The Wellbeing Week Wrap-up and my self-report of significant bread making violations.

Last week was Wellbeing Week in Law (WWIL). One of the goals was to encourage legal professionals to take action to improve their well-being. I’m here today to recognize the members of Vermont’s legal community who did exactly that.  And, sadly, I’m also here to self-report significant violations of the bread making code of conduct.

But first, I want to share a comment that, to me, perfectly captures the importance of tending to our own well-being.

Patty Turley is General Counsel for the Vermont State Colleges. I met Patty many years ago when we served together on the Board of Bar Examiners. Here’s part of Patty’s reply to the email I sent encouraging participation in WWIL:

  • “Hi Mike – This was such a good reminder for wellness!  It was a crazy busy week; they are all busy but this one was exceptionally crazy.   At first I thought: “It is such a busy week, I don’t have time to take this on.”  Then I decided to switch my thinking: “It is such a busy week, it is more important than ever to make time for wellness.”  It worked.  I often did 2-3 shorter activities (walks, yoga, strength-training, meditation, reading for pleasure) each day.”

Let me repeat Patty’s words:

  • “It is such a busy week, it is more important then ever to make time for wellness.”

Patty – you nailed it! Our new catchphrase should be “Busy? Then now’s the time to make time for wellness.”

Okay, turning to the bread.

During WWIL, Wednesday’s theme was Intellectual Wellbeing. The focus was on the importance of continually challenging ourselves to engage and grow intellectually. To mark the day, I shared this video of myself making bread.

The video ends before I sliced or tasted the bread. So, it fails to reveal that the final product was not fit for consumption. Therefore, this morning I recorded this video in which I self-report multiple violations of the culinary canons. In mitigation, and as this picture proves, my second attempt went much better than the first.


Finally, here’s a list of the members of Vermont’s legal community who let me know that they participated in WWIL. If I forgot to include you, I apologize. Message me and I’ll update the list.

To wrap up Wellbeing Week in Law, here’s to hoping that our participation continues beyond the confines of the week itself.

Indeed, let’s make well-being a habit.

2022 Wellbeing Week in Law Participants










8 thoughts on “The Wellbeing Week Wrap-up and my self-report of significant bread making violations.

  1. I watched your video. As someone who put himself through law school as a chef, I am appalled and distressed by your acts of violence against wheat, yeast and bread. In addition, your kitchen looked like a study in entropy…..the activity of an unwrapped mind……..schade….zehr schade…….I think perhaps you should not have access to flour for a while…at least not in an unsupervised and policed environment.


  2. In assessing the proper sanction to apply we consider the existence of mitigating and aggravating factors.

    In mitigation we find that the respondent does not have substantial experience in the practice of bread baking, as he admits that this was his first effort in the field. We also find that the respondent’s acceptance of responsibility weighs heavily in his favor, as he reported his own perceived misconduct at the earliest opportunity. We also find that respondent’s misconduct had no adverse impacts on third parties, with the possible exception of his mother, who we conclude must be used to it by now.

    We also examine the respondent’s state of mind. It is impossible to find that the respondent’s state of mind was either intentional or knowing. In fact, given that respondent sought the guidance of an experienced practitioner in advance of and throughout the course of this attempt, we cannot find that respondent’s state of mind was one of negligence.

    In circumstances such as these we would ordinarily find that the appropriate sanction to be a private admonition, but the respondent’s public confession defeats the privacy element of the admonition. Similarly, we are concerned that either disbarment or suspension would not serve the public interest because in the absence of continued bread baking endeavors the respondent is unlikely to develop the expertise and skill necessary to carry on the practice of bread baking with the requisite competency, see Rule 1.1, Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.

    For these reasons direct that if he chooses to continue in the practice of bread baking the respondent shall associate himself with a competent practitioner, or shall engage in in-person, interactive online, or available instructional videos until he can demonstrate, as attested by a third party, the requisite skill and knowledge in the field.


Comments are closed.