Law school stress kills brain cells

June 18, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

You know you are supposed to eat a balanced diet and exercise, but are you taking care of your cognitive fitness? According to one lawyer, brain cells are dying from the stress of law school.

Debra S. Austin, an attorney and Ph.D., looks at in her article in the Loyola Law Review how stress affects those in the legal profession.

“The stresses facing law students and lawyers result in a significant decline in their well-being, including anxiety, panic attacks, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Neuroscience now shows that this level of stress also diminishes cognitive capacity. The intricate workings of the brain, the ways in which memories become part of a lawyer’s body of knowledge, and the impact of emotion on this process indicate that stress can weaken or kill brain cells needed for cognition,” she writes.

Austin also says that the stress in legal education may set the stage for abnormally high rates of anxiety and depression among lawyers.

Data has shown that lawyers are in the top five when it comes to the rate of suicide among professional groups, and they are nearly four times as likely to suffer from depression than nonlawyers.

The Dave Nee Foundation says that depression among law students is around 9 percent before matriculation, 27 percent after one semester, 43 percent after two semesters and 40 percent after three years.  It also says that upon entering law school, students have a psychological profile similar to that of the general public, but after graduating, 20 to 40 percent of law students have a psychological dysfunction.

Austin gives examples of the physiological processes happening in the human body as they relate to law students and lawyers. As you know, law school is stressful. You must learn caselaw, analytical and critical thinking skills, how to practice law – and be prepared if your professor calls on you in class. And your stress levels must go through the roof studying for and taking the bar exam.

But the stress doesn’t stop once you become a lawyer – your firm requires you to meet certain billable hour goals, bring in more clients, and encourages you to perform pro bono work. Your clients are demanding and their problems and issues can stay with you.

The stresses of law school (which Austin describes as “legendary”) and your practice can weigh heavy on your mind. You need to take care of that mind.

Austin describes the structure of neural communication networks, neuroscience of memory formation and how learning occurs, and she discusses the impact of stress on the body. She challenges law students, professors and lawyers to develop a neuroscience-based understanding of how to optimize their own cognition. And how does one address the problems she identifies? By exercising more, getting enough sleep and incorporating contemplative practices into your life – such as yoga or meditation. She also cites Google as an example of a company that has adopted a culture that focuses on employee well-being – onsite gyms, work/life balance programs and stress management classes. Google even teaches employees about the power of neuroplasticity.

What do you think about Austin’s paper and her suggestions for taking better care of your mind? Can you take time out of your day to exercise or allow yourself an extra hour or two of sleep while in law school (or practicing law), or does the thought of that stress you out?   

The article is available online.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT