Rehab for lawyers

January 20, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Working in the legal profession can be quite stressful and demanding. There’s a lot of pressure to solve your clients’ problems, often coupled with long work hours. Given that attorneys are sometimes the ones fixing the problems, it can make them reluctant to let others know when they need help. Some turn to drugs or alcohol to cope. Studies have shown that those working in this profession tend to have more issues with addiction than the general population. But instead of going just anywhere for help, a Minnesota treatment center has started a new program specifically for legal professionals.

Hazelden has created the generically titled “Legal Professionals Program” for lawyers, judges, legal assistants, and legal professionals with addictions. These addictions may be considered an “occupational hazard,” according to its website.

The program involves 12-step-based and gender-specific treatment, intensive group therapy, individual counseling, and pyschoeducational services. It also will include weekly meetings among other legal professionals led by an attorney/clinician, which will provide patients with insight from peers in similar situations; and ongoing one-on-one sessions with an attorney/clinician where participants will have the opportunity to address issues related to career restoration, professional practice, reputation, licensing or disciplinary matters and continuing care.

The center claims treatment will prepare attorneys to handle the future, know what do to do take care of themselves, where to find support, and how to be aware of what could trigger relapses.

You can learn more on Hazelden’s website.

What are your thoughts on a treatment program specifically tailored for lawyers? Would it be any more helpful than a traditional rehab program?

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT