ILNews

Reaching out to lawyers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

“We’re not in the business of saving licenses; we’re in the business of saving lives.”

So said Judge Robert “Butch” Childers of Memphis, Tenn., chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs, expressing one of the overlying themes of the annual CoLAP conference in Indianapolis Oct. 5-8.

The symptoms of stress, how to help law students, and how lawyer assistance programs work with disciplinary commissions were among the topics addressed at the conference, which had at least 200 participants and 41 exhibitors.

jlap Mary Richardson and Don Lundberg, both former heads of the Illinois and Indiana disciplinary commissions, respectively, discuss the entities’ relationships with lawyer assistance programs at the American Bar Association’s national conference for LAPs, which was in Indianapolis. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The science of substance abuse and stress, and how it affects the brain was discussed at the session “Stress and Compassion Fatigue in the Legal Profession: What Does Your Brain Look Like?”

Dr. Barbara Krantz, chief executive officer and medical director of research for the Hanley Center showed brain scans and explained how hormones the body produces while under stress tend to affect the brain. For instance, if one is in a stressful situation – the example she gave was sitting in traffic, seeing an accident and construction ahead, and being late to a hearing in court – hormones would be released as a result of the stress. Ideally, the body would also release other hormones to counteract the stress hormones, which would cause a balance, or homeostasis.

When one’s body doesn’t know when to stop the tug of war between the different hormones that cause fight or flight reactions and the hormones that relax the body, there is chronic stress. This can lead to physical symptoms, such as tension, sleep disorders, fatigue, frequent colds and infections, increased alcohol use, headaches, gastrointestinal disorders, and high blood pressure.

Krantz said because attorneys have multiple stressors, and because they are high achievers and tend to put more pressure on themselves while underestimating their level of stress, they often overlook the signs that they need to do something to take care of themselves.

The stressors attorneys face are not that different from what law students face, according to panelists in a breakout session about law student wellness.

Terry Harrell mug Harrell

That panel included moderator Judith M. Rush of the Minnesota State Bar Association Life and the Law Committee, along with panelists Ann D. Foster, director of the Texas Lawyers’ Assistance Program; Michael Larson, director of the Montana Lawyer Assistance Program; Erin M. Keyes, assistant dean of the University of Minnesota Law School; and Carter Alleman, Valparaiso University School of Law Student Bar Association president and national vice chair for Student Bar Associations of the ABA Law Student Division.

The panelists discussed various ways the law schools and LAPs in their states have been tackling the various issues students face, including how to address some of the myths when it comes to getting help for mental health or substance abuse problems while in law school, and how it can affect one’s character and fitness results when they apply to join the bar after they graduate.

They also agreed that the presence of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have contributed to the proliferation of some myths for law students who seek help.

Panelists and audience members discussed whether schools should use a tough-love approach, with a mandatory session to inform students about these issues; or by giving the students the option to attend programs to learn more about LAPs and other resources.

Terry Harrell, executive director of Indiana’s Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program and vice chair of the conference, said lawyers are better off if they face their issues as law students. Otherwise, the problem doesn’t go away, it just gets worse.

She also added a scholarship program is available for law students to receive 30 days of treatment – for free – from Bradford Health Services, with locations around the country. LAPs throughout the U.S. can work with students to get into the program, and they need to pay only transportation costs.

Another well-attended panel was a discussion between two former disciplinary commission chairs. Don Lundberg, now a partner with Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis and former executive secretary of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, spoke with Mary Richardson, who previously chaired the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Lundberg said that he and Judge Childers agree that “there is a fundamental shared goal of lawyer disciplinary commissions and lawyer assistance programs to protect the public. But our approach is different.”

Because both LAPs and disciplinary commissions are trying to achieve the same ultimate goal, Lundberg and Richardson agreed the entities ought to work together in terms of how they are structured and how they get along on a personal level. However, they also need to maintain an understanding when it comes to what the other side is dealing with. For instance, Lundberg said, “The disciplinary side deals with the mess. We deal with the victims and the chaos” that result from an attorney who is facing disciplinary procedures.

Both added that there are different personalities between those who serve disciplinary commissions and those who serve on LAPs, but that both groups still need to be able to come together somewhere in the middle

They also agreed there needs to be trust among the people of the two types of organizations, including a trust in the LAPs’ reasoning to have confidentiality in cases that aren’t being monitored by a disciplinary commission.

Richardson said the only time her disciplinary commission wrote an amicus brief was to support the confidentiality of those who go to LAPs for help because without it, that system would fall apart and fewer people who need treatment would seek help.

Early on in the conference, Judge Childers noted that because what the participants do in their regular work is so serious, the event was also meant to be fun.

While most of the four-day conference discussed serious topics, participants had a few lighthearted moments, such as a dessert reception that included a presentation by Dr. Will Miller, a therapist who is also a minister and a stand-up comedian.

Miller focused on his theory of refrigerator relationships, relationships between friends and family where if one person is visiting the other’s home, it’s not unusual for the visitor to raid the refrigerator of his or her host.

He connected it to what LAP programs do, because many Americans are mobile and therefore are less likely to have family or other support systems in place when they get into trouble with drugs or alcohol, or feel depressed. He added that people should never feel isolated, even though that is the norm in society.

Many of the panels also mentioned isolation and how LAP programs could share that with the legal communities in their respective states so that attorneys – or law students – would know how important it is to check on each other from time to time.

In his closing speech at the awards dinner Oct. 7, Judge Childers reiterated his point that the LAP programs aren’t helping lawyers keep their licenses, but they’re saving lives by reaching out to their communities and helping to prevent some of those feelings of isolation attorneys have when they are distressed.

“I’m constantly energized by the number of people who give of their time to save lives,” he said. “… I am constantly amazed at what we can accomplish with a small group of people working toward the same goal. … We have made a lasting change in the legal community … and we need to continue to be the change we want to see happen.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT