellbeing. And I'm always thrilled to introduce my co-host Bree. Bree, how's it going?

Bree:

It's going great, Chris. So glad to be here with you as all always. And I'm going to go ahead and start off with our introduction of our guests today. So Manar Morales is a national expert on women's leadership diversity and workplace flexibility. She serves as president and CEO of the Diversity and Flexibility Alliance. She's a frequent speaker on workplace topics, such as flexibility, diversity, inclusion, women's leadership and individual strategies for success. Prior to founding this Alliance, she served as the ed for the project for attorney retention. And in that position, she led all of their initiatives, programs and operations. And we certainly know that attorney retention is a huge issue right now.

Bree:

She played an integral role in forming the diversity and flexibility connection, a series of discussions between prominent general counsel and law firm chairs, leading to best practices for the retention of diverse attorneys, including those working on flex schedules. She began her career as an employment litigator, representing clients in all aspects of labor relations and employment law, and has experienced litigation experience in federal courts and agencies as well as an arbitration. She's also served as an adjunct faculty member of Georgetown University has taught classes in labor, employment law and entrepreneurship. So Manar, welcome today. We're so glad to have you with us.

Manar Morales:

Thank you Bree. Thank you, Chris. I'm excited to be in conversation with both of you today.

Bree:

Absolutely. And so Manar, I'm going to start you off with a question that we asked just about everybody that comes on our podcast. And if you could talk about, what are some of the experiences in your life that are drivers behind your very evident passion for work in this space and the work and looking at the diversity, flexibility and its intersection with wellbeing?

Manar Morales:

Yeah. I would say that my work with flexibility really came out both of a personal, a very personal story with it as well as then a professional passion for it. I started when I was an employment litigator 21 years ago, almost 21 years ago that I had my first son and started to think about wanting to go on a reduced hour schedule at that time, which wasn't really prevalent at that time. And the experience that I had where it wasn't really thought that I could continue to be a litigator and continue to go reduced hours. And so it really came out of this experience of having to create my own path where I could continue to do what I was passionate about, which at the time was litigation and continue to do what I wanted to do in my personal life.

Manar Morales:

So over time I developed that career for myself and that path for myself, where I could do things like I could teach and I could... I found a firm where I could continue to litigate and also be reduced hours. And what happened over time was that women then would come up to me and say, well, if I could have done it the way that you did it, I wouldn't have left. And it really began me down this path of why can't we create an environment where more people could do that. And I really felt like for me, it was out of necessity to pull together what I wanted and what I viewed and what I called a 360 life for myself. And then starting down that path of, well, why can't we create organizations where more people have those opportunities?

Bree:

Absolutely.

Chris Newbold:

I'm guessing you're professionally satisfied at this point?

Manar Morales:

Yeah. Two more children later, I now have three boys. Three boys and a husband, maybe four boys. But yeah. So I think that really right now it is... I've hit my sweet spot of what I really do enjoy doing.

Chris Newbold:

Nice.

Bree:

That's wonderful.

Chris Newbold:

Hey, Manar, tell us a bit about the Diversity and Flexibility Alliance, how did it get started and what, as you, conceive the concept, what were you hoping to change in the legal profession?

Manar Morales:

I founded it in 2012, so we're at our 10 year anniversary this year, which is exciting. And really it was about, I think it was about bringing together... So for us, our sort of three pillars of the Alliance are community collaboration and content. And it really, it was bringing together a community of organizations that were really committed to wanting to have the conversations around diversity and flexibility and create real change, and each one at its own pace. So what's exciting for us, I think, in working with organizations, we certainly have some of our members who are the innovators and say, come to us and tell us what nobody else is doing and we want to do that. And so it's an exciting opportunity for us that we are thinking about, what would we like to see happen in the legal profession, in the corporate?

Manar Morales:

We're not just limited to legal, but that's a majority of our members. What do we want to see happening? And how can we create that change? And really partner with our members to say, look, I want to make sure you're having the right conversation, because I think so much of this gets derailed by not having the right conversation within your organizations. And so a lot of the work that we're doing is, let's make sure everybody's having the right conversation. And we have a set of best practices. We have a set of things that we believe should be happening. And for some of those best practices, it's what nobody is doing. And some are really things that we're looking at, the trends. So sometimes it's exciting for us because we can be creating trends and we're also monitoring the trends and looking at what's happening, and being able to share that with our community.

Manar Morales:

So like I said, I think, some of our members are the ones who are innovators and I can really see the change happening and we can introduce something and they're willing to run with it. And then what often happens in the legal profession is, we have some members who are what we would call those proven results, where they're going to look to what... Look to their left, look to their right and say, come to me when you have a trend here and then we're going to do that. And then there are others who really just want to be on the forefront of knowing what's happening and their culture will catch up over time. I think for us to be able to see those changes and to be at the heart of those conversations at the center of those conversations in organizations has been really something very exciting for us.

Chris Newbold:

And I got to think for a variety of reasons that business has been pretty good of late.

Manar Morales:

Yeah. So it is interesting. I think right before the pandemic, I was giving a presentation to a managing partner, round table, where I had about two hours. And it was probably about maybe 10 days before everything happened, where everything really did shut down and everybody went virtual. And I spent most of my time in those two hours really building the business case for flexibility. And then the pandemic happened and suddenly all of our conversations were around well, okay, well, how do we make this happen? We don't need to talk about the why right now, because we just really need to know, how do we make this happen?

Manar Morales:

How do we actually work in ways that nobody ever imagined. I couldn't would not have imagined that all of a sudden everybody is going to be dealing with a 100% virtual organizations. And so we very early on with our membership base put on presentations, how do you lead in a virtual environment? How do you succeed in a virtual environment? What should organizations be doing right now and really help to rally all our members and talk to them about, here are the strategies, here's what you should do, here [inaudible 00:08:39].

Bree:

That's just amazing. To talk about having the right message at the right time and just being there on the spot. I mean, that's amazing timing, Manar and congratulations for that.

Manar Morales:

Yeah,

Bree:

We've definitely seen that with the institute. All the trauma and tragedy with the pandemic and the highlight around wellbeing and it's just made it for us so much of an easier conversation to have.

Manar Morales:

Yeah. And I think with our members that we're already doing some of... The members that are already really invested in flexibility and understood it and, telecommuting policy certainly existed long before the pandemic, they were better situated. They were better situated to be able to handle it, but certainly nobody considered or thought that flexibility would be part of their business continuity plans. That was never something considered as part of that conversation.

Bree:

Just reading the studies across the board, we're really starting to see how the effects of the pandemic and the isolation and just how long it has gone on has rained down so much harder on people of color and especially women of color. Based on the research and your observations, could you talk a little bit about why that is?

Manar Morales:

Yeah. I mean, I think that all of the experiences and all of the things that people have had to bear and thinking about the impact on women and women of color and what the role that they play in family situations and the burdens that they carry as being either the primary or the sole caregiver in families showed how much when all of the social systems collapsed too, it's not just that we all went home. I mean, I keep talking about the fact that we have to remember that we were in a pandemic, this wasn't just about a grand experiment with work from home. This was about the fact that we were in a pandemic and people had a lot of things going on. And so if you look at who was impacted the most and where the research shows, what the burdens that people were carrying and all of what's been impacted by the great resignation and who was leaving.

Manar Morales:

I think the interesting thing is to look at what the percentage is when we look at flexibility moving forward that you look at people of color wanting to continue flexible work arrangements at higher percentages than white people, that also women at higher percentages than men. And I think that it was this... I think that during the pandemic, what we saw was, people of color and the data bears out too, to look at who experienced a greater sense of belonging, that actually increased for people of color-

Bree:

Really?

Manar Morales:

... During the pandemic, because for the first time they got to be experiencing working in a situation where they felt greater sense of psychological safety. They didn't have to code switch as much. They didn't have to deal with micro inequities as much if they were working from home during this time. they got a break from that.

Bree:

Wow.

Manar Morales:

Constant pressure of it when you're in an office environment. Not to say that doesn't happen on Zoom calls, it absolutely does, but the, I can then be at home for a period of time while I'm working and get a break from that. It's an important thing to look at that intersection between diversity, equity and inclusion, and look at our path forward. We've always said it has a huge link with diversity, but I think what the pandemic did was reinforce what that link is.

Chris Newbold:

That's interesting, because that's... As you think about it makes logical sense, but I'm not sure that a lot of us have kind of thought about that perspective and that ability to be kind of reset and... That's really interesting. Manar, how are you advising legal employers as you think about the stress effects of the pandemic? What I really enjoy about your work is your ambition to create inclusive cultures. And so I'm curious on, how you're advising legal employers and what type of support the Alliance is providing to be able to effectuate that vision?

Manar Morales:

Yeah. I think in terms of the support that we're providing is, a lot of it is around... So we were very much intentional when I built the Alliance around, I want this to be about partnering and collaborating. So when I talk about the three Cs of the Alliance being community, which was important for us to bring organizations together to have those conversations, and the content piece of it, which is the research that we're able to provide and the best practices. The third C is that collaboration, is that I really wanted us to have this organization where we partnered intentionally with every firm.

Manar Morales:

We are social mission, so our interest is to make sure that we are helping elevate and take organizations to the next level. So going in... And part of the way that we do that is looking at things like policy reviews and having advisory hours and things like that we're looking at really, what are you doing? And are you having the right conversation? Can we frame this in such a way that executive committees see the path forward as something that is a win for the organization if we take something as flexibility? Is a really is a business imperative for the organization to be doing.

Manar Morales:

That helps advance and push forward engagement. It helps drive inclusion. It helps drive purpose within an organization. It helps drive productivity. It helps drive all of the things that one looks at for the health of the organization, so that you're creating a culture where people want to, not only be excited to be a part of and want to stay, but they feel that they are fully engaged in that culture where everybody feels like they can be valued. And so a lot of the work that we do is centered around flexibility and then it's tied to diversity, equity and inclusion. And we do that through frameworks, we do that really through building what we think is a good process for organizations to walk through to be able to create that flexible work environment.

Bree:

Manar, I just heard you talk in that answer about policies for legal employers. And obviously that's going to differ based on what they do and number of offices, et cetera, et cetera. But could you give people some examples of some basic principles or things that you would suggest to be contained in a policy if they're looking at how do we... Okay. We want to improve our flexibility experience for our staff and our people here, how can... Some concrete items around how to do that.

Manar Morales:

Yeah. It's so interesting because we mentioned policies and so much of the conversation in hybrid and the future of work does center around policies. And I will say that, our advice is, let's start... Policies isn't where we want to start the conversation, really, it's about how do we think first about establishing that compelling purpose for what we want it to accomplish. So really thinking about, what does the future of work look like for us as an organization? Why does it matter for us? What opportunities does it provide for us? And then start to create that shared vision of, okay, regardless...

Manar Morales:

One of the exercises I walk executive committees through or an organization that's trying to decide for themselves where they should go is to say, regardless of how the future of work changes for us as an organization, what needs to stay the same? What do we need to hold on to? What do we need to make sure that we bring into the future? What do we want our people to be saying about us? What do we want our clients to be saying about us? What do we want the market to be saying about us? Because if you walk people through that exercise, it helps them start to really shape the.. To be really macro clear on what they're hoping to accomplish. And then we can be micro, you say, macro clear, micro easy. Then we can talk about a policy, but I think...

Manar Morales:

And how do we design that initiative? So we have this 5R framework that I'm walking you through right now that recalibrate pieces that designing the initiative. The recommit pieces, how do we integrate flexibility into the culture? I think the biggest mistake that we're seeing is organizations who are creating policies than creating hybrid if you will right now. And they are dropping it into a co-location model and hoping it's going to work. And I keep saying, it's not going to work. And it's not going to work, not because of a failure of flexibility, it's not going to work for you because of a failure of execution.

Manar Morales:

And that there are really key strategies for how do you integrate flexibility into the culture. And then finally, how do you reinforce it? How do you measure the impact of, if we started with the reflect on what your compelling purpose is, we're going to end with reinforce and it's going to be an iterative process that loops back to that compelling purpose. Are we meeting the purpose that we said, are we looking at this as a talent recruitment retention? That was our reasoning for doing this. Are we hitting the mark on that? And now oftentimes in that measuring, you can start to see where this is an organization that really just offered false flexibility, which is not what people are looking for today.

Bree:

Interesting were there, the false flexibility.

Manar Morales:

Yeah.

Bree:

Yeah.

Manar Morales:

And that's the biggest danger, I think. Because law firms all know that they have to do something, but what our interest is, is getting you to stand behind what you're saying you're going to do. I'm not interested in working with a firm to say, just tell us what our policy should look like without having done all of the groundwork and the integration part, and the building of it to say that, this is so much more than a policy change. What the future of work calls for is a culture change, and hybrid is a culture and systems change, it is not a policy change. And to really getting people to understand what that means and what that requires. And all of the behavioral changes that's going to require is important, but well worth it.

Bree:

Yeah. I love that. And that sort of paradigm for analysis that you lead the firms through. That's just wonderful. And yeah, seems like it would make all the difference in the world. It's not about policies just about that. That's sort of the end game here. What do you do to get to that decision? Manar, when we had our pre-call, a week or two ago, we started talking about... And didn't have opportunity to really finish this idea around return on experience.

Manar Morales:

Yeah.

Bree:

Return on experience and how that's a new paradigm around work today. Could you talk a little bit about return on experience?

Manar Morales:

Yeah. So return on experience is a term that we kept telling our members, look, what people are looking for is an ROE, that return on experience. And we're seeing that today, which is, I've always said, policies don't bring your people back, experiences will. And we're seeing that with a lot of, whether it's in the news, when you're looking at some of these stories of companies that have demanded people back yet still don't see them coming back. Or even with law firms, looking at their numbers and saying, we don't have the percentages coming back that we expected to have. That's really because the emphasis does have to be on experiences. That what people are looking for is, if you're telling me to come back into the office, that is going to be a different experience than what I can just do at home.

Manar Morales:

I think that ROE is a two way street. So when we're talking to our members about it, from an organizational standpoint, you should be thinking about what is your ROE. What are you asking your people to do when they come back into the office. Because if we just talk about FaceTime, then we've all had that experience where we know people who have come into the office, they shut the door, they do their work, but they're not mentoring, they're not [inaudible 00:21:21], they're not collaborating. They're doing what I call telecommuting from the office. And that's not the experience that you want your people to do. I feel like when firms are just talking about, oh, we just need people back in the office, like, to do what? Like, stop...

Manar Morales:

We don't need to be talking about, do we need people back into the office? We should be talking about what are the behaviors that you're driving for, which is, we want to see connection, we want to see collaboration. We want to see all of those things, but that doesn't only happen in the office. And so a lot of the things that we've been talking about is, around the fear... Built around the fears of what people think they're going to lose out on in this new environment.

Manar Morales:

Most firms or leaders will tell me, I'm fearful of losing what we call the 5Cs, loss of connection, loss of culture, loss of collaboration, loss of control, loss of contribution. And so, you say, the problem is, you can't... You're right, you have to be intentional about designing a hybrid world that will continue to enhance all of those things. But if you only talk about connection in terms of the office, then you're missing out on a huge opportunity. Because what we have to say is, yes, we build connection and there's value to it in person, but yes, we also build connection online. And so we need to be intentional about the behaviors to not just say, people build connection in the office, and when you're working from home you're siloed and separate. It's, how do we build connection a 100% of the time? And that's going to look different in each of those environments. So we need to shift our behavior accordingly.

Chris Newbold:

All right. I think that's a good place to take a break. I'm excited after the break to really get into, Manar, your thought leadership in the area of the future of work, because... I got to imagine that when you were consulting pre pandemic and then urging flexibility and then wham, we all got that and got a feel for how that was, that that... It's been a game changer. And we talk about where that's going to go from here. So let's take a quick break and we'll come right back,

Speaker 4:

Meet Vera, your firm's virtual ethics risk assessment guide developed by ALPS. Vera's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots from client intake to calendaring, to cyber security and more.

Speaker 5:

I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you a summary of recommendations to provide course corrections if needed, and to keep your firm on the right path.

Speaker 4:

Generous and discrete, Vera is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS to help firms like yours, be their best visit Vera @ alpsinsurance.com/vera.

Chris Newbold:

Welcome back. We are here with Manar Morales, the president and CEO of the Diversity and Flexibility Alliance, and a really interesting discussion about the creation of inclusive cultures, flexibility. Manar, I'm really curious as, we all work in our own work environments and just where you're seeing the future of work, some real interesting dynamics in play for our profession right now. And just curious about your sense of both trends, obstacles, and the role that flexibility is going to play as we look ahead.

Manar Morales:

Yeah. In terms of where the future is headed, I do believe that the future is hybrid. I'm asked all the time by leaders, are we just going to go back? That's the number one question I'm asked by leaders. And I would say that I'm asked by those leaders with different motivations behind that question. For some, they do actually want to get back into the office and have everybody get back and think, if we just tell everybody they'll follow. And then others are saying, well, we've been really productive. We've seen impacts on our productivity in positive ways, maybe we don't ever want to go back into the office. And then others who are buying into that hybrid. And there are variations of both that might.

Manar Morales:

So the answer to that question, I always say, look, I think that the way that 911 forever changed how we travel, that COVID will forever change how we work. And really thinking about that there is... In all of the years I've been studying flexibility, we've never gone backwards. We've always... It's always been a question of, not if you're going to do this, it's always been a question of when you're going to do this. And we've really looked at the trends since been looking at flexibility since 2006, and I can see, and even if I look at it in terms of leave practices too, since 2006, we've not gone backwards in that.

Manar Morales:

So I really do think that the future of work is hybrid for a legal. I don't think that the 100% virtual is where the legal profession is at at the moment. It really will be, how do we make some version of hybrid work if there's a lot of work to be done to make that happen, and it's going to take time. And the organizations that I think are getting this right are the ones who are spending a lot of time figuring out how to, and having... And we're working with them on how to integrate it into the culture.

Bree:

You talked about rules of engagement and how do we really show up within the hybrid workspace. Can you talk about that a little bit? How will that shift or change? How will that look different?

Manar Morales:

So I think that is something that if we think about what it took to just survive during the pandemic is very different from what it's going to take to thrive in a post pandemic world. And so there have been a lot of things that during that time, for example, on, how do we show up to an online meeting? And during the pandemic and we are... And I want to recognize that we are still in a pandemic, we're not out of it yet. And so organizations still as they're continuing to the next level of these conversations, I always remind them, we are still in a pandemic and we still have to have empathy towards the fact that a lot of people are in a different set of situations. And so we have to think about that whenever we're making new rules of engagement up.

Manar Morales:

But one of the things is during the pandemic, we got so used to sort of cameras on cameras off, your choice, which was right to do during the pandemic. We got used to showing up to online meetings being very distracted that we got showed up with our emails up. We were doing multiple things, we were engaging and maybe chatting there. There were all things that were happening and we weren't fully present in terms of the meeting. And we got used to sort of this multitasking that was happening, and I'm guilty of it too. Especially if your camera's off, then you're definitely... There's a lot of things that might be going on that. You are doing other work in the background and tending to listen and maybe not be fully engaged in the conversations that are happening. And I think in a post pandemic world, and I think I know those rules of engagement have to change. That if we want to create connection and high levels of collaboration and say that, online is a vehicle to do that, then the way that people show up to meetings has to change.

Manar Morales:

It means that, when we're in an online meeting, we're fully present, we're recreating what it looks like to be in the room together. We are cameras on, we're seeing each other, again, barring the fact that people are still dealing with some things in the pandemic. And obviously having empathy towards that. But generally saying, look, we want to be engaged, we want to be fully present, we want to pretend as if you're sitting in front of me. Now, part what goes along with that is, we also have to reclaim how often we're meeting. So yes, we want to be fully engaged and fully present during meetings. And if it's in an online meeting, we want to make sure that's happening. But I also think we have to reclaim how much we're meeting, because during the pandemic, everything became a meeting. And everything became a video meeting and that's exhausting.

Manar Morales:

And so going back to thinking about, Hey, what's appropriate for us to meet on? What's appropriate to be a phone call? And what's appropriate for it to be an asynchronous form of communication? Whenever I'm presenting to audiences I always say, raise your hand if you've ever sat through a meeting and you thought this could have been an email. And of course, everybody is hand goes up. We've all had experienced that. And so I think if we want those rules of engagement to change, then we also have to honor the fact that not everything has to be a meeting.

Bree:

Yeah. Can you give us some examples without naming names of legal employers who are getting it right right now. What are some programming programs that you're seeing around work flexibility and things that promote wellbeing?

Manar Morales:

So I think the ones that are getting it right are doing a few things. One, they are having in depth conversations around why this matters to their firm. They're creating the shared vision, they're really building out that business case. And then, whatever their policy is, they are then spending time on actually integrating the policy and flexibility into the culture. So they are not looking at this as a policy change, they are looking at it as a culture change. And they're really being intentional about giving their people the practices in order to succeed in that. When we talk about, you have to integrate flexibility into the culture of your firm or your organization, it's about, you have to align five things. The five Ps.

Manar Morales:

The first one is, you have to align your purpose. We started with purpose first, whenever we have these conversations. So you need to bring that in, make sure everybody in the firm is aware of what the purpose is. And then you have to align it with a set of principles. And those principles are really the mindset shifts that need to happen in order for flexibility to succeed. So some things of the mindset shifts. Some of those principles that I talk about are, flexibility is not a trade off for performance. If we see people who are not performing well, they're not available, their work product has gone down, they're not responsive.

Manar Morales:

All of those things are performance issues, those are not flexibility issues. So we need to really be clear about what flexibility is and what it isn't. FaceTime is not an indicator of commitment, people really want the autonomy to decide where they work, within guardrails, and those guardrails are the policies of the firm, but that not one size fits all and that work is not a place and culture is not dependent upon location. Lots of things that... There are key principles. And the firms doing this well, spend the time to educate their people on what those principles are.

Manar Morales:

And then you have to align with your policies, whatever that policy looks, if we have lots of recommendations around some of those things to be thinking about. And then, what are the practices? So those are the tangible things that, if we think about what are we most afraid of, we're afraid of losing connection, we're afraid of losing out on collaboration, communication, the ability for people to contribute. Then we always say, there are best practices to make that work. And so we spend a lot of time with members doing trainings and conversations and experiences with their people to really hone what those best practices are. And then, finally align your people, make sure that your people are aware of, how do I thrive in this environment? How do I lead in this environment? Because it is different. And we need to make sure that we are telling our people that.

Manar Morales:

And so really spending all of that time on all of the work that it takes. I think a lot we spend so much time on what the policy is. And I say, that's actually not the most important piece. Policy is important and we can get there, but your most important piece is taking that policy and making sure you're actually integrating it into the culture and you're teeing your people up for success on this. Firms that are getting this right, are the ones that are investing all of their time to do that, and their resources. And resources behind all of the implications of these policies as well, not just sort of the paper change that's going to have to happen.

Chris Newbold:

Make it seems so simple and straightforward and comprehendible in the way that you've characterized that. I'm being honest in that. Again, I feel like there's a push pull between employers and employees that, again, as the way that you articulated it, which is if we can move ourselves toward a collective shared vision based upon a set of core piece, in this case, purpose, principles, policies, practices and people, there's a pathway that engages the workforce and positive ways enhances productivity and ultimately builds the culture that you aspire to build.

Manar Morales:

Yeah. That benefits both you and your people. Yeah. exactly.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah.

Manar Morales:

It comes with win-win. That is our role to play. Is to make sure that it looks, that this is something that does benefit both you as well as your people within your organization.

Chris Newbold:

Because again, I feel like there's a sense that there's just so many trade offs, that, if you have flexibility you don't have culture. And again, I think what you're saying is, no, let's hit the pause button here, there is definitive ways to be able to meet both ends of the spectrum in a way that actually launches us, one plus one can actually equal three in this case.

Manar Morales:

Yeah. I mean, that culture piece is so important. People talk about culture all of the time. And I think it's so interesting because I think sometimes it gets thrown around without being defined. So oftentimes when somebody says, well, we're afraid we're going to lose our culture. I'm like, okay, well, how do you define your culture? And I don't always get a good answer to that. We're afraid we're going to lose our culture. Okay, but tell me what your culture is. Tell me how you define that. Let's be clear first on what that is. And then I say, culture is about a set of values that you hold as an organization. It's about a set of behaviors that people exhibit within your organization. It's the relationships that you have in your organization.

Manar Morales:

So culture is really can be enhanced and culture should be present, not because of your four... Your four walls don't create culture, it's the values, the behaviors, the relationships, how people interact with each other that creates your culture. So flexibility should really be enhancing it. And that should be present in all of your... In whatever mode you're in. If you're online, culture should be present there. Those things should be present there. Your four walls might enhance it, but it certainly doesn't just drive it. It's the behaviors of your people that are driving that. That is something that's really important.

Manar Morales:

And then the hybrid, you bring up, Chris, that idea of like, are we missing out on something? And I say, our hybrid equation, the definition of hybrid that the Alliance has for our members is, I want you to be thinking about the best of who you were in person. If we think about, how do we leverage the power of hybrid? It's taking the best of who you were in person. What about being in person was really, really good and what you enjoyed and where all of culture perhaps was enhanced.

Manar Morales:

And then think about the best of who you've been online. Because the past two years there were things that were exposed that you would've never realized was a crack in the system or something that was wrong in your systems. That because we were forced to operate in this way, we were forced to change in ways that we never were before. And so we really discovered some value, some things that were really working really well or things that actually got enhanced online when we work together online. So if we take the best of who we were in person, and we add that to the best of who we've been online, that will equal the best of who you'll be in hybrid, but we have to be intentional about thinking about it that way and look at, Hey, in terms of connection, what was really good about when we connected in person? Let's bring that into the hybrid world.

Manar Morales:

Let's think about connection where perhaps more people felt a greater sense of belonging, more people felt like they could be connected and participated, more people interacted in firms than before because of Zoom. And in some ways Zoom became the great equalizer and enhanced some opportunities for connection. Let's bring that in too, because that's what the advantage of hybrid is. We're going to be able to do the best of both of those. For us, it's a lot of reframing around how people are thinking about this new environment in order to really create a more successful environment.

Bree:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Chris Newbold:

I think you mentioned earlier in the podcast, which is you monitor trends, in some respects, you create trends. So let's look at onto the horizon, if we're looking forward a decade, so you're celebrating your 20th anniversary there at the Alliance. And if we're doing a good job about changing attitudes and intentionality and hearts and minds, how do you visualize the legal profession being different or frankly better?

Manar Morales:

Yeah. I mean, I think that if we're no longer having conversations on why this matters, but really having conversations around, seeing that we've created this sort of best of everything that really does benefit everybody, that becomes a really holistic approach of looking at work that I hope that from 20 years from now, I'm still not talking about the business case about this, but we really are seeing organizations that are thriving with people at their center, with that understanding that need to be people first. I think one of the things that we saw from the pandemic is, we had to lead with empathy in ways that we were not used to. And at that we could no longer see that people didn't have a life, and that people really did, the personal became the professional, the professional became the personal. And I hope that we create this environment and certainly 10 years from now, that we are continuing to see people at the center of our firms rather than anything else at the center of our firms.

Bree:

I know. I just think about all the images of people's kids, heads popping into screens and dogs and everything. And it is, it makes us much more human in this experience. Manar, this has been just incredible. And I feel so lucky to have such an amazing thought leader in this space share with us today. And I know that our listeners are going to be interested in learning more. Could you share your web address so people can reach out to you and find more?

Manar Morales:

Sure you can reach out to us at www.dfalliance.com and happy for people to email me at manardfalliance.com, and always happy to hear from people.

Chris Newbold:

Well, Manar, again, thank you so much for joining the podcast and the work that you do. Because again, there are conventional wisdom and then there's evolution and progress in thinking. And you're right in the middle of challenging historical norms, yet opening up more opportunities. And we know that this move toward flexibility, Bree, you, and I know more than anyone just how integral this is to the wellness and the element of providing people the platform to one live their best life in a way that's healthy.

Chris Newbold:

I think everyone agrees that, 90 minutes of commuting time, while it can be therapeutic in some ways is not always where you're looking to be on your own individual wellness journey, which obviously adds to professional satisfaction engagement and some of the things that we're seeing that give us cause for concern about where the profession is at. Again, Manar, thank you for joining the podcast, and we'll be back in just a couple weeks as we continue our journey around the country. Just talking to awesome people doing great work in the wellbeing space. Thanks for joining us.

Manar Morales:

Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Bree.

 

Path to Well-Being in Law – Episode 22: Lia Dorsey

CHRIS NEWBOLD:

Hello, well-being friends, and welcome to The Path To Well-Being in Law podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. I'm your co-host Chris Newbold, executive vice president of Alps Malpractice Insurance and most of our listeners know that our goal is pretty straightforward. We want to introduce you to thought leaders doing meaningful work in the wellbeing space and within the legal profession. In the process we want to build and nurture a national network of wellbeing advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. I am always pleased to introduce my co-host Bree Buchanan. Bree, how's it going?

BREE BUCHANAN:

It's going great, Chris. How is your spring starting off?

CHRIS:

It's a little colder in Montana than I would like, but the warm weather is on the way. So I'm certainly looking forward to that. So a lot going on, obviously, in the wellbeing world and super excited to continue with kind of thoughtful discussion here on the podcast. We're going to continue. I think our series here on diversity, equity and inclusion and the intersection of DEI with well-being and super excited to be welcoming Lia Dorsey to the podcast. Bree, would you be so kind to introduce Lia to our listeners?

BREE:

I would love to. So we are so delighted to bring to you Lia Dorsey today, and she is a thought leader in the movement to advanced diversity and a driver for inclusive change. As the chief diversity equity and inclusion officer at Ogletree Deakins, she's responsible for the development and execution of the firm's diversity equity and inclusion strategy. Ms. Dorsey collaborates with firm leadership, practice group leaders and business resource groups to expand in advance efforts in the recruitment development promotion and retention of diverse talent.

BREE:

Ms. Dorsey previously served as the head of diversity and inclusion at Denton's, U.S. There she was responsible for the strategic oversight, design and implementation of this very large terms, diversity and inclusion initiatives. Before that she served as the director of diversity and inclusion at Eversheds Sutherland and has also held senior positions at DLA Piper and Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. All of those names that many of us know. Lia's also president emeritus, I told her the best place, best position to have, of the Association of Law Firm Diversity Professionals. She's a sought after presenter in panelist on a broad range of topics covering diversity, equity, and inclusion at conferences across the country. Lia, welcome. We are so glad you're here with us today.

LIA DORSEY:

Thank you, Bree. Thank you, Chris, for having me. I am thrilled. Thrilled to be here.

BREE:

Yeah. Thank you so much. So Lia, I'm going to ask you the question that we ask all of our guests, because I think it just is well, so interesting. So what are some of your experiences in your life that are drivers behind your very clear passion for the work around DEI?

LIA DORSEY:

Great, great question. I like to start by saying that I've always been an inclusionist, if you will, although it didn't have a term back in the day as I was growing up and I'll just kind of share just a really funny story. I used to get in trouble a lot as a child, because I would give away my toys to my friends who didn't have them. So I would always just share, I would always just give. I was always that compassionate person and I think my parents appreciated it until I gave away my brand new pink and white huffy bike with the [inaudible 00:03:54] and then I think after that, it's "Okay, I think we need to kind of reign this in and pray." But all jokes aside I've always been a giver. I've always been a giver and I live by the verse, "To whom much is given, much will be required," and I seriously take that to heart.

LIA DORSEY:

I've long supported those from different backgrounds and environments. I've been a volunteer for a long time. I mentor, especially now in my role, I think it's very, very important for me to reach back and pull others forward. But for me, this was just what you did as a good person, right, it was never about shine or the accolades. You helped people who need it. I'm still an inclusionist, but now I like to refer to myself as a disruptor for good.

BREE:

All right.

LIA DORSEY:

Just today I heard someone else describe herself as a professional troublemaker, and I think I'm going to borrow that one as well, because at the end of the day to do this work, you have to be brave and you have to be bold. I'm also clear that it's not for everyone, that this is by far the hardest job that I've ever had, but it's also the most rewarding and I honestly can't see myself doing anything else.

BREE:

Yeah. I hope that I can be a professional disruptor at some point, but it does take a lot of courage. Absolutely. So good for you.

CHRIS:

It does. Lia, tell us a little bit about... One of the things I was impressed about kind of how your professional journey has kind of taken shape, is you've had the ability to move in and out of different cultures within the legal profession, which I just find is really fascinating. Tell us about your journey in the area of diversity, equity and inclusion and in the time that you have been a disruptor for good, how have things changed over that time?

LIA DORSEY:

Yeah, so I have been in law firms for a very, very, very long time. Although, I didn't start out in DE&I. I actually started out on the business side of the law firm for years and at one particular firm, we didn't have anyone at that time leading DE&I in an official capacity. So I raised my hand, again, I would love to volunteer and that's a reoccurring theme with me. But two years later, I found myself with almost two full time jobs. So the job that I was hired to do and the job that I was meant to do, and that was the DE&I role. So that same firm really saw how passionate I was about DE&I work and just how happy I was doing it. They actually created a role for me as the director of DE&I at that firm and as they say the rest was history.

LIA DORSEY:

But when we think about what changed over time, I think we've seen DE&I become more of a strategic focus in priority for firms. Even before the events of 2020, I think, we started to see firms dedicate more resources to DE&I, like creating full time positions, moving away from DE&I being embedded in HR or being seen as a compliance requirement from the GCs office. So we had really started to see kind of an elevation of DE&I and the role. Then 2020 happened and we'll talk about that a little bit more, but what we saw was even more of a cohesion around DE&I. We saw leaders speaking up, stepping up. We saw a heightened level of awareness.

LIA DORSEY:

People became aware of issues that weren't on their radar in the past. I think the murder of George Floyd was a pivotal moment. I'm often asked how that moment was so different because sadly George Floyd, wasn't the first Black man to be murdered at the hands of police and sadly he wasn't the last, but I think the difference that the world was at home, watching it happen and people who thought things like this didn't happen were now outraged, right. But that rage led to empowerment. We have to do something. We have to say something.

LIA DORSEY:

So we're seeing a lot of folks speaking up more because they aren't afraid and they're making demands for change. All of that is great and that is a big change, because I would say before 2020, I don't think that you would've seen people speaking up and standing up the way that we're seeing it now. I think all of that is great, but I also think that we're in an inflection point, right, because there are forces in this world who don't want things to change. The thought is the system has worked in one way for so long, so why change it? But the only way to move forward successfully is to change and I'm one of those change agents that's working to try to make this world a better place.

BREE:

Absolutely. Wow, absolutely. That's so wonderful. So [inaudible 00:08:48], I've seen you... Lia, I'm sorry, seen or heard you talk about your experience over time here. What have you seen now that legal employers are doing right in this area? What are some good examples and we'll get to weaving in the intersectionality of well-being, but right now let's stick with the DEI work. What do you see as going right here?

LIA DORSEY:

Absolutely. I think there's much more focus and intention being put around the advancement and retention of diverse talent, specifically minority talent. Recruiting is still a focus of course, but we realize that diverse talent need meaningful support once they join the firm. So for the listeners, I just challenge them to ask themselves, how are you investing in your diverse talent? Are you having real conversations around the development of your talent because we really need to make serious and meaningful investments. I've always said that the talent is there, but the opportunities aren't always there and the opportunities that I'm talking about are things like introductions to key clients and the ability to develop client relationships. It's getting the high value work. It's being able to tap into the resources for business development and the list goes on, because we all know that these are the types of things that can really impact someone's career.

LIA DORSEY:

So with that as the backdrop here, a few things that I'm kind of seeing that are having a meaningful impact today. We're seeing the creation of formal DE&I sponsorship programs. So we know the difference between mentorship and sponsorship, right. So a mentor talks to you and a sponsor talks about you and the best DE&I sponsorship programs that I've seen have leaders of the firms and that's the board, it's the managing partner, the executive committee and what I like to call the front page of the [inaudible 00:10:36] sheet lawyers. But that group of people are actually the ones serving as the sponsors. That has two great benefits. One is that it shows the stakeholders that the leaders are invested in the diverse attorney's development and they aren't pushing it off on someone else to do. So we know that law firms are top down organizations, right, but having those at the top who are actively engaged in the DE&I work has a profound impact.

LIA DORSEY:

The second thing is that that group of people are in a position to make sure that the lawyers are getting those opportunities that are referenced, right. So they actually have the work and they can make those key introductions. So I think sponsorship programs are definitely on the rise and I think that they can be very, very effective and can lead to retention.

LIA DORSEY:

The second thing that I'm seeing is kind of a focus on culture overall, because we know that culture is a differentiator, right. It's the reason people stay or go. A survey by McKenzie found that the majority of employees have considered the inclusiveness of companies when they're making career decisions. I like to say this, if you ask the people at the top of the organization to describe the culture, I'm sure that what they would say is probably different than what those who aren't at the top would say. I mean, and this is what we like to call that perception gap that often exists between the leaders and the employees and it's how do we get everyone to kind of experience the culture in the same way? So just think about it and ask yourself is your culture by default or by design.

BREE:

Wow.

LIA DORSEY:

Right. So we've been talking a lot about the great resignation and the she session, but now we're... I love that term. I mean, it's sad, but it's still a good term.

BREE:

I love it. I hadn't heard it before.

CHRIS:

I hadn't either. That's a good one.

BREE:

She session. Yeah.

LIA DORSEY:

The she session. Yeah. But now we're talking about the great reboot or the great realization and the reality is that the world is different since the start of the pandemic. People are expecting to work differently and they want companies to kind of meet more in their needs. So this is really an opportunity for firms to reimagine their workplace and their culture. Then the last thing I would say here is the inclusion of staff, right. Inclusion really is inclusion for all and not for some, but we know that law firms typically focus on the benefits of the lawyers and now we're seeing staff being introduced into that conversation, which is long overdue, but it's definitely necessary. If I can just touch just quickly on the things that don't work.

BREE:

Yeah. Please, please.

CHRIS:

Yeah. For sure. Lessons learned.

LIA DORSEY:

When companies don't make DE&I a priority. So when they still think it's just a nice to do, or if the efforts are just performative and they're doing it because their clients are kind of forcing them to do it. So you have to make it a priority. It has to be part of the overall firm strategy. And then if your leaders aren't engaged, and I'll talk a little bit more later about the difference between commitment and engagement, if they aren't engaged, then you're probably not going to have a lot of success.

BREE:

Right, right. So important.

CHRIS:

It seems Lia that you're, I feel like in your tone that you are optimistic that the level of engagement and particularly leadership leaning in, is increasing. Is that fair?

LIA DORSEY:

It is. It is definitely increasing. There were people who just because they could have been checked out of this conversation for such a long time, and now they are checking into the conversation. But I'll also say that just because you're checking in it doesn't always mean that you know what to do and know what to say and that's where folks like me and people who do this kind of work can really help with that. But I am definitely encouraged and I like to look at life as glass, half full with the way that things are progressing and the level of interest by certain stakeholders. It's really encouraging.

CHRIS:

Yeah. Because I know we're going to talk about this a little bit more, but I just think it's so fascinating how, as you know, even in the work that Bree and I do on the well-being front, so much of what maybe I'm going to say, not the easy part, but building awareness and educating others is one element to it. But ultimately action and taking on systemic barriers become probably the harder part of advancing social change and being a catalyst for cultural shifts, right. Sometimes it takes years, sometimes decades, right, to effectively be able to do that. But I find such interesting similarities in the efforts to advance both one DEI on a track, one well-being on a track and then the intersection of the two, which I think is even more interesting because some of the challenges are obviously unique and differentiated that... Really interesting.

CHRIS:

You said earlier in the podcast, Lia, that the hardest job that you've had, and that a lot of this has to do with, is the fact that you are trying to get people to change, right, and evolve their thinking and ultimately act in appropriate and effective ways. What works here and how do you get people to not necessarily... Well, I would call it evolve their attitudes and actions as they think about what the right work culture is and what ultimately is the right thing to do. But also, advances kind of where the firm is as a business entity.

LIA DORSEY:

Yeah. That's such a great question. You can't do this work thinking that you will be able to get people to change, right. There's a great cartoon clip of someone addressing a crowd of people asking who wants to change and everyone raises their hand and then they ask, who wants to change and then all the hands go down, right. That graphic perfectly sums up what it's like doing this work. A lot of people are committed to DE&I and they care and they have good intentions, but not many folks are actively engaged and I said I would talk about the difference between the two.

LIA DORSEY:

I think right now you'd be hard pressed to find a leader who would actively come out and say that they aren't committed to DE&I, but it's more difficult to get them to actually engage in the work. It's hard to get folks to willingly use their influence and internal capital to help someone else, especially if that individual isn't like them. So they don't look like them and you're not part of my in group, but that said, if we won't change, we cannot sit on the sidelines, right. So I believe that in action or neutrality is complicity. Action is courage and courage is a habit. It's a muscle that you build over time. It's consistently committing to something, knowing that at times you may get it wrong or you may be uncomfortable. I mean, look, sometimes I still get it wrong and I do this for a living, but-

BREE:

Thank you for saying that, Lia, thank you for saying that. Oh, my gosh.

LIA DORSEY:

It's just, it's continually showing up and engaging and if you get it wrong, you get up and you continue to try again. So, we spent a lot of times educating our stakeholders and raising awareness around DE&I. What does it mean to really be an ally or an upstander? What do those terms mean, right. What does equity really look like in a law firm? How do you work across difference? How do you have courageous and meaningful conversations with others who are not like you, right. What is bias? How does it show up in your interaction with others?

LIA DORSEY:

So once you understand some of these issues, hopefully that'll lead to greater empathy and then hopefully that will lead to action. Just in closing, I'll say, so instead of focusing solely on changing minds, focus on changing your systems and changing your processes and changing your policies, because that's also where a lot of this bias breeds, which sometimes folks don't want to change their minds because they're set on something. As my friend, Michelle Silverthorne, she is a popular DE&I and culture consultant says, if you change the system, you'll change the world. So I spend a lot more of my time focusing on changing the systems and then the hearts and minds will follow.

BREE:

Absolutely. That's just absolutely brilliant. Yeah. I've always thought that if you get the right form in place, things will follow. You ask the right questions on the right forms-

LIA DORSEY:

Absolutely.

BREE:

... And that starts to shift the culture. Yeah. Yeah. So important. So Lia, I'm wondering if you could tell us a little bit, we're going to take a break here in just a second, but you are just coming off as president of the association of law firm, diversity professionals, and I can really hear the polish of your message, which I'm sure that you honed over the time as president. What has that group been focusing on? What are you guys focusing on now?

LIA DORSEY:

Oh, absolutely. So, for those who may not know, ALFDP is an association of law firm professionals working in the DE&I space in the United States, Canada, and in the U.S. I'm sorry, UK. The association is around what, 16 years old at this point. As you mentioned, I served as president for two years. I served as VP before that. I'm technically still on the board and it is just an absolutely amazing organization just to be able to connect with people who are trying to solve the same problems, right, and achieve the same goals. So let's try to put our heads together and solve it together. But essentially we equip our members with the tools, tips, and talking points that they need to advance DE&I within their own firms and to help get the buy in and the resources that they need and resources is sometimes talent and then sometimes it's money.

LIA DORSEY:

Another great thing that we do is to collaborate with other DE&I focused organizations as well. Last year, we collaborated with Thompson Reuters and the ACC Foundation on a white paper called the Pandemic Nation: Understanding its impact on lawyers from underrepresented communities. It was a great white paper. I encourage your listeners to download it. It essentially was an in depth look at the impact of the pandemic on the careers and lawyers from underrepresented communities. What's great about that research even now is that it really points out the challenges and the opportunities of those historically excluded lawyers, which is really, really important. Particularly the opportunities part as all of us are slowly returning to the office.

LIA DORSEY:

There are things that organizations can keep in mind and I'm cleared about saying returning to the office and not returning to work because trust and believe for the past two years, we have been working hard, harder than we ever have. So I really want to remind people, we're talking about returning to the office, but ALFDP keeps on top of the primary issues that everybody is dealing with and then we try to find resources and give tips and tools to help solve some of those challenges. So great, great association and I'm so glad and honored to have been able to lead it.

BREE:

So, Lia, what is the web address for that in case our listeners are interested in checking it out?

LIA DORSEY:

Absolutely, www.alfdp.com.

CHRIS:

Lia, I have to imagine that, and this would be an encouraging sign that your membership has expanded significantly of late. Is that the case?

LIA DORSEY:

Oh, my gosh. Yes.

CHRIS:

Right. I mean that's a sign that, again, people are leaning in, that they're looking for a community that can provide national resources to be able to aid them. I mean, this is an organization that I wasn't aware of, but again, gives me cause for optimism that there are change agents that are coming together and sharing best practices that are ultimately going to advance our profession.

LIA DORSEY:

Absolutely. The membership grows every day and a lot of that is because a lot of these firms are creating a lot of DE&I roles and positions and sometimes they're elevating existing people. So the interest in DE&I overall, and in ALFDP, specifically, is just amazing.

CHRIS:

Awesome. Well, this is a great place... Let's take a quick break and hear from one of our sponsors and then we'll come back and I'm really excited to kind of start to talk about the intersection of DEI and well-being. So we'll be right back.

 

—

Advertisement:

Meet Vera, your firm's virtual ethics risk assessment guide. Developed by ALPS, Vera's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots from client intake to calendaring, to cybersecurity and more.

Vera:

I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you a summary of recommendations to provide course corrections if needed, and to keep your firm on the right path.

Generous and discrete, Vera is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS to help firms, like yours, be their best. Visit Vera at alpsinsurance.com/vera.

 

—

CHRIS:

All right, we are back with Lia Dorsey, chief diversity equity and inclusion officer at Ogletree Deakins. This is an area that I've been just very excited to delve into, because I know that our board at the Institute for Well-being in Law, you can't talk about well-being unless you're integrating and considering elements of diversity, equity and inclusion as well. Lia, I'd love just to hear more about in your experience, how do they intersect, right, and how do we think about them, I guess not as two tracks, but two tracks, obviously intertwined.

LIA DORSEY:

Yeah. Mental health and DE&I are definitely closely connected. I would say right now, mental health and wellness and burnout, are very common topics in the workplace today and I think it's great that we're starting to normalize conversations around those topics. Asking for help now is not seen as a weakness and people are having dialogues and they're willing to talk about their personal experiences and their struggles. When we talk about DE&I, diversity, equity and inclusion, there's also another letter that's joining that and that's the B for belonging and that's really the psychological safety that folks feel. Honestly, we weren't talking about these things before, but it is just so important that we're having these conversations now and the fact that all of us spend the majority of our time at work, prioritizing mental health in the workplace is really, really a must.

LIA DORSEY:

Many of us are managing work related stress and experiencing diminished mental health because of the pandemic and the racial injustice crisis. This is, it's taken a toll on people and more so for those from diverse backgrounds in communities. We talked about, since 2020, there's been a much needed spotlight on racial justice, but it's also highlighted the serious lack of dialogue, addressing specific mental health needs and challenges for those from underrepresented communities. I think just kind of navigating and adapting to those challenges is really important because there's a lot of stress that that community is experiencing because of what's going on and that stress can worsen and it can cause health problems, it can lead to increased mental health conditions and so much more.

LIA DORSEY:

On the diversity piece of it, folks from diverse backgrounds often face increased bias and microaggressions and other stressors that impact their mental health and that psychological safety. So I think for the intersection between the two, it's really important to focus on that sense of belonging, because it's critical for overall mental health and well-being, because the more we feel like we belong, the more we feel like we can be ourselves, right.

BREE:

Absolutely.

LIA DORSEY:

[inaudible 00:27:16] like we have that support, then we can cope effectively with the stress and the difficulties in our lives. So firms and companies really need to prioritize creating this type of culture that supports, not only just mental health and wellness, but that inclusion and that belonging piece as well. I think another way that they intersect, and it's a way that a lot of people don't think about often is when you think about benefits. So really, evaluate the benefits that you are offering at your company. Are they inclusive? Are your wellness benefits available to everyone, or just... And now that we're talking about possibly, returning back to the office, look at your flexible working policies. Who gets to continue to work a hybrid schedule, who's asked to come back into the office, and when you examine that, you'll see how that too impacts diversity. So as we're trying to all come up with these solutions around mental health and wellbeing, it's really important to keep some key DE&I concepts in mind, as well.

BREE:

Absolutely. I just love what you're saying there around inclusion and belonging. One of the things that I teach about when I talk is also the idea, and this is where I touch upon the intersectionality here, and I talk about the impact on mental health outcomes of what's called thwarted belongingness. I don't know if you've heard that phrase before, but it's also something that's been studied in a precursor or predictor or suicidality. I mean, it's really serious. I think about, I use the example of, if you can't think of anything else, remember what it's like to be a little kid and everybody's being chosen for the basketball team and you're the last one, that was my experience, [inaudible 00:29:04], and just how awful that feels. Can you try to touch into that and have some empathy or compassion? So, yeah. That's brilliant.

LIA DORSEY:

Absolutely. If I may, there's one thing when you just shared that story and I was the person who got picked last too, I don't have any [inaudible 00:29:19]. But it just made me think about this amazing quote and I'm sure a lot of folks have heard at this point, but it's by Bernie Myers, and it says, "Diversity is being invited to the party and inclusion is being asked to dance." It's that last part that is just so important, right, because it's not good enough just to be seen, right. It's also about being included, being involved, feeling that sense of belonging and so that made me think of that quote, as you just shared [inaudible 00:29:48].

BREE:

Yeah, that's great. I'm afraid I also the person [inaudible 00:29:51] not being asked to dance, but anyway, that's another story. So Lia, I really want to dig to hear a little bit about a theme that has run through our conversations here, is about the role of leaders in the profession. Of course there are the CEOs of the big law firms, some of the ones that you have worked for. There's other leaders of the profession that I think really have a responsibility here are the judges and the state bar presidents, people that really are at the forefront of the profession. So what thoughts do you have about how we influence these leaders, that if you care about wellbeing, you have to care about diversity, equity, inclusion, and vice versa. How do you get them to pay attention and to take action to become, I think you were saying, it's not commitment, it's engagement.

LIA DORSEY:

Absolutely. Absolutely. Deloitte conducted a survey. I believe it was last year, which found that DE&I and employment health and well-being are top priorities for CEOs. I thought that was very, very telling, right. So leaders really need to prioritize their employees total well-being, and that includes their physical, mental, emotional health and it also includes work life balance. But in order to do that leaders must understand and address the unique challenges that their underrepresented employees face. We talked about this a little earlier, so that's the bias, the microaggression, it's the health disparities potentially, it's different mental health treatment and outcomes. Sadly I think that list goes on. So I think you can influence and encourage them, if you will, by just making sure that they understand that this is really important for every single employee, right, and some of the current support programs that they have in place, it's just not enough.

LIA DORSEY:

Firms have to really take a strategic and a holistic approach to mental health and wellness because there isn't one solution to the problem or silver bullet, but it's really a series of actions that they need to take. Then you need to tie this some kind of way to retention and culture, because we talked about this at the top, culture plays a big role in mental health, right it's about those safe spaces. It's about inclusion, because we know that inclusive workspace are more engaged and productive, but if you can really help your employees feel like they truly, truly belong, then you can help them achieve that greater sense of satisfaction in health and wellness and that can impact retention.

LIA DORSEY:

So just to kind of sum this up, leaders really need to prioritize their people and they need to create a workplace that fully supports every single employee, even the one from historically excluded groups and they must address those needs. If they want to create connected and inclusive workplaces, they have to address mental health because it's not an option to continue to ignore it.

BREE:

That's right.

CHRIS:

Yeah. Well, said. Let's look forward a decade and if we were to do a good job around evolving and changing attitudes and encouraging engagement and affecting hearts and minds, Lia, how will the legal profession be different?

LIA DORSEY:

Well, for starters, I hope the profession will be more diverse 10 years from now. It's a shame that after all these efforts and initiatives and research and data that the legal profession is still struggling with diversity. I want to see more of this diversity at the top as well. We all know that representation matters and I'd also like to see more accountability, right. How do we hold our leaders to account? I would love to see firms and I'm sure a lot of people are not going to like this, but I would love to see firms link the compensation to the advancement of DE&I, because our corporate partners are already doing this, right. I always say that diversity isn't black and white, it's green, because when you start talking about money, people listen. [inaudible 00:34:10]. So I would love to see that link because I think that will get us more change faster and sooner.

BREE:

Right.

LIA DORSEY:

So that's what I would say.

CHRIS:

Okay, and I'm just curious as we think about one thing, law schools obviously have a role here to play as a kind of a pathway into the profession. I'm just curious on your impressions on how they're doing relative to some of these challenges. Obviously, a lot of our work on the well-being front kind of starts with how folks come into the profession. I got to think that there's some direct corollaries there.

LIA DORSEY:

It is. One of the things that I've seen, which I think is great, is that our law schools are talking about DE&I earlier in the process or period, because it was a time when they weren't. So the fact that they're introducing and they're talking about these topics in law school, I think is great. Then we're also seeing a connection with some of the law school offerings and partnering with firms and other diversity associations that are out there, NCCA, the DFA and LCLD are three that come to mind. They're really just trying to make sure that particularly the diverse students are well prepared for a full enriched career in a law firm and really looking at how do we make sure that they know what to do and to make sure that they can ask the right questions and to find that mentor early and all of the things that come with that. So I'm really encouraged to see that type of partnering with some of the law schools and some of the other associations that are out there and with some law firms, as well

CHRIS:

As you said earlier, evolution here or progress I think has been slower than almost all of us believe could have been achieved. Are you optimistic about the future, and if so, what are some of the accelerator drivers that have you particularly excited for what's on the horizon?

LIA DORSEY:

Oh, Chris, I have to stay optimistic because if I don't, I'll go in my room, sit in the ball and cry. I just think it's really just my outlook. If I think about when I started in this field, not that long ago really, but when I started, we weren't even talking about some of the stuff that we're talking about even now and we were not as bold then as we are now. So, that definitely gives me hope. Some of the people that I see who are starting to do this work gives me hope. The fact that we're seeing managing partners and CEOs who are standing up and speaking up and actually putting that capital and using it to help advance it, all of that gives me hope.

LIA DORSEY:

I don't think that we will get there in my lifetime, but I am happy to be a person right now and a change agent who's really trying to plant the seeds that hopefully folks will continue to water. I tell people, this is a marathon. It didn't take us overnight to get into this and it's not going to take us overnight to get out of it. It's going to take some time, but I am very, very hopeful.

CHRIS:

Awesome. Well again, thank you so much for joining us. Whenever we can have a disruptor for good or a professional troublemaker on the podcast, we are all in and Lia, we certainly commend you for your longtime commitment, the impact that you're having, the willingness to serve and leadership structures and challenging the status quo, improving cultures, right. I mean, you are doing critical work, not just for your firm in particular, but well beyond in terms of improving this profession and the ability for this profession to ultimately serve the legal needs of the country, all of the legal needs of the country, right, not just certain legal needs of our country. So again, thank you so much for joining us on the podcast.

BREE:

Thank you. Wonderful. Wonderful.

LIA DORSEY:

Thank you, Bree. Thank you, Chris. I have enjoyed my time immensely and I would be happy to come back if ever you would have me. This has been great and I love this so much. I can talk about this all day. I feel like our time just flew by. So thank you. Thank you again for having me.

CHRIS:

It certainly did and we will be back in a couple weeks with one final installment of kind of our series on the intersection of diversity, equity, inclusion, and well-being. Thanks to all of our friends out there for listening in and if you have ideas, continue to reach out to Bree or I for suggestions on future speakers.

BREE:

Absolutely.

CHRIS:

So everyone be well out there. Thank you.

BREE:

Take good care everyone. Bye-bye.

 

Path to Well-Being in Law - Episode 21: Lindsey Draper

In this special episode of the Path to Well-Being in Law podcast to celebrate Well-Being Week in Law, Chris and Bree sit down with Institute for Well-being in Law VP of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Lindsay Draper.

Transcript:

CHRIS NEWBOLD:

Hello Well-being friends and welcome to the first podcast of 2022. This is the Path To Well-Being In Law podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. I'm your co-host Chris Newbold, executive vice president of ALPS malpractice insurance. And boy, we've had a lot of fun on the podcast over the course of the last year. I think we just hit our 20th episode and, as most of our listeners know, our goal is to introduce you to thought leaders in the well-being movement doing meaningful work within the legal profession and in the process, we're really working hard to build and nurture a national network of well-being advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. And as always, Bree, we have been together from the beginning. We've done all of our podcasts together. We've not had to had a guest co-host yet. So I'm certainly thankful as we begin the new year to embark on what's really the year three because I think we got started late in-

BREE BUCHANAN:

That's right.

CHRIS:

... 2019, right?

BREE:

Yeah.

CHRIS:

And Bree, how are you doing? How were your holidays?

BREE:

Absolutely wonderful. And yeah, it's just amazing that we are starting our third year of the podcast and I've had so many great guests. I hope the listeners can go back and see the different really thought leaders in the well-being and law space. And the idea of trying to sort of capture what they're thinking, capture trends, and be able to share that among what we really see with the institute is a growing body of people throughout the legal profession who are really passionate about addressing these issues and promoting well-being across the board. And so, we see this as an opportunity to cross-pollinate with ideas and share what's going on. So delighted to be here again and happy new year, everybody.

CHRIS:

Yeah. What I'm excited about... One of the things I'm excited about is just how our movement has grown in terms of the people that have been welcomed into the movement over the course of the last year. I think that's going to really prove to be exciting from a speaker perspective, as we bring on more guests in 2022. And one of the things... Super excited to kick off 2022 with a three part series in an area that frankly is probably overdue, but something that's critically important as we've thought about where well-being ultimately goes. And that's the intersection of diversity, equity and inclusion with well-being. And so, this will mark the first of three episodes that we focus specifically on that issue because, again, I don't know that you can really differentiate one from the other. And as we all know, if you've met one lawyer, you've met one lawyer and we're all on our individual journey as human beings, right? And there are some really, I think, interesting intersections with diversity, equity and inclusion. I know that we're very excited to kick off the new year with our friend Lindsey Draper to the podcast. If you would take a couple minutes and introduce Lindsey, I know that we're just thrilled to have him as our first guest.

BREE:

Absolutely. And I love working with Lindsey. I think the most important thing on his bio is that he's on our board of directors. And so, Lindsey has been pulling a major laboring oar with us over the past year plus to really get the institute off the ground and running. And so, Lindsey serves on our board of directors. He is the vice president of diversity, equity and inclusion. And so, just a little bit of background for Lindsey. This is where we make him blush a little bit, but as the Milwaukee County Court Circuit Court Commissioner, he oversaw Wisconsin's adherence to the mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act as a state's disproportionate minority contact coordinator and compliance monitor. And that was just the day job. And then he retires and goes on to serve in a variety of leadership roles.

He served as chair of the ABA standing committee on client protection, which is how I originally met Lindsey and his work in that role. He's currently the chair of the board of directors of the St. Charles Youth and Family Services in Milwaukee. He's been in the past a director at large of the National Client Protection Organization, and as a liaison to the Wisconsin Task Force on Lawyer well-being. And not just a liaison, I'm looking at his bio understates his involvement. Lindsey was really key in the efforts to get that work up and moving.

So, Lindsey welcome today. And I'm going to start off by asking you a question we all ask all of our guests at the very beginning to talk to us about... To say hi, but then also talk to us, what are the experience in your life that may be a driver behind your passion for the work that we're doing here at the institute? And I just want to hear a little bit about that. So, Lindsey, welcome to the podcast.

LINDSEY DRAPER:

Well, first off, Bree and Chris, thank you very much for having me. I'm excited to be here and I want to start with... And part of why I'm excited is that I don't want anyone to miss how much the institute has made diversity, equity and inclusion a focus of the work that is done. One of the things that I recall from the first moment that I was asked about possibly serving in the role of vice president for DEI, one of the things I recall was at the point that I indicated that it was going to be a learning curve for me, because most of my work had been local. It had been in the state of Wisconsin. I was a government employee most of that early part of my career. And then the part that was on the national basis was with the National Client Protection Organization. I needed to learn a lot about what the well-being work involved. Obviously, I saw that the report that the task force did, I initially was the liaison from the National Client Protection Organization.

And the reason I had to start with all of that talk was in the work with the National Client Protection Organization, I got the chance to see what happens when lawyers are not healthy. We were involved in trying to make good to people who trusted lawyers. And a large part of that involved clients who were people of color, people who were immigrants, people who were frankly underserved by the legal community. And as I got the chance to see who the victims were and the people who lost, I also came to understand that a number of the lawyers, who frankly messed up, weren't ill intentioned. Many of them had struggles. So, it was having had a number of years working with the standing committee on client protection, working with Wisconsin's committee, that I got the chance to see how important it is for clients that lawyers be healthy. And obviously starting with having been in law school, I've been a part of the legal community.

So just watching those areas meant a lot to me. And frankly, by virtue of being African-American, I've seen what difference it makes in various places, whether it's having people in law school assume that I got in as part of an affirmative action outreach. Having people in various parts of the legal community make some assumptions over time that there were limited abilities, I guess. I got the chance to see the impact that, excuse me, underrepresented communities have in the profession and how long term micro and macro-aggressions can have impact on well-being. So, those were all of the things that contributed to why I'm so excited about being part of this.

CHRIS:

Great perspective. And Lindsey, as you know, diversity, equity and inclusion is such a, I think, vital issue now at the forefront of our profession and frankly, the country at the moment. And even when you go back to our originating report that served as a catalyst to the movement, it's interesting in retrospect to go back and see that there really wasn't a lot of discussion in that report about diversity, equity and inclusion. And obviously as events in society in the summer of 2020 brought this to the forefront, we really can't now put well-being and law in a silo without considering how diversity. equity and inclusion intersects that. And I'm just kind of curious in your mind, how do they intersect and how do you look at that?

LINDSEY:

Well, there's several pieces. And I think you start with... The question you just asked is a huge part of the answer to the question. There are a number of incredibly well-meaning people who when you point out, "By the way, this didn't get addressed or not a lot of attention got paid to this," are surprised because it didn't occur that the issue of diversity, equity, inclusion played nearly the role that it does. That I don't think a lot of times we are aware. And I frankly need to include myself in part of this discussion.

Very early in the role that I had as DEI vice president, I talked with other members of the board, and after having explained what it was that I saw as the goals and after having talked about some of the paths that I would like to see the institute take, I got asked, "Lindsey, do you see this as mainly an issue for people of color?" And it was a whole matter of, "You do know that you never talked about gender in what you were saying." As time has passed, and as I have gotten more and more personally aware of how big the conversation needs to be, it's also become much more important that this not just be a matter of bringing people to the table, but also a continuing dynamic discussion of how do we make sure that the people we have brought to the table stay there, but also feel valued and included as part of the discussion?

BREE:

Absolutely. Yeah. And I think that it's incumbent upon all of us to pay attention to that. I think about making it where people can stay there and people feel comfortable, valued, welcome in the profession, and that's for everyone. And I also think about it. The issue in regards to particularly well-being, the issue of sustainability in that, how do you make this a profession that everybody can be a part of for a long time because... And I am presented as a white, cisgendered woman, so I have to listen a lot and try to learn, but what I hear and I can certainly understand is the incessant microaggressions that occur in our society and in our profession wears one down. Of course, it would. And it impacts that ability to stay, to work, to make this a sustainable profession for people. Is that something that you see too, Lindsey?

LINDSEY:

That's a very large part of the conversation. One of the things that I think gets missed sometimes in looking at how people can rise in the profession or how people can stay, is what happens. And the example that was brought to my attention by an attorney in Madison, Wisconsin, had to do with how often he walked into the courtroom, and the very first thing that got said sometimes by bailiffs, sometimes by clerks was as he approached the bench to register or sign in, was wait till your lawyer gets here. The automatic assumption, "You've got to be the defendant. You have to have a lawyer." No opportunity for anybody to learn who this person was. And that's a common experience. The reason that it came up was this was a person who was leaving the legal profession, just simply feeling, "I can't take this anymore."

BREE:

Wow.

LINDSEY:

One of the things that happens and depending... My career for the most part was in the juvenile justice system and sometime part of it in criminal justice system, but one of the things that happens there is over time, people learn who you are. If you are in a different part of the system where people don't know who you are, it becomes that much easier for people to make assumptions simply based on having seen you. That, "Oh, you must be the defendant. You must have a lawyer coming to help you out."

The other part that... I know people do and say things meaning to be complimentary, but there's a point that you get tired of hearing how well spoken you are or how well you put together a brief.

BREE:

Oh my Lord.

LINDSEY:

Where people are surprised that you're competent. And if you stop to think about how over time that regularly occurring beats you down, then you understand why sometimes when you start the discussions that say, "Let's work on DEI," you have some lawyers who say, "I'm tired of educating people. Why are we not talking about making sure I'm healthy?"

BREE:

Absolutely. Absolutely. One of the things too, also Lindsey, I was thinking in preparation for this podcast, I'm talking to you today is when I go out and do... Because I have a day job and I do speaking on just lawyer well-being issues. And I've really tried to... Have started in the past year and a half to include some discussion on diversity, equity and inclusion. And the piece that I folded into is around kind of unpacking the eye of DEI, the inclusion piece. And the idea of that there's a tremendous amount of scientific research that for people who are excluded and there's a phrase called thwarted belongingness, that that has documented real negative mental health outcomes. And it's really striking to me to hear that. And I think there's nothing for me, personally, that I think is more painful as the idea of being excluded of being kept out of the circle of where things happen.

LINDSEY:

Yes.

BREE:

And what an incredibly painful place that is. And I just remember in an early conversation, Lindsey, you and I had, and you talked a little bit about just putting it in very real basic terms about being able to feel welcome in a space. Are you made to feel welcome? And that's a real basic phrase that any human can understand and to not have that... I mean, that just... When you talked about that, I just remembered it cracked my heart open because... And was a real just light bulb for me because I felt I got it on a feeling level. It was just really powerful. Anyway, just thinking about the idea around inclusion, exclusion, and how painful that can be and the damage it can cause over time.

LINDSEY:

So one of my favorite slides whenever I get the chance to do a presentation is the inclusion slide that says equity is being invited to a party. Inclusion is being asked to dance. That one of the things that's important is not only to be present because you can be present in a whole bunch of places where you're not particularly welcome, frankly, or where people don't necessarily respect what you've got to say. Being marginalized is, I think, the term that for a long time was used to describe what happens. That is that if the discussions at the meeting rarely include any opportunity for what you have to say or what you may think or how certain policies may impact, not just you, but others who have some of the same views than you over time... Well, first off, you start looking, why am I here? Because there's a point that the good salary or, I don't know, the window in your office doesn't carry nearly the weight as, "Oh good Lord. I don't want to go to work today."

And so, that's an important piece. Let me go back to something though, Bree. And I want to be sure we talk about one other issue that was part of the inclusion part. And that's the piece that says we have to recognize that all of the issues, and this is part of what I was starting on when I mentioned having had the gender issue brought to my attention. When we're talking about inclusion, there are some parts that we really do see a lot more now than we always did. And for instance, the LGBTQ+ community is one that we at least recognize a bit more. Disabilities are one of the areas that we have to be careful on because part of what... Disabilities, sometimes, they're not just physical. That in the Wisconsin task force, I was reminded that some mental health issues, people who have certain diagnoses who are able to function quite well as lawyers and to be really good lawyers, but sometimes there are some assumptions that get made if in fact anyone knows that I'm being treated for the following.

So, I do want to be sure that when we are having this conversation, and that's why the marginalized part of this discussion is important to me, we also recognize that we as lawyers, and frankly, we as people who are trying to be sensitive to the issue, have to be open to the fact that we still don't see everybody at times and don't see the impact of some decisions we make... The open bar, for instance, at state bar conferences is an example that I think we all think of.

We sometimes forget the number of golf outings that accompany our events and the bonding time. Not everybody can go to the golf outing or not everybody has interest in it. Sometimes the lack of wanting to drink isn't just a matter of having concerns about substance abuse. Sometimes it has to do with religious reasons. Sometimes it's just health related. So, there are a lot of things that... And the reason that I say the whole well-being issue and DEI issue has to be dynamic, has to be continuous.

CHRIS:

Well, Lindsey, I think that's a good transition to kind of this. How do we influence leaders and all of our brethren, I guess, in the profession that if you care about well-being, you have to care about diversity, equity and inclusion? And it is about this dynamic continuousness that kind of goes hand in hand. I'd love to hear your perspective on why these are inextricably linked if we're really searching for progress.

LINDSEY:

Well, first of all, we have to bear in mind that lawyers have clients. We have people that we serve and many of those are people from underrepresented or diverse communities. And it's important to know the perspectives, to know the lives, to know the interest, to know the... I don't know, the well-being and what is in the best interest of the people we serve.

Secondly, there's a huge amount of information and perspective that comes. That sometimes there are ways of approaching problems, ways of approaching issues, ways of looking at how do we grow as a profession, how do we improve as a profession that can be better off if we hear different voices. And I think one of the things that at times we forget is that as much as we and the profession may have succeeded because we have a certain outlook and a certain determination, we might have done better if we had included others and if we had looked to what others had to say. The notion that we are a healthy profession, but we don't take into account the well-being of some of our members is one that pretty much contributes to things like the aging of the profession.

CHRIS:

Let's do this. Let's take a quick break here from one of our sponsors and we're joined by Lindsey Draper out of Wisconsin. And let's take a quick break and we'll be right back.

—

Advertisement:

Meet VERA, your firm's Virtual Ethics Risk Assessment guide developed by ALPS. VERA's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots from client intake to calendaring, to cybersecurity and more.

VERA: I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you a summary of recommendations to provide course corrections if needed and to keep your firm on the right path.

Generous and discreet, VERA is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS to help firms like yours be their best. Visit vera@alpsinsurance.com/vera.

—

BREE:

Welcome back everybody to our podcast. And today we have Lindsey Draper of Wisconsin who is, among many other things, the vice president of diversity, equity and inclusion on our board of directors for the institute. And so, we've been having some really meaningful conversation here in the first half, and I want to... For me, it's been really sort of an interior reflection type of comments and discussion. And I want to move a little bit externally. And so, Lindsey, have you seen out in a legal profession, diversity initiatives that you think are making an impact and any that, quite frankly, aren't?

LINDSEY:

Okay. So, it's possible to give you a short answer, and that would be yes, but what I want to talk about... And I've mentioned earlier that a lot of what has happened since I've been a part of, first, the task force, and then the institute has been the learning curve for me. And so, one of the pieces that I want to talk about comes from having worked with the Wisconsin task force. And that is when we started looking at who are the people who contribute to the profession and what roles they play. The reason I wanted to start with that is because wonderful work has been being done at law schools. And considering how very much law schools not only have to work with people who are under stress anyway, trying to get into the profession, worried about the fitness question that's going to get examined when they try and get admitted, worried about the interviews for placement.

That if you bring to those communities also issues where they're confronted with the questions, do you really belong here? Do you fit in? That I have been just really incredibly impressed with some of the work that law schools have done to recognize that not only do we have students under stress that just as lawyers under stress sometimes resort to some ways that involve unhealthy habits. Law students do as well. And those law students have a great reluctance to ask for help. We're supposed to be the type A achiever. And to admit the need for help is to admit a weakness that most don't want to admit.

So what I've seen in schools, and I got the chance to see both what, for instance, the University of Wisconsin did and what Marquette did. Marquette, actually, had a law student who had some substance abuse problems who made not only public his fight, but also the things that he did. And that same story can be replicated at a number of law schools. Some of the members of our committee are actually from law schools. So, I want to start with, I have been extremely impressed with the work that a number of law schools have, including recognizing that it would be important to bring people from those governmental entities that will decide if you get admitted to the bar to say, "You need to address what will keep you healthy. We will work with you. We want you to be a healthy lawyer." As opposed to, "We're looking for reasons to not let you in."

That's such a critical message for law schools to get across early is, do not be afraid to seek help. Get it before you hurt yourself, your client, and the profession. So that would be one of the things that I think is important on a governmental area. We at the institute have the incredible benefit of having service from representative from Massachusetts. Looking at the work that they have. Looking at people who have developed not only an interest and a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and well-being, but also embedded in their work. People who have this focus.

So, I look to the state of Massachusetts because, frankly, a lot of what I personally have been able to learn and do came from patterning after a lot of what they did. So, there are a number of places. There are a number of states that were leaders. You can't overlook the work that Virginia did, but in looking at DEI, those would be two things. One is a huge amount of respect for law schools. Secondly, looking at states like Massachusetts.

CHRIS:

Lindsey, is that because of the advancements made in welcoming conversation around challenges that those individuals in law school or in states ultimately feel? I mean, is it a cultural component because, obviously, there's admission related issues as well and other areas? So, it kind of feels to me that... Again, going back to this feeling welcomed in the space of becoming a lawyer, being licensed as a lawyer, being welcomed into the courtroom, how you're perceived. It seems to go back to that notion of how we start the process is critically important to a cultural evolution that if it continues can only benefit both the profession and the way that the profession is seen.

LINDSEY:

So, I think my answer to that would be, again, sort of twofold. And just sort of bear in mind that there is... And I touched on it a second ago. There is no single African-American lawyer, African-American female lawyer, gay African-American female lawyer. I mean, that there are so many different parts of who people are. And one of the things that happens over the course of life is you develop sensitivities to things. And there are frankly people who look for aggression, but there are also people who recognize when it's happening.

Well, if you just start with that, and then you realize that you've got a culture in the legal profession, and you've got some decisions that people have to make. And where I'm going with this is if, for instance, you have a law firm that welcomes a member of an underrepresented group into the firm and decides we want you here, and here's your case. And that person ends up getting treatment for substance abuse, for instance. Does the firm run the risk in not letting the client know? Have you shared some information you weren't supposed to share? If you don't, have you not done the right thing by your client?

And then if the attorney hears or feels that he or she is being undercut, I think the normal first response is going to be because I'm African-American or because... And you think about how many different questions arise under the circumstances. That's why the commitment to the whole "D", the whole "E", and the whole "I" is critical. Because there are a lot of questions that are going to arise and a lot of decisions that are going to have to be made all the way along. You can't be human without having some things happen in your life. You're not going to be perfect your whole life. And you just need to be sure that when we take a look at the decisions that get made, they're made in a comfortable environment.

CHRIS:

Lindsey, as vice president of diversity, equity and inclusion for the institute, talk a little bit about... Again, it's been a journey thus far, right, in terms of including more perspectives. And I'd love for you to expand on some of the areas that you see the group kind of laying out part of its strategic plan to ensure that there again is a connectedness between these two issues that we know is real and only if we work on them in conjunction, will we see even stronger progress.

LINDSEY:

Well, you actually raised a significant part there when talking about the strategic plan because among the things that happens, the more people you have on a committee, the more different ideas you have, the more different areas of focus that you're going to have. But one of the things that's been really critical... And I really do have to say how proud I am to be part of the institute, and the institute has made a conscious effort to say, "We may have messed up in not looking at some things from the beginning," but we want to do that. The committee has made a big point of saying, "We can help the other parts of the institute if we know what they're doing before everybody's way down the road, if we can be part of helping frame the questions get asked." And an example of what I am discussing, one of the things the committee has said is, I've looked at the panels presenting at various entities or various programs, I don't see a whole lot of underrepresented people on these panels.

Part of what the committee has is the ability to help the institute because the institute has said, "Give us some names. Help identify people who are very capable, who are very knowledgeable, but who haven't had the opportunity to show that." That's why, for instance, where you've had members who've been active in presenting conferences, they know some speakers that maybe others don't know. They know some people who've done research that maybe others haven't seen. So, not only making sure that there are diverse voices in the decisions of the institute and in the work of the institute, but also making sure that we are looking for other capable, accomplished people who can bring not just a different perspective, but also an incredible expertise to the work that we're all doing.

CHRIS:

Bree, you might be on mute.

BREE:

Oh.

CHRIS:

There you go.

BREE:

So I think we may have just found our first time when we have to edit. [inaudible 00:39:37].

CHRIS:

[inaudible 00:39:39]. Let's just keep going. Let's keep going, Bree. We're good.

BREE:

Sorry. My voice has given out. [inaudible 00:39:47] just take a moment here. I was thinking that we would move towards sort of wrapping up just because of the time.

CHRIS:

Lindsey, I'd love for our final question to be just, I guess, a reflection point, right, of you've seen a lot of activity in this arena, right. We're clearly not where we need to be. Although I think in some respects we are more readily talking about some of the challenges in a much more robust way than ever before, but I'd love for you to just give your perspective on your outlook for the future. Are you optimistic? Is the tenor of the discussion moving in ways that has you excited, cautiously optimistic, fearful, right? So, I would just love for you to kind of give us as we kind of conclude this podcast, your perspective, as we think about well-being, as we think about challenges of diversity, equity and inclusion, as we see those kind of coming together, what do you think? What's your sense of where we currently stand and where we're going?

LINDSEY:

We have to start with, I'm incredibly optimistic. There's a part of me that's incredibly grateful that we're having this conversation, that there was a time when we were not. That as more and more people become aware that well-being, which everybody seems to be comfortable with, that's an important piece, affects different people differently, and it's important that well-being go across the board, that all lawyers be able to address well-being and the way that they address it isn't the same. We're talking about that, but more than just talking about it, the fact that there is an effort being made to identify, not just that there's a problem, but to offer steps that people can take to try and address the problem. I carefully avoided the word "solutions" because that's hard to say. Our profession is constantly evolving. There are things from left field, the pandemic, for example, that no one would anticipate that have impact on well-being of lots of people, affect some communities more than others and in different ways.

So, I feel really good that we are having the discussion. I am somewhat worried that DEI is a term that sometimes people say, "Okay. We have to do that. Everybody's got to have that discussion. Everybody's got to have that committee." I worry a bit that just like the assumptions got made about affirmative action a half century ago that DEI may become the... Oh, yes. We have to have that conversation. But that's why I've been really thrilled to be part of the institute where, "No, this is not item seven on the agenda," and we'll talk about it after we get all the business of the day taken care of. That it's been something that from the very beginning, the institute has said, this is a priority. And the fact that there's an effort made to keep it there. So, be cautiously optimistic, but also really pleased that we're having the conversation and that we've been able to identify so many, very talented, valuable, committed people who are working on the area.

CHRIS:

Yeah. And I think that's a great way to end, I think, this podcast is again, how influential you, your committee has been at looking to shape the perspectives that are coming in to ultimately building the movement and setting the tone for the culture shift that I think that we are all yearning for, which is to make well-being a centerpiece of professional success in the profession. From my own perspective, we all have to be more sensitive to some of the challenges. And as we allocate resource bandwidth as an institute, just being mindful that... Again, going back to... If you met one lawyer, you've met one lawyer and we're all on our own individual journeys as human beings. And some of those challenges are markedly, markedly different for some relative to others.

Lindsey, a heartfelt thank you for, again, your leadership, your work, your vision, your vulnerability, in terms of being able to say, "I don't know at all, but I'm certainly going to lean in with my perspectives and I'm going to learn along the way," because I know that you're in a learning journey, I'm in a learning journey, Bree's in a learning journey, right, of-

BREE:

Absolutely.

CHRIS:

... betterment, right. Of again, having a passion for making a better profession, and one that's more responsive to not just the needs of the lawyers that compose it, but ultimately the people that we serve who depend on us to be solution makers for the betterment of society. So, Lindsey-

BREE:

And I just wanted to throw in here too. I really appreciate the conversations that we have. I've had multiple conversations with Lindsey and that this is an ongoing conversation, an ongoing discussion. And one that we continue to pick back up again and again and again throughout our work. And that's been a delightful aspect, Lindsey, working with you is that we can have these conversations and really honest ones. And so, thank you. Thank you for that.

CHRIS:

For sure.

BREE:

I thank you and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to be a part of the institute and its work, but also for the incredibly talented people with whom I've had the opportunity to serve.

CHRIS:

Yeah. And we will be back with more perspectives around this particular issue in our next couple of episodes. And again, for those of you who are new to the podcast, just some really insightful conversations with all different types of leaders of our movement in our first 20 episodes. I would encourage you to go back and look at the synopsis on our website.

One of the things I'll also conclude with is, I think we will include our diversity, equity and inclusion policy that was adopted by our board of directors. Actually, our first action as a governing board. We'll post that in conjunction with this podcast as well. So, signing off. Be well out there, friends, and we will be back in a couple weeks. Thanks.

 

Path to Well-Being in Law - Episode 20: Terry Maroney

Chris Newbold:

Hello, Well-Being friends. Welcome to the Path to Well-Being in Law podcast, an initiative of the Institute for Well-Being in Law. I'm your co-host, Chris Newbold, executive vice-president of ALPS Malpractice Insurance. As you know, our goal here on the podcast is to introduce you to though† leaders doing meaningful work in the well-being space within the legal profession and in the process, build and nurture a national network of well-being advocates intent on creating a culture shift within the profession. I'm very excited to be welcomed by my co-host, Bree Buchanan. Bree, how are you today?

Bree Buchanan:

I'm doing great, Chris. It's great to be back with you. We've taken a little break.

Chris Newbold:

It is. We are heading into the holidays here. Bree, I think you and I have been on almost a three-month hiatus from the podcast, but that does not mean that we have not been busy and active on the well-being front. I thought we'd take a couple minutes here in the beginning, just to talk about some of the things, Bree, that are happening at the national level, particularly with respect to the Institute for Well-Being and Law.

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely, Chris. Yeah, the absence of us from the podcast actually indicates that we've been very busy in the kitchen cooking up and creating this new national think tank. So over the past couple of months, we have done amazing things. We've constituted and oriented a 21-member advisory board of some of the best minds around the country and the well-being movement. We've also opened up applications for our committee structure and God, we had so much interest. It was amazing that there were actually people that we had to turn away, and we now have over 110 people on our committees. So we have really filled out the people that are working on this movement and it's exciting to have so many new folks on board and a little scary, too.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah. I think it's fair to say that, again, as the topic of well-being continues to take on, it's been in the national forefront for quite a while, but I think one of the things as leaders that we've been looking to do is to welcome more leaders and ambassadors into the movement. Boy, I know it was heartwarming for me to see the level of individuals out there around the country and oftentimes, worldwide, who are saying, "I want to be a part of this. I want to engage in it." When you put out a call for volunteers to join the movement, the fact that we had over 100 responses certainly, to me, indicated that, again, there are folks that really want to work on this issue and we are certainly, encouraging both them to do that and for us to continue to join the movement and there's lots of different ways to be able to do that.

Bree Buchanan:

Yeah. Absolutely. Another thing that's an indicator of what's going on our first annual conference, which is going to be virtual, is coming-

Chris Newbold:

Yeah. Big deal, huh? Big deal.

Bree Buchanan:

It is January 19th through the 21st, three days, three tracks, pricing, so people can pick a day or pick the whole thing. Again, just like with the committees, we put out the RFP and we got so many people wanting to be a presenter at the conference. I know it was incredibly difficult to choose, and so I think that bodes well also just for the quality of what we're going to end up having. So if people are listening to this, please go check out our website at lawyerwellbeing.net and register because it's coming up. By the time you're hearing this, it's around the corner.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah. Let's say that one more time, so lawyerwellbeing.net. I think that is really the welcoming mat to the movement. Again, there's still opportunities in there to fill out and join the movement to learn more about news and resources going on around the country. The conference that's coming up in January, many of the folks and listeners of this podcast are also very actively involved in Well-Being Week in Law, which was another great success back in May. So as we, Bree and I very much take pride in the fact that we're a little bit facilitating and being dot connectors of the movement. I think that is the glue that still keeps this movement together.

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Chris Newbold:

So, well, let's get into the podcast today. Today, I want to circle back to the influence of research and scholarship in the real realm of well-being. We're really excited to welcome Professor Terry Maroney from Vanderbilt University, who specifically has explored, I'm super excited to be able to hear about the intersection of law, emotion and the judiciary, which I don't think we've had a conversation about those particular intersections. Bree, would you be so kind to introduce Professor Maroney to the listeners?

Bree Buchanan:

Absolutely. I've worked with Terry on a variety projects in the past, so I have the honor of also a part of her introduction is saying that she's a friend and a colleague. So the official introduction is that Terry Maroney is a professor of law and a professor of medicine, health, and society, and the Robert S. and Teresa L. Reder Chair of Law at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. She's been a fellow at the Center for the Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, and she researches the interaction of emotion and law with a focus on the role of emotion and judicial experience and behavior, which I just find fascinating. As a leader in state and federal judicial education on these topics, she graduated from Oberlin College and NYU School of Law, summa cum laude; clerked for Honorable Amalya Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and was a litigator at the and are Urban Justice Center and at Global Firm, WilmerHale. So Terry, welcome. So glad you're here with us today.

Terry Maroney:

Thank you. It's really wonderful to be here.

Bree Buchanan:

So just before we get started, the idea of judges and their emotions and I think who is listening to this and those phrases who's been in a courtroom, probably has a story to share about the emotional regulation or that lack thereof in the judiciary. But it's not something you hear discussed, and so I'm delighted that we're going to really talk about this today, but Terry, I'm going to start you off with a question that we start all of our guests off, just to give us its view and to our guests and their background. So are there, were there experiences in your life that's really a driver of the passion you have for this work in general, and particularly, in the Well-Being and Law Movement?

Terry Maroney:

Absolutely. Before I became a lawyer, I was a social services professional, and also worked in community activism in New York City in the early '90s, almost all around the HIV-Aids crisis at that time. Clearly, my passion for people and their experiences and what can make their lives better didn't originate during that era of my life, but it certainly solidified during that era of my life. When I faced a bit of crossroads professionally, when I knew I'd reached a level where I wanted to go to grad school and pursue some different kind of work I really was choosing between, say, a public health career or a social work psychology career or law.

Terry Maroney:

Really, I could have gone in any those ways, so what I have done is I chose law, but I've circled my way back to all of those things. So I've managed to do them all at once in some way. So I was always very, very interested in psychology and counseling and what makes people tick, how I can, again, be an agent for positive change in people's lives, and in communities then and after a very satisfying career as a litigator, and then also, as a law professor have found a way, I think, to weave all those interests together.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah. I enjoyed reading your career arc, which was law student to law clerk, law clerk to litigator, litigator supplemented with teaching and then to academia. I'm just curious what your reflections on that and the impact that you're having, and from there, researching the judiciary, how did you get into that particular area?

Terry Maroney:

Yeah, those are all good questions. Again, the arc of one's life always looks quite tidy and in the rear view mirror it never looks like that in the living of it. But I've described to you one crossroads I took, which result to me going into law at all. A second crossroads was once I was a number of years into my litigation career, I really needed to decide was that what I wanted to stay in for the foreseeable future, or did I want to move into academia? Pardon me, and I chose to go into academia for a number of reasons. One is that I found myself always being intrigued by the big issues and litigation provided me many wonderful opportunities to engage with big issues. I was very lucky in the kind of practice I had, but I found that that's where I was happiest. I thought, "Well, if I go into academia, I can do that all the time." I also love teaching and wanted to be able to build that into my day-to-day life, so that's the choice I made.

Terry Maroney:

I have to say, just like my first choice was actually a difficult one, because there are aspects of legal practice that I quite miss, and I miss, again, the human element of it, the human stories. So that gets to how I got to researching the judiciary. So there's a long story and there's a short story. I shall endeavor to tell you the short story. When I was still in practice, I had the privilege of working on an insanely interesting case involving a white-collar criminal defendant, who, as we had discovered had suffered a very serious form of brain injury from a medical incident. This brain injury from this medical incident had seriously impaired some of the emotional processing aspects of her brain function. So she was cognitively and intellectually intact, but emotionally, extremely disabled in a way that actually directly contributed to the behavior for which she been [inaudible 00:11:35] a very small part of a very, very large Ponzi scheme, exactly the kind of scheme that somebody [inaudible 00:11:45]

Terry Maroney:

So working on that case, I became absolutely fascinated by the interaction at the psychological and at the neurological level between emotion and reason. I became very puzzled about why law, unlike the fields I had been in before, for example, psychology and social work, why law had this very entrenched, very strange idea that emotions and rationality are separable and opposing forces and that law existed for the purpose of privileging one at the expense of the other. I thought that was weird. I thought, to use a technical term, it didn't match up with anything I knew about human behavior and human life and what creates a good and flourishing human life. The more I read about the science, I realized that I wasn't alone in that, and if anything was alone, it was law that held onto this very irrational idea about the role of emotion.

Terry Maroney:

So when I went into academia, that was the first thing I started writing about and it's like a minor hits of vein. I hit vein and I've literally just never left it, and as I've gotten deeper and deeper into it, just because it's such an incredibly rich vein to say, "What are all the implications for the legal system, for legal theory, for legal practice of us believing some version of a big lie about the way humans function? What are all the implications of that?" That's the work of many lifetimes for many people, I'm just doing my bit. As I continued on that vein, the bit that I found that has been the most personally satisfying has been judges that I realized that if there's a big lie going around about emotion and reason being separable and emotion being the enemy of reason, nowhere is that stronger than with judges and judging. They are what historically have been thought of as the paragons of should be emotionless, or what I've called 'the cultural script of judicial dispassion.'

Terry Maroney:

That's a very definition of a good judge is a judge who has eradicated all emotions in the course of his or her work, and that just can't be right. So there you go. That was the medium-size story, but again, I've hit that sub-vein probably about 10 years ago and, again, just never left it. It has led me into an incredibly satisfying research agenda, but even more importantly, into a very satisfying work with individual judges and with the judiciary, which has just really deepened my regard and affection for the profession and my commitment to trying to make them live happier, healthier lives. So, Bree, you'll appreciate this, but shortly after the presentation that you and I were both a part of at a circuit court conference recently, a judge came up to me and said, "You know what? I'm glad we're talking about this, because healthy judges make for healthy courts and healthy courts make for a healthy, fair society." I said, "That's it, in a nutshell. That's my life. There you go."

Chris Newbold:

There you go.

Terry Maroney:

Right? Really, I felt seen and heard. I said, "Exactly."

Bree Buchanan:

Oh, wow.

Terry Maroney:

Yeah.

Bree Buchanan:

Yeah, and it is really meaningful. Just, again, going back to my days as a litigator, there were so many times when I was in the courtroom where I saw the exact opposite going on of what you would expect or would want. You just really have to worry about the impact that it has on people, the litigants, who were there and saying, "This is what the civil justice or the criminal justice system is about." But I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Let's continue laying things out here, Terry. Talk to us some more about the research you've conducted of the judiciary. What has been your [crosstalk 00:15:58]

Terry Maroney:

Absolutely. [crosstalk 00:15:59] Yeah. So for a long time, I was just trying to set the theoretical foundation and just trying to bring into legal theory the idea that is so prominent in virtually every other discipline these days, which is that you can't understand human behavior without understanding emotion, and the end goal is not emotional eradication. That's actually not a sensible or possible or productive target to aim for. So this big lie or the cultural script of dispassion is not something that, of course we can't ever get there, but the trying to get there will do good things for us. The trying to get there actually does bad things for us. It does bad things for judges. It does bad things for the court. It does bad things for society because what I bring in my research and research of primarily from affective science and from the sociology of emotion shows is that the effort it takes for judges to try to divest themselves of a normal range of human emotion is itself, counterproductive.

Terry Maroney:

So I could have a much longer conversation with you about that, but the core message is the most important thing that judges can do is to notice, name, and understand their work-related emotions and not assume that they're a bad thing. Assume that they're a relevant and interesting thing that should be interrogated so you can decide what to do with them. Some you're going to want to try to set aside some, you're going to follow, some you're going to try to morph in some way, again, much longer conversations, but that's the core message. So what I have done in addition to just bringing in research, again, primarily from affective psychology and sociology and showing how it sheds light on judges and judging about how we should encourage judges to notice, name, and understand their emotions.

Terry Maroney:

In the more recent years, I've moved on from that theoretical foundation and started doing empirical research of my own, and that has two, well, I guess at this point, I should say three main prongs. So the largest prong is that for a number of years now, I have been conducting a national purposive sample qualitative interview study with federal judges, both districts, judges, and judges in the courts of appeal, where I go and I talk to a diversity of judges from all over the country with different geographies, different types of dockets, different number of years on the bench, a diversity in terms of gender, race, political party of the appointed president, et cetera, and just invite them to educate me about their work-related emotions; what they are, why they think they have them, what impact they think they have, but in a very biologic way, trying to get past the party line or generalities and get very, very specific like, "Let's talk through an instance in which you are unhappy with how you handled a particular situation, for example."

Terry Maroney:

So these are very deep, and I dare say, intimate conversations and I feel extremely privileged to have had so many of them. So that is prong number one, which is a serious qualitative deep dive, just into the mental maps that judges have of the kinds of emotional experiences they have at work, what they think they're about, how they try to manage them and why, and what impact they have on them and their families. So that's prong one. Prong two is more squarely about wellness, and I see these things as quite intertwined. In fact, I came to the wellness game a little late. I was very much about emotion and emotion regulation in judges. I found that I kept going to judicial conferences and being put in the wellness programming section of the conference. I'd be like, "No, no, no, I don't do wellness work. I do high-level theoretical work about the interplay of cognition emotion."

Terry Maroney:

Then after a few years of that, I was like, "Oh no, wait. I am doing all this work," and that's a good thing. So I'll just give you one snippet about why I think this is such an important connection is I've focused for a long time on the ways in which judges try to regulate their emotions at work, which means why are they motivated to do so? How are they trying to do it? Are they using regulation strategies that have been shown to be productive to decision making or that cause undue cognitive load or are counterproductive, et cetera. It turns out that one of the biggest predictors of burnout, for example, in workers, and I think of judges as a species of worker, is basically how well or how poorly they do with their emotion regulation. So I'm drawing on work on the concept of emotional labor, for example. I started to see that all these things are intertwined.

Terry Maroney:

So if judges can notice, name, and understand their work related emotions and treat them with a curiosity and a value-neutral perspective that enables to figure out again, what are they about? Are they appropriate? What should I do with them? Why? If they can do that, not only is there judging better because it's a factor that if unacknowledged could have impact that you're not conscious of, right? It gives judges more tools with which to choose what they do and do not incorporate into their behavior and decision making. It allows emotion to enrich that decision making in some instances and it allows them to space and time to set them aside in others, if they can do that, in my view, then they're at far lesser risk of some of the well-being impacts that we worry about such as burnout, compassion fatigue, right? People who are more granular with their emotions are better at emotion regulation. People who are more granular with their emotions have better health outcomes. These things are interconnected. They drink less when they're upset. So again, I've stopped resisting the wellness pull.

Bree Buchanan:

Good. Good.

Terry Maroney:

Okay. I've forgotten, I lost track now. I'm in prong number two or three? It doesn't really matter. Here's the wellness prong. So what I've started doing most recently is literally to study the judicial wellness movement. I have had a small army of really wonderful research assistants and some great colleagues in the qualitative research core at Vanderbilt. We have been, basically, trying to figure out what is this quote/unquote movement? Why now? Why are we focusing on not just lawyer wellness, but specifically now judicial wellness? What do we think the problem is? Why do we think that and what are we trying to do about it and why? So we've literally just been scrubbing the internet for any and all evidence of pamphlets, conferences, articles, YouTube videos, judicial education seminars about judicial wellness and also interviewing judicial wellness leaders and are trying to figure out what is this movement? What's it trying to do and why? And mapping that data onto wellness research to see if there are obvious gaps or areas of growth. So that's been a lot of fun.

Bree Buchanan:

Wow. That's fascinating. Awesome. Listen, I wanted to ask you, Terry, just a little bit digging down in the specific area around compassion fatigue, which is also known as secondary PTSD [crosstalk 00:24:43].

Terry Maroney:

Mm-hmm (affirmative), or secondary trauma. Yeah.

Bree Buchanan:

Yeah, in my work with a judiciary in education, et cetera, that seems to be a really big topic. Can you unpack that a little bit about a little bit what it is and what you are seeing within the judiciary these days?

Terry Maroney:

Yeah. Absolutely. I don't want to make any grand claims about where the judiciary, in general, is with compassion fatigue, but I definitely believe it to be a problem for many, and a severe problem for some. So the way I think about it is very similar to what you just said, Bree. It's a secondary form of trauma, it like a contact trauma and those sorts of things that I hear judges talk to me about that are relevant to this, I think are, for example, a lot of them talk about being exposed to really traumatic evidence. Think about the role of a judge. Let's think for a moment about trial judges in cases at might involve traumatic evidence, which could be in a civil case, like with a gruesome injury, or it could be in a criminal case. For example, a lot of judges are exposed to direct evidence of extreme child sexual abuse and child pornography.

Terry Maroney:

So the role of a trial judge is to look at all that stuff and figure out what can and can't go to the jury, and part of that determination is how traumatic is this going to be for the jury? Is it going to be so, so overwhelming that they can't get whatever the intended informational value is out of it? Well, in order to make that determination, the judge has to look at it herself. Then she has to guess, based on her own level of shock and trauma, what the average juror's level of shock and trauma is going to be. That's just one example, but it's a job that literally requires you to become traumatized so that you can do your job. That's a really hard thing to put on normal human beings. So that's just one example, but a lot of judges say the hardest thing about what they do, and this goes for trial and appellate judges is just being exposed to how broken the world is.

Terry Maroney:

They often say things like "I see people at their worst. I never hear a good story. Federal judges love doing naturalization ceremonies, because it's such a happy day. State court judges love to do adoption, consent adoption because they finally get to do something good." It can be a real grind. I hear judges say, "I basically process evictions all day and I can't do anything about it." So it's that combination of requiring the judge to have emotionally difficult experiences. It's being exposed to a very disproportionately negative account of human reality because most reasons why people are in court are not good reasons. Somebody's usually very unhappy, and then the sense frustration that can be the nail in that coffin I think, and that, "I can't really do anything about it. I can't solve the problem of child pornography. I can just handle this one case. I can't really solve the housing crisis. All I do is inflict pain by processing evictions and I have no choice."

Terry Maroney:

So I think that's the danger zone for judges is that if they're getting those negative inputs without any opportunities to feel elevated or to feel a sense of agency, I think that's when you get into compassion fatigue and that can just make people shut down. One judge who was interviewed by some colleagues of mine in Australia at one point said, "You have a choice of remaining open to it all, which you can't do because then your emotions are essentially too raw at all times, or just growing a skin on you thick as a rhino," and this judge's words, in which case you can't be a good judge because he lost the feeling for humanity. So there's this feeling of a rock and hard place, and I'm interested in the third way, what's not the rock and what's not the hard place? How can you notice them even understand the things that are hard and process them and think about them and work through them in a way that allows you to be healthy and to do your job well, but also take care of yourself.

Chris Newbold:

All right. Let's take a quick break right here. Terry, I think you've done a wonderful job setting the table about all the different areas that you've been involved with. I'd love to continue to drill down in the second half about where do we go and what you've found and what you advise, as we think about the confidence in the legal system is so important in terms of the wellness of our judges is to the public's confidence and its effectiveness. I just love the work that you're doing. I got to imagine that there's not a lot of people doing what you do, which is, I think another really interesting part of-

Terry Maroney:

That is true. [crosstalk 00:30:15]

Chris Newbold:

... who you are and [crosstalk 00:30:15].

Terry Maroney:

I wish there were more. Maybe they'll hear this podcast.

Chris Newbold:

That's right. That's right. So let's take a quick break.

—

Advertisement:

Meet VERA, your firm's Virtual Ethics Risk Assessment Guide developed by ALPS, VERA's purpose is to help you uncover risk management blind spots from client intake to calendaring, to cybersecurity, and more.

Vera:

"I require only your honest input to my short series of questions. I will offer you a summary of recommendations to provide course corrections if needed, and to keep your firm on the right path."

Generous and discreet, VERA is a free and anonymous risk management guide from ALPS to help firms like yours be their best. Visit VERA at alpsinsurance.com/vera.

—

Chris Newbold:

All right. Welcome back. We are joined by Professor Terry Maroney from Vanderbilt University, and we are exploring law and emotion and the judiciary. Terry, I want to pick up a little bit about just how you see your own personal role. Obviously, you've done a lot of work as you've done, you're working to understand the forces that are affecting judicial effectiveness, and ultimately, confidence in the system. Do you see yourself as an insider or outsider to the wellness movement as you've observed? Do you see yourself as an advocate after you've conducted the research? Are you building the trail map to a better judicial outcome and a better way of going about the work from the bench? I just love the fact of what got you involved in this movement, that's to help people. I certainly can see that the way that you're going about it is a very interesting one, in which there can't be many others in your space who are actually doing what you're doing.

Terry Maroney:

Yes, that's true. Again, I wasn't joking when I said I hope some people join me after hearing this podcast, because we need more people in this strange, little world that I inhabit. But so to answer your question, though, Chris, can I just choose all of the above? There's not a thing you said that I don't identify with in some way. I am an insider to both the lawyer/judge Well-Being Movement, and I'm an insider, to some degree, within the judiciary because I think I've earned their trust and they've earned my respect. I work directly with courts and with judges on trying to strengthen capacity for judges to be able to notice, name, and understand their emotions and service of being better judges and more satisfied people.

Terry Maroney:

Sometimes, I'm a bit like an embedded anthropologist, but I think one benefit of being a scholar in addition to all those of other things, is I'm very, very committed to correct paths, which sounds perhaps a little opaque, so let me say what I mean. I do not want to be in a position of advocating well-being practices, for example, that are not productive in the way judges need them to be productive, or I'm not interested in forcing a particular account of how judges' emotions ought to infuse their work and their work product. I think it's very important to actually have that academic distance to follow the evidence and to follow the stories and try to see what's true.

Terry Maroney:

I think that's something that scholars can really bring to this field is saying, "Let's not assume, for example," I'll pick a random example," that conventional anger management sessions "work," or that they're going to work for judges with anger regulation problems in the way that will be most productive for them, and best for the courts, and best for public trust in the judiciary. Do we know that?" I don't think we know that, so I would like to know that. I'd like to know what works, and in order to know what works you have to know what you're aiming for, right? What do we see as the new model of the good judge if it's not the person who's divested of all emotion, but a person who is conscious of his or her emotions then uses them in certain ways and not in others?

Terry Maroney:

That's a more complicated view, and it's not completely obvious what it is. So I'm giving a long answer to a short-ish question, which is, "Who am I in these spaces?" I think I'm, I'm a fellow traveler. I think I'm an advocate for things that increase the public's face in the courts, because the courts deserve it. I'm not interested in artificial inflation of their brand, but I am absolutely in favor of helping the public, see what it is that they do and what they do well and help them do it better. But I'm also just an academic who wants to make sure that we're collectively not just following well worn paths, assuming that certain things are or are not true, certain things will or will not "help" in a certain way, just to bring that of discipline and some distance to it. So yes, all of the above.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah. But based upon your research, though, it certainly feels like you would be at the potential epicenter of also being helpful in writing the prescription. Is that fair to say?

Terry Maroney:

I hope that's true. Again, this is where it's an all of the above answer. I do you work specifically with courts to help them implement real changes and real things. I talk to real judges in groups about how, for example, to help their appellate court achieve a higher level of productive collegiality, which requires a lot of emotion regulation in a group, and avoiding toxic behavior patterns, et cetera. So not all academics make that journey into helping to write and implement the solution, but I do. Again, as long as I always can feel comfortable that I haven't talked myself into something without adequate basis or that I'm not pushing an agenda without real things behind it, as long as I'm not crossing that line, I think that's really, the best and highest use of that scholarly set of skills, the discipline and the distance. What are we all here on earth to do really, if not to try to help our fellow human beings do a better job for each other. Right?

Chris Newbold:

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Terry Maroney:

So that is my somewhat grandiose hope for this research is that I have this little sticky note on my computer monitor that I scratched out a little while ago that said, "Strengthening democracy, one judge at a time." It's a little silly, but in some ways that that's how I like to think of myself.

Bree Buchanan:

That's wonderful. So when you're talking to judges around the country, and it sounds like you do talk to them about what to do for themselves individually to support their staff, maybe the lawyers that come in their courts, what do you talk to them about and how are those messages received?

Terry Maroney:

So I definitely want to make clear that I'm not a therapist. I'm not a judge whisperer, and that's not what I'm trying to do here, but I am somebody who sits at the center of a Venn diagram, that again, not that many people have, which is I really, really understand legal culture and I really, really understand courts and judging to some degree, and I understand affective science and sociology of emotion. So it's translational, I guess, what I do. What I try to do when I'm working specifically with judges or with groups of judges, which is, of course, more are common, is try to take lessons, for example, about productive and non-productive forms of emotion regulation. For example, the difference between learning to think about things differently, which leads one to feel differently about them. That's called cognitive appraisal.

Terry Maroney:

The difference between cognitive appraisal or reappraisal, which is a very high order, intellectually-challenging, but very productive emotion regulation. It tends to, again, buy a person a whole lot of perspective on what their emotion is about. It gives them room to work with. It helps them distinguish good reasons and bad reasons. It can elevate positive emotion, minimize negative emotion. It's an all-around really great emotion regulation tool. Contrast that with suppression and denial, which is actually what we encourage judges to do through our cultural narrative, which are disasters. They don't work very well. They don't actually minimize the emotions you want and minimize, and they backfire and they eat up all sorts of your cognitive glue. One of my good friends, James Gross, an affective psychologist at Stanford once quipped, "Suppression and denial make you temporarily stupider," and it's true.

Terry Maroney:

We don't want our judges to be the temporarily stupider, nor do they, right? They don't either. So I think what I try to do at my core is I try to take these lessons from the sciences, including the social sciences and I translate them into the context that judges understand, which is the context of their daily work. So we try to work towards identifying moments of work- related emotion that they're experiencing, identifying the kinds of emotion regulation tools that a person can throw at such a thing, educating them about what these different tools are, and giving them the data on, basically, what's going to work out well for them in the long run and why, and how can they practice those things? Hopefully that gives a sense of what I do.

Chris Newbold:

Terry, what are you seeing in terms of judicial involvement in terms of leaning into the Well-Being and Law Movement? Are you seeing barriers, and if so, how do you think that we can overcome some of those and are there generational elements to that?

Terry Maroney:

Yeah, that's a great question. Actually, it makes me realize it's connected to the last part of your last question, which I didn't quite answer, which is, how are these messages being received? So I think, in my experience, judges overwhelmingly have been very hungry for this kind of information and this kind of recognition. It's a weird thing to walk through a very, very important job as a human being and yet, be treated as if you're not really supposed to be a human being. I think it really stifles a lot of judges' ability to interact productively with peers, to reach past the isolation inherent in the job. We're not doing judges any favor by treating them as some like super beings that are supposed to pull off something that no ordinary human being can pull off.

Terry Maroney:

So judges, I have been very surprised, well, I'm not surprised anymore, when I started, I was very surprised just how excited they would get about it. It wasn't particularly breaking down along any demographics, like judges that I might have predicted would not be open to the message have been open to the message, because it reflects the reality. Who doesn't crave having their lived experience seen and recognized, and given the space to actually talk about it in a non-judgmental way and give tools to try to do a better job, be a better judge, be a happier person? So the reception has been great. That said, that's the sunny part. That said, there are very real barriers. So I would not be telling the truth if I didn't say that there's also a very significant element of pushback. Though, again, I don't personally experience a lot of it.

Terry Maroney:

The people who come to my workshops, for example, either choose to be there, so there are self-selected groups, or they're forced to be there and they just don't say anything about it, and they just walk out of the room and think, "Well, that was a lot of bunk, great?" So I'm often not exposed to the pushback personally, but judges tell me about it. So I'll give you a couple for examples. Once I was doing a very small workshop with a particular court. So I was, basically, at a court retreat and I was doing an emotional granularity session, basically, and presenting data on the kinds of work-related emotional experiences that judges, have giving a lot of examples and stories, and it could get pretty sad. It's like "Here are the things that are making people sad. Here's what disgusts them. Here's why they're angry. This is when they feel hopeless," et cetera.

Terry Maroney:

At one point in the granularity session, one of the judges, now keep in mind is this small group I think is fewer than 20 people, all of whom know each other very well, just shouts right in the middle of me saying something shouts, "What is the point of all of this?" Just yells it out. He just could not tolerate it for one single second. I took it in stride and I treated it as an interesting moment. I said, "You know what? That's a good question. What is the point of this, folks?" What happened then, was what I thought was one of the best discussions that we could possibly have had, because the other judges were so mortified that he had done that, that they were like, "Here's why this is important because we really need to notice what we're feeling," and they taught themselves what I was trying to teach them. So that was a very dramatic moment of pushback.

Terry Maroney:

More broadly, judges talk to me about, there are a lot of their judicial peers, well, I'll tell you, one said to me once, "I would talk to you," meaning me, this is in an interview, "I'll tell you all these things, but I'm never going to tell the judge down the hall. I just wouldn't do it. I don't want to be perceived as weak or as squishy or as flawed," or like, "I'll talk to you, but I won't talk to them." That's, I think, the deepest form of pushback is when you don't feel like you can have honest, supportive conversations with your peers who are the only other humans on the planet who know what your job is like, right?

Bree Buchanan:

Right.

Terry Maroney:

That's, I think, the deepest barrier that I'd like eventually to see completely dismantled.

Chris Newbold:

Yeah. Well, we certainly appreciate it. We just a couple minutes remaining, terry. Do you feel like the judiciary understands the impact and the role that they have had and can continue to have on this movement as a whole? Obviously, Bree was at the forefront of getting our report in front of The Conference of Chief Justices, which I think was-

Terry Maroney:

Right.

Chris Newbold:

A really big deal in terms of catapulting-

Terry Maroney:

It is.

Chris Newbold:

... this movement.

Terry Maroney:

Yep.

Chris Newbold:

Do think that they, as a collective group, understand how important this is to the future of the profession.?

Terry Maroney:

Yes and no. One, it's hard to say anything about the judiciary as a whole, especially in a Federalist system like we have. We have so many different types of judges spread out and so many different types of judging. So I'm always slow to group together judges with wildly different jobs who work in wildly different places, and we're talking tens and tens and tens of thousands of people. So that's my huge caveat, as I would never say the judiciary block. That said, I have definitely seen change among both the state and the federal judiciary, that there is absolutely an increased awareness of, pardon me, the need for a wellness programming and the need for a broad range of wellness supports. I think that's because of not just the amazing work that y'all have done with building up awareness of lawyer well-being, but also just pioneers within the judiciary.

Terry Maroney:

So I would be remiss. For example, not to call out the Wellness Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit, which in the federal system is really the pinnacle of a court that got it early and leaned in early and has continued to do just terrific work and people look at them as a model, and that's starting to proliferate. It hasn't proliferated completely through the federal judiciary, of course not, but you don't hear anybody making fun of it anymore, which you would have as recently as five, 10 years ago. On the state level, again, I have seen even more movement in this direction often as an outgrowth of what started as, say, a Lawyer Assistance Program, or a LAP, and is now a Judges and Lawyer's Assistant Program, or a JLAP, which is a really important move.

Terry Maroney:

Again, there have been some states that have really been leaders in this space, some that are still catching up, but absolutely. I think, especially as public attention just continues to be focused on the courts, more and more court proceedings are being recorded. It's so easy to find evidence of, for example, anger displayed by judges on YouTube. I wrote this article years ago called Angry Judges and had these research assistants who I basically said, "Go on the internet and find me salient examples of judges losing their temper." We couldn't even keep up with the volume of it, because our culture loves that stuff, and it's terrible for the image of the judiciary, that we love that stuff. So I feel like there is more attention now to the human beings in these positions and a recognition that when they're regulating their emotions poorly it has very negative impacts, not just on them, but also on justice and on the fairness of our court system.

Terry Maroney:

I think courts live in some fear of having such an incident within their system because, again, it's obviously bad for the litigants, but it's just bad, generally. I think there have also been quite a lot of cases, of course, have had to confront colleagues who are experiencing, say, severe cognitive decline, but aren't realizing it and really shouldn't be hearing cases anymore, but they are, it's a very delicate situation. So yes, the short answer is yes, judges and judicial leaders see this and they want to make sure that judges are being given every single opportunity and encouragement to live the longest, happiest, healthiest lives they possibly can because their individual flourishing is crucial to the court flourishing, which is crucial to our societal flourishing. These things cannot be separated. The one grows from the other.

Chris Newbold:

Excellent. Excellent. Well, we've been joined today by professor Terry Maroney. Terry, we, again, thank you so much for your insights and your research and the work that you're doing in the judicial environment. Obviously, when you go to work every day and your professional mission statement is, "Strengthening democracy one judge at a time," that's a pretty cool lifelong pursuit, for sure. So again, Terry, thanks for joining us. That wraps up a three-part series on the research and scholarship side of well-being, and I think Bree and I are talking about moving into the diversity, equity, and inclusion side of well-being as we head into the new year. So again, thanks everyone for joining us and thank you, Terry.

Terry Maroney:

Thank you so much for having me.

Chris Newbold:

All right. Thanks.