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. 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