ILNews

DTCI: Is the notion of a 'happy lawyer' an oxymoron?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-Bryant-micheleA “happy lawyer” – do you know any such creature? By coincidence (or maybe not), two recent but random events caused me to consider this question, of all things, in the middle of this long winter season.

Our local bar association recently held its annual luncheon honoring lawyers in practice for 50 years and welcoming the new lawyers who arrived in the last year. Some might perceive this as something of a terrifying experience for both; the new lawyers catching a glimpse of what they might become over the next five decades and the experienced lawyers a little apprehensive about challenges from the spring chickens.

On the heels of this luncheon, I came across reviews of a new book titled “The Happy Lawyer: Making a Good Life in the Law” by Nancy Levit and Douglas O. Linder. I began to wonder if there is such a thing as a happy lawyer. I wonder if the fellows in practice for 50 years were happy lawyers. I began to consider whether the practice of law contributes to our happiness or is a barrier to happiness.

The book reminds us of some not-so-nice statistics about being a lawyer. Some studies report that more than 70 percent of practicing lawyers would not do it again if given the choice. At least half of us would discourage our children from entering the legal profession. We all know that the rates of depression and suicide for lawyers exceed those of most other professions. If lawyers represent the best and the brightest (at least we choose to think so), why do we find the notion of a “happy lawyer” so amusing?

The pursuit of happiness is not just a right fought for by our Founding Fathers. The power of positive psychology is such a hot topic that recently the most popular class at Harvard University was not Introduction to Economics, but rather Positive Psychology taught by Dr. Tal Ben-Shahar. More than 800 students piled into the lecture hall hoping to learn the secret to being happy.

What seem to be the keys for lawyers? “The Happy Lawyer” offers many pointers. Managing expectations is a big deal. Much of our dissatisfaction (i.e., lack of happiness) appears to stem from reality falling short of expectations. A popular country music song reminds us that joy might come, not from having what we want, but from wanting what we have.

When the 50-year lawyers were asked at our bar association luncheon to reminisce on their careers, there was one strikingly consistent theme. None of them spoke of big trial wins or high-profile cases they had handled. Instead, each of them reflected on the civility and camaraderie of the lawyers in our Evansville Bar Association and how much this had meant to them over the years. The new lawyers were then asked to introduce themselves and to identify the charity or service organization with which they intended to be involved.

The bar association luncheon was a real-life example of several happiness lessons discussed in the book. Lawyers who remain in the profession tend to get happier over time, presumably because experience and skill development tend to lead to a greater professional comfort level. We also find satisfaction and meaning in serving others and contributing to the public good. Finally, the people around us make a difference. Enduring friendships and a pleasant working environment can help us as lawyers rise above the daily grind of legal work. Civility is not just a politically correct notion. It is a meaningful gift we can give to each other that, at least for a few of my colleagues, can last a lifetime.•

__________

Michele S. Bryant is a partner in the Evansville firm of Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn and is a member of the DTCI board of directors. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT