Lawyer Well Being

What first anniversary will you celebrate a year from now?

Michael Leave a comment

Today is an important anniversary.  But first, some background.

This week is Well-Being Week in Law. Conceived and promoted by the Institute for Well-Being in Law, the event’s goals are “to raise awareness about mental health and to encourage action and innovation across the profession to improve well-being.” 

Each day focuses on a different aspect of wellness:

Today’s focus is Intellectual Well-Being and the importance of continuing to engage & grow. As I blogged on this day last year:

“Continuing to grow intellectually is an important component of our overall well-being. We should strive to grow both at work and in our personal lives.

For instance, at work, you might resolve to wade into a new area of law. Or, take a pro bono case in an area that you don’t typically practice. Remember, even if the area is new to you, the person you’ll help is far better off with your assistance than they would be if left to their own devices.

Similarly, in your personal life, stagnation doesn’t do much for well-being. We need new interests and challenges.”

Which (finally) gets me to the important anniversary.

In 2022, I marked Wednesday of Well-Being Week in Law by learning how to make bread.  The video of my effort is here.  

Happy Anniversary!

This year, I’m approaching Well-Being Week in Law a bit differently than I have in the past. My goal is to promote the idea that improved well-being comes not from a single day or week, but from creating, fostering, and nourishing healthy habits.  To that end, here’s this year’s video in which I share thoughts on engagement, growth, and intellectual well-being.

Here’s a tip I forgot to include in the video.

Had I not informed people of my 2021 commitment to learn how to make bread, I doubt I’d have stuck to it. However, sharing the goal with others created a sense of accountability. If you’re the same way, feel free to share your plans for intellectual growth. I’m more than willing to encourage you as you strive to convert plans to habits.

Here’s to a first anniversary in 2024!

Wellness Wednesday: Remembering John Webber

Michael 1 Comment

We lost another of the good ones.

John Webber passed away last week. John’s obituary highlights his many accomplishments, including his Ted Williams-esque feat of capturing the Triple Crown of bar presidencies: Rutland County Bar Association, Vermont Bar Association, and New England Bar Association.  A true giant of Vermont’s legal community, I’ll remember John for many qualities, most notably his steadfast commitment to both wellness and professionalism.

When it comes to the well-being of the Vermont legal profession, to call John a pioneer would be an understatement.  Long before any of us used or heard the phrase, John was “lawyer well-being.”  In 1986, he founded the Vermont Lawyers Assistance Program, an organization that he directed for many years.  Before and after it existed, John helped countless lawyers to address behavioral issues.

Think about that: 1986.

These days, we openly acknowledge the profession’s well-being (and lack thereof).  We’ve worked to destigmatize help-seeking behavior and to decouple assistance from discipline.  We’ve made clear that it’s okay to ask for help and that help is available.

Indeed, in one sense, recognizing and discussing the importance of wellness & well-being has become rather chic.

I was only in college, but I’m willing to bet it wasn’t too chic in 1986.

The progress we’ve made? The path we’re on now?  

John blazed the trail.  And he did so in an era that was far less receptive to the message. 

Thinking of John, I’m struck by an aspect of his efforts on behalf of fellow lawyers.

Today, we devote a lot of time and energy to systems and programs. To questions like:

  • who should provide the help?
  • how should we pay for it?
  • what type of programs qualify for wellness credit?

Yes.  These are important questions that John would want asked, debated, and answered.  But as we do, let’s not lose the forest for the trees. 

Before he started VTLAP, John helped lawyers in need.  He continued to do so after the program’s creation, sometimes even outside the very parameters he’d put in place.  In other words, John wasn’t driven by or wed to a particular system or program.  He was driven by a desire to help people.  John helped others when he could, however he could, because he could.

And that’s what’s important: helping others. 

So, as we continue to improve on the systems we have in place, let’s not lose sight of our objective. We’d do well to emulate John’s basic instinct to help others – even if there’s no formal process to follow when doing so.

Turning to professionalism, I met John in the early 2000s.  At the time, I was the disciplinary prosecutor and he occasionally represented lawyers who were under investigation. He was never anything but calm, kind, polite, and professional.

Now, maybe you’re thinking “of course he was Mike! He wanted to get the best outcome for his clients!”

I don’t doubt that he wanted the best for his clients.  But that’s not why John was always calm, kind, polite, and professional. 

John was that way because that was his way.  Trust me, I’m not the only one who noticed. 

In 2006, the American Inns of Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit selected John – from all the lawyers in the circuit — to receive the Professionalism Award.  Similarly, in 2009, the Vermont Bar Association honored John with its own Professionalism Award.

Again, it’s how John was.

I remember a particular visit to John’s office.  There to discuss misconduct allegations against one of his clients, we spent most of the meeting talking about one of John’s passions: sailing.  At the time, I didn’t know (or care) much about sailing.  Yet, as we chatted, I found myself more and more interested, enthralled by the depth of John’s interest and knowledge. Thinking back, I’m not sure that our discussion ever turned to the complaint that I was there to investigate!

Of course, I’m sure that it did.  But here’s my point.

Thanks to VBA President Andrew Manitsky’s leadership, the Vermont bar has renewed its focus on civility and professionalism. In response to a VBA survey on civility, and again at a well-attended CLE on the same topic, many lawyers reported a perception that we lawyers don’t chit chat with, mingle with, or engage in small talk with opposing counsel anymore. We talk about our cases, but that’s it. The perception being that it’s tougher to be uncivil when you know someone as a person.

Whether the topic was sailing or another of his interests, John excelled at the art of the chit chat. He had a genuine ability – and desire – to treat and to know opposing counsel as another human being.  Yes, a human being who had a job to do for their client, but a human being nonetheless. 

That’s professionalism.  And, again, it was John’s way.

As with wellness, when it comes to civility & professionalism, we’d do well to emulate John.  The next time (or several) that you find yourself in a discussion with opposing counsel, mix in some chit chat about something other than the case.  If you do, John will be smiling somewhere.  Hopefully somewhere with a perfect view of a Bruins run to the Stanley Cup.

To John Webber.  May his examples live on.

Related Posts

Wellness Wednesday: Joan Loring Wing

Judge Peter Hall

Wellness Wednesday: R.I.P. Ray Massucco

Other Wellness Wednesday Posts

In my opinion, it’s the profession’s well-being that should be non-negotiable.

Michael Leave a comment

NOTE: Updated April 6 to include ABA Journal link

Hello!

It’s been a while.  For too long, any attempt to draft a new post has resulted in nothing but a blank space.  So that there’s no bad blood, rest assured, it’s not you. Rather, lacking any motivation to blog, I’m the problem, it’s me.  Today, however, a story that’s related to professional responsibility has helped me to shake it off.  By now, readers who know me all too well likely have guessed the story’s topic.

That’s right: wellness.

Over the past few days, a slide from a presentation done for newer associates by an associate at a global law firm has gone viral. Among others, Law.Com, Legal Cheek, and the ABA Journal have coverage.  Here’s the slide:

As the ABA Journal reported, the firm released a statement to Law.Com indicating that “the views expressed do not reflect the views of the firm or its partners.” Nevertheless, here’s another excerpt from the ABA Journal’s post:

“Tom Sharbaugh, a former Morgan, Lewis & Bockius managing partner who’s now a professor of practice at the Pennsylvania State University’s law school, told Law.com that he thinks that messaging similar to the associate’s advice may be prevalent at many elite firms.“

“I think you’re expected to just be always available, regardless of what they say about work-life balance and wellness and all that stuff,” Sharbaugh said. “At the end of the day, you’re married to the firm.”

So far, not exactly a love story.

Reaction to the story, however, served to remind me of the good and important work that so many have done to assist law firms and legal employers to make the workplace healthier.

A few weeks ago I posted We’ve Only Just Begun To Begin.  In brief, the post argues that it’s not enough to provide assistance and resources to legal professionals in need.  In addition, we must also work to reduce the root causes of stress, anxiety, and burnout.  That is, and as Patrick Krill noted in When Our Stress Becomes Dangerous, we must “the more stubborn forces of inertia, maladaptive attitudes, entrenched business models and extrinsic motivations.” With today’s viral slide in mind, perhaps the most entrenched and stubborn of those root causes are unreasonable workloads and unreasonable work expectations.

My wellness presentations also include a slide that contains the numbers 24/7/365.  The slide follows one in which I ask this question:

“What three numbers do not appear in Rules 1.3 or 1.4 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct?”

When I show the “answer” slide, I acknowledge that, yes, there will be situations that arise outside “regular” work hours that require lawyers to provide clients with immediate assistance or attention.  However, I add that the duties of diligence and communication are modified by the word “reasonable.” Further, I remind legal professionals that making time for things other than work and clients is an aspect of wellness, with wellness, in turn, an aspect competence.

More succinctly, here’s a comment that’s in the ABA Well-Being Toolkit for Lawyers and Legal Employers:

“We are happiest and healthiest when we adopt healthy work habits and lifestyle choices. Importantly, though, we won’t be successful on our own. Well-being is a team sport.”

I can sense your thoughts: “Mike, what can I do to encourage my team to adopt healthy work habits and lifestyle choices?” I’m glad you asked! 

In addition to the ABA Well-Being Toolkit, I recommend the condensed version: the ABA Well-Being Toolkit for Lawyers and Legal Employers in a Nutshell: 80 tips for Thriving.  Also, I’m a big fan of the  recommendations made by the Legal Employers Committee in the 2018 State Action Plan issued by the Vermont Commission on the Well-Being of the Legal  Profession.[1]

I don’t expect to learn that a Vermont firm or legal employer has adopted expectations that mirror those in today’s viral slide.  Still, that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement.  Check out the resources.  Find one change that makes sense for you and your colleagues. When it comes to the profession’s health and well-being, every small improvement matters.

And, in my opinion, improving our health and well-being is what should be non-negotiable.

As always, let’s be careful out there.

[1] In particular, today’s viral slide reminded me of prior posts in which I’ve referenced the Legal Employers Committee’s recommendations and shared on work/life boundaries, billable hours, making wellness an expectation of the attorney-client relationship, and the importance of valuing employees as people.

Previous Wellness & Well-Being Posts

Wellness Wednesday: We’ve only just begun to begin.

Michael 3 Comments

Note: this post references suicide and suicidal ideation. If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts, contact one of the numbers at the Vermont Suicide Helpline.  It’s okay to ask for help and help is available.

****************

I posted Lawyers Helping Lawyers on March 3, 2016.  My first ever post to address lawyer wellness & well-being, it introduced readers to the now well-known Hazelden Study that revealed “substantial and widespread levels of problem drinking and other behavioral health problems in the U.S. legal profession.”

Since then, Vermont’s legal community has done an admirable job promoting a healthier profession. Our work has been both big & small, running the gamut from the 2018 State Action Plan issued by the Vermont Commission on the Well-Being of the Legal Profession to the fact that we now (gasp!!) openly discuss wellness.

As well as we’ve done, we’ve only just begun.

If this sounds familiar, maybe it is.  In 2019, I posted Attorney Wellness: We’ve Only Just Begun. In it, I wrote:

“Last November, Above The Law posted Burnout, Flame Out, Or Timeout?  The post was spurred by the fact that a lawyer named Paul Rawlinson had “taken a leave of absence to recover from the sheer exhaustion of running the second-largest law firm in the world.” In the post, author James Goodnow pitched an argument I’ve often made, albeit in a way much more eloquently than I.  He wrote:

  • “If the classic answer to the increasing demands of the legal marketplace has been to get tougher, let me once again advocate for a new approach: getting ‘realer.’ We need to let go of the outdated concept of the inhuman, never-tired, always-working hero attorney and replace it with the vision of actual human beings, because that’s what we all are. We’re people, with physical and mental limitations, lives and families outside of work, and interests beyond briefing, drafting, and billing hours. We need to take better care of one another, at all levels, and take better care of ourselves.”

Flash forward to very sad news.  Paul Rawlinson, the attorney who took the leave of absence?  He died last Friday.  Above The Law reported on his passing.

Rawlinson’s death crystallized a thought that’s been nagging me since the State Action Plan issued: we’ve only just begun.

Have we raised awareness? Yes, we have, and it’s a damned good thing that we have.

But it’s not enough.”

Later in the same post, I cited to two sections that appear in the ABA’s Well-Being Toolkit for Lawyers and Legal Employers. 

The first:

“We are happiest and healthiest when we adopt healthy work habits and lifestyle choices. Importantly, though, we won’t be successful on our own. Well-being is a team sport.”

The second:

“This means that, if we truly desire to improve wellbeing, we can’t focus only on individual strategies like making lawyers more resilient to stress; it is equally important (if not more so) to focus on systemically improving our professional cultures to prevent problems from developing to begin with. We are interdependent in that our organizational and institutional cultures—to which we all contribute and which, in turn, shape us all—have a huge impact on our individual well-being. When our cultures support our well-being, we are better able to make good choices that allow us to thrive and be our best for our clients, colleagues, and organizations.”

Whew!

This has been a long-winded way of getting to today’s point: we’ve only begun to begin. We must continue to work to make the profession healthier. 

Last month, MDPI published Stress, Lonely, and Overcommitted: Predictors of Lawyer Suicide Risk.  The report details a study into the predictors of lawyer suicide risk.  Numerous outlets reported on the study, including Psychology Today, Reuters, Above The Law, and The ABA Journal. Here’s an excerpt from Psychology Today’s coverage:

“Until now, very little has been studied about the specific predictors of lawyer suicide risk. New research suggests that high levels of perceived stress, high levels of work overcommitment, loneliness, and being male are all significantly associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation among lawyers. Specifically, the risk of suicidal ideation was:

  • 2.2x higher among lawyers with high work overcommitment;
  • 1.6x higher among lawyers with an intermediate level of work overcommitment;
  • 2.8x more likely for lawyers who screened as lonely compared to those who did not screen as lonely;
  • 1.8x more likely for lawyers with a history of at least one mental illness diagnosis;
  • 22x more likely for those lawyers with high perceived stress;
  • 5.5x more likely for those with intermediate perceived stress.”

Patrick Krill is one of the study’s authors.  Following its release, The American Lawyer published Patrick’s commentary When Our Stress Becomes Dangerous.  I recommend reading it.  When I first read it, I was struck by this paragraph:

  • “To be fair and optimistic, it is important to note that meaningful efforts to improve mental health have been underway and gaining momentum in the legal profession for the last several years, and many dedicated individuals are doing excellent work. As someone whose earlier research and advocacy helped ignite the current push for improved wellbeing in the legal profession, I have sincere gratitude for the progress we’ve made. But I also know the goal line remains elusively far away, and often obscured by the more stubborn forces of inertia, maladaptive attitudes, entrenched business models and extrinsic motivations.”

This is the point that I was trying to make in 2019’s We’ve Only Just Begun.  I feel now like I did then. 

Earlier today I sent Patrick a message. Referring to the recent study, I asked:

  • “Would this be a fair takeaway? That, as good as it is that we are providing more resources (and understanding) to legal professionals who seek help for behavioral health issues, it’s as important that we start to address the root causes. For instance, unreasonable workload expectations.”

Patrick’s response included:

  • “Yes, that is absolutely a fair takeaway from the most recent study. It is important to take a dual approach of providing resources and addressing root causes. To date, the profession has really only been doing half of what is needed by providing resources.”

Here in Vermont, there’s good news: we have a map to help navigate the beginning of our journey down the second half of what’s needed.  That map is part of the 2018 Action Plan.  Specifically, it’s the report from the Commission’s Legal Employers Committee. 

Whether here or at seminars, I’ve often stated my appreciation for the Legal Employers Committee report.

In this post, I noted the positive response to the Committee’s recommendation that employers:

  • “Consider a policy that employees should not—apart from emergencies—check their work email during non-working hours. Moreover, employers should allow all legal professionals to set reasonable boundaries on responding to emails, for example, letting clients know that barring an emergency, they may not get an email response immediately, but the employee will respond within a certain period of time.”

In another post, I noted my support for this suggestion:

  • “In firms that impose billable hour quotas on attorneys, assess whether and how that quota system may be contributing to unproductive competition, excessive stress, and unhealthy work habits. In large firms, an anonymous survey may be the best way to assess this issue. In smaller firms, it can be done through simple observation. If a quota system appears to be encouraging unhealthy behavior and excessive stress, modify it, eliminate it, or consider alternatives.”

Most recently, I referenced the Legal Employers Committee in this post about a California study that found that lawyers who perceive their employers to value them for their human worth reported feeling healthier than lawyers who perceive their employers to value them as revenue-producers, if at all. I connected the study to the Legal Employers Committee’s conclusion that:

  • “Legal employers, meaning all entities that employ lawyers, paralegals and legal assistants, can play a pivotal role in promoting and maintaining lawyer well-being.”

Okay. Pause.

I feel like I’ve gone on far too long and have lost my point.  My point is this: we’ve only begun to begin.

Yes, helping those in need is great. And it’s great that we’ve started to destigmatize help-seeking behavior. And it’s great that we’ve started to decouple assistance from discipline.  And it’s great that we now provide resources and referrals to those in need.

But why wait until they’re in need? Let’s do more to keep the need from arising.  Let’s address unreasonable workloads and work expectations, inflexible scheduling, extreme incivility, and other “maladaptive attitudes and entrenched business models” that are harming members of the profession. 

And it’s got to be more than blog posts, social media posts, and CLE presentations. It requires action in your offices.  Action that is as easily begun as perusing either the Legal Employers Committee’s section of the 2018 State Action Plan, the ABA Well-Being Toolkit for Lawyers and Legal Employers, or the ABA Well-Being Toolkit Nutshell: 80 Tips For Lawyer Thriving.

There’s no better or more important time to begin than now.

Note: Patrick Krill is the speaker in one of the virtual CLE options that’s part of the VBA’s upcoming Mid-Year Meeting. Go here for more information on the meeting and Patrick’s seminar “Mental Health and Well-Being as a Strategic Priority for a Sustainable Profession.”

Previous Wellness & Well-Being Posts

On Wellness Wednesday, a well-being reminder as the holiday season begins: be well & let others be well.

Michael

The holiday season is upon us. For many, it’ll include gatherings with colleagues, friends, and family. Often, those gatherings will involve alcohol.  There’s nothing wrong with that. Indeed, I look forward to festive get togethers over drinks.

But what we must remember is that not everybody does. 

For some, well-being is adversely affected by the stress associated with both the holidays and gatherings that include alcohol. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago by the ABA Journal’s Stressed about holiday parties? Think about skipping them, says lawyer in recovery.  The post features tips from Laurie Bresden, a lawyer who is in recovery.  Bresden urges other lawyers in recovery to “consider what you want your celebrations to look like, rather than meeting everyone else’s expectations.”

Bresden tips aren’t limited to lawyers who are in recovery.  This paragraph caught my attention

  • “According to Bresden, her office gets many calls from lawyers in recovery who are stressed about navigating holiday work events in which alcohol is served. For those planning the parties, she suggests serving alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages in the same types of glasses, so nondrinkers don’t feel awkward, including having mocktails on the menu and respecting boundaries when employees don’t attend the gatherings.”

My attention was caught because I’ve tried to convey a similar message. 

In this 2016 post, I wrote:

  • “The holiday season is approaching. Even if it weren’t, let’s remember to accept ‘no thank you’ as a perfectly legitimate answer when a colleague is asked if they want a drink.”

Back then, a Vermont lawyer let me know that at parties, whether holiday or not, the lawyer and the lawyer’s partner use plastic cups to serve all drinks.  That way, nobody knows what others are drinking, thereby saving someone who is not drinking alcohol from having to explain why.

In 2018, I posted “N.O. is O.K.” I’ll repeat part of what I wrote then:

As bar counsel, I’ve dealt with lawyers who’ve told me that one of the keys to their wellness is to avoid situations that will tempt them to make, if you will, ‘unwell decisions.’  For example, some avoid events that include alcohol.

I totally get it.

But many of them want to be social.  They want to go to bar events or holiday parties.  They want to see people, chat, have fun.  The interaction helps their wellness.

What they don’t want is to deal with comments like what? did you quit for the holidays? nobody likes a quitter!!’

I know this is preachy.  But my message is this: when someone says ‘no’ to a drink at a holiday party, don’t object.

I’m no expert.  But, on well-being, I believe in “be well and let be well.”  Whatever works for you – attending holiday gatherings or avoiding them – do that.  If you attend, participate in a way that is conducive to your well-being, whether that means having a drink or not.  There’s nothing wrong with choosing to drink responsibly.  Nor is there any need to comment upon, call attention to, or object to someone who chooses not to drink at all.

Enjoy the holidays, let others enjoy theirs.

Previous Wellness Wednesday Posts

Wellness Wednesday: Make Well-Being an Expectation in the Attorney-Client Relationship.

Michael 1 Comment

Today, I was perusing the Institute for Well-Being in Law’s website.  I found this post by Ben Carpenter:

Making Well-Being an Expectation in Attorney-Client Relationships

Whether here or at seminars, I often mention the importance of setting reasonable client expectations at the outset of the representation.  This post is representative of the message. 

In addition, I’ve used wellness presentations to urge lawyers to set boundaries with clients and opposing counsel.  When I do, I remind lawyers that the duties of diligence and communication are modified by the word “reasonable[1],” and that there are times when it’s perfectly reasonable to respond to clients and opposing counsel:

  • Tomorrow.
  • After your kid’s game, recital, or event.
  • After you finish lunch.
  • After you get back from the short walk you’re on.
  • After you finish the email in which you’re responding to a different client or opposing counsel.

What I’ve never thought to do is to suggest to lawyers that the expectations they set with clients include an expectation as to how lawyer and client will treat each other.  What a great idea!

Back to Carpenter’s post . . .

. . . the title conveys it all: setting expectations with clients includes setting expectations about how you’re going to treat each other.  I did not pay Attorney Carpenter to author the post, but I endorse the message.

While I recommend the entire post, I want to focus on three paragraphs.

First:

  • “There is a stigma around well-being, as if adopting behaviors that support well-being may compromise a lawyer’s ability to provide exceptional service. Well-being is a responsibility, not a luxury, that is an integral component of our collective ability to satisfy our duty of competency.  Adopting behaviors that support well-being is not only necessary to the profession, but it makes us better lawyers.”

Yes! In the introduction to last week’s quiz, I wrote that civility is not weakness. Looking out for your own well-being isn’t either. It’s a responsibility that will make you healthier and better equipped to honor your duties to your clients. In other words, and to paraphrase Carpenter, well-being isn’t a luxury, it’s an aspect of competence.

Next:

  • “In today’s environment of flexible work arrangements and ubiquitous communication devices, there is no single set of rules or standards that work for everyone. It is easy to lose boundaries, and to assume that having the ability to connect means we should always be connected.  Therefore, in these times, it is more important than ever to discuss and confirm expectations for availability and how to connect.”

Yes!  Just because we can connect doesn’t mean that we must connect.  As I mentioned above, the duties of diligence and communication are modified by the word “reasonable.”

Finally, the coach and runner in me loved this sentence:

  • “Ultimately, we hope that the guidelines will become forgotten and replaced by adopted habits and practices that have become part of our culture and relationships.”

We must make well-being a habit. And habits don’t happen overnight. They only develop as a result of a commitment to repetition.  We used to tell our players that we weren’t going to work on things until they remembered them, we were going to work on things until it was impossible for the players to forget them.  That’s a habit. And, as I blogged long ago, I agree with Carpenter that we should strive to make wellness a habit.

In closing, set reasonable expectations with clients, including expectations that foster the well-being of all involved in the relationship.

[1] V.R.Pr.C. 1.3 requires a lawyer to “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”  V.R.Pr.C. 1.4(a)(3) requires a lawyer to “keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.”  V.R.Pr.C. 1.4(a)(4) requires a lawyer to “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”

Today, I was perusing the Institute for Well-Being in Law’s website.  I found this post by Ben Carpenter:

Making Well-Being an Expectation in Attorney-Client Relationships

Whether here or at seminars, I often mention the importance of setting reasonable client expectations at the outset of the representation.  This post is representative of the message. 

In addition, I’ve used wellness presentations to urge lawyers to set boundaries with clients and opposing counsel.  When I do, I remind lawyers that the duties of diligence and communication are modified by the word “reasonable[1],” and that there are times when it’s perfectly reasonable to respond to clients and opposing counsel:

  • Tomorrow.
  • After your kid’s game, recital, or event.
  • After you finish lunch.
  • After you get back from the short walk you’re on.
  • After you finish the email in which you’re responding to a different client or opposing counsel.

What I’ve never thought to do is to suggest to lawyers that the expectations they set with clients include an expectation as to how lawyer and client will treat each other.  What a great idea!

Back to Carpenter’s post . . .

. . . the title conveys it all: setting expectations with clients includes setting expectations about how you’re going to treat each other.  I did not pay Attorney Carpenter to author the post, but I endorse the message.

While I recommend the entire post, I want to focus on three paragraphs.

First:

  • “There is a stigma around well-being, as if adopting behaviors that support well-being may compromise a lawyer’s ability to provide exceptional service. Well-being is a responsibility, not a luxury, that is an integral component of our collective ability to satisfy our duty of competency.  Adopting behaviors that support well-being is not only necessary to the profession, but it makes us better lawyers.”

Yes! In the introduction to last week’s quiz, I wrote that civility is not weakness. Looking out for your own well-being isn’t either. It’s a responsibility that will make you healthier and better equipped to honor your duties to your clients. In other words, and to paraphrase Carpenter, well-being isn’t a luxury, it’s an aspect of competence.

Next:

  • “In today’s environment of flexible work arrangements and ubiquitous communication devices, there is no single set of rules or standards that work for everyone. It is easy to lose boundaries, and to assume that having the ability to connect means we should always be connected.  Therefore, in these times, it is more important than ever to discuss and confirm expectations for availability and how to connect.”

Yes!  Just because we can connect doesn’t mean that we must connect.  As I mentioned above, the duties of diligence and communication are modified by the word “reasonable.”

Finally, the coach and runner in me loved this sentence:

  • “Ultimately, we hope that the guidelines will become forgotten and replaced by adopted habits and practices that have become part of our culture and relationships.”

We must make well-being a habit. And habits don’t happen overnight. They only develop as a result of a commitment to repetition.  We used to tell our players that we weren’t going to work on things until they remembered them, we were going to work on things until it was impossible for the players to forget them.  That’s a habit. And, as I blogged long ago, I agree with Carpenter that we should strive to make wellness a habit.

In closing, set reasonable expectations with clients, including expectations that foster the well-being of all involved in the relationship.

Previous Wellness Wednesday Posts

[1] V.R.Pr.C. 1.3 requires a lawyer to “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”  V.R.Pr.C. 1.4(a)(3) requires a lawyer to “keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.”  V.R.Pr.C. 1.4(a)(4) requires a lawyer to “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”

Wellness Wednesday: Pro Bono

Michael 2 Comments

Today is not simply “Wellness Wednesday.” It’s WW of National Celebrate Pro Bono Week! What’s wellness got to do with pro bono?  I’m glad you asked!

Eileen Blackwood is a former president of the Vermont Bar Association and former chair of the VBA’s Pro Bono Committee. Twice a year, Eileen and I present a seminar for new lawyers.  I open by discussing professional responsibility, then Eileen Blackwood homes in on the pro bono opportunities.  Over the past few presentations, we’ve used “wellness” as segue from my presentation to Eileen’s.  Specifically, Eileen has made it a point to mention that one of the most rewarding cases of her career was one that she took pro bono.  While Eileen says it better than I can, the reward is the positive feeling that comes from having helped someone who desperately needed it.

Wellness indeed!

With that said, here are answers to common questions about pro bono & professional responsibility.

Where is/are the rule(s)?

The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct include a section titled “PUBLIC SERVICE” that spans Rules 6.1 thru 6.5. 

What is the rule?

It’s V.R.Pr.C. 6.1.

How many hours?

Here are the first two lines of V.R.Pr.C. 6.1:

  • “Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay.  A lawyer should render at least 50 hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.  

Do all 50 of my hours have to be pro bono, or does low bono count too?

V.R.Pr.C. 6.1 states that in fulfilling the 50 hours, lawyer should

  • “(a) provide a substantial majority of the 50 hours without fee or expectation of fee to (1) persons of limited means; or (2) charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental, and educational organizations in matters which are designed primarily to address the needs of people with limited means.”

Once at a “substantial majority” of 50 hours, the rule goes on to indicate that a lawyer may provide any additional services by:

  • Delivery of legal services at no fee or a substantially reduced fee to certain types of individuals, groups and organizations.
  • Delivery of legal services to persons of limited means.
  • Participating in activities that are meant to improve the law, the legal system, or the legal provision.

Who qualifies as a “person of limited means?”

  • See, Rule 6.1, Comment [3] (“Persons eligible for legal services under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) are those who qualify for participation in programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation and those whose incomes and financial resources are slightly above the guidelines used by such organizations but nevertheless cannot afford counsel.”

My client didn’t pay, that’s pro bono, right?

  • Wrong.  Rule 6.1(a) is clear:  a “lawyer should provide substantial majority of the 50 hours of legal services without fee or expectation of fee . . ..”
  • Comment [4] drives home the point: “Because services must be provided without fee or expectation of fee, the intent of the lawyer to render free legal services is essential for the work performed to fall within the meaning of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2).  Accordingly, services rendered cannot be considered pro bono if an anticipated fee is uncollected . . ..”

I’m a government attorney, so I don’t have to do pro bono, right?

  • Wrong.  Rule 6.1 applies to all lawyers.  Comment [5], however, recognizes that government lawyers may not be able to satisfy the requirements of Rule 6.1(a) and, therefore, should be allowed to satisfy the pro bono requirement via provision of services set out in Rule 6.1(b).

Ok Mike, I’m doing pro bono work, what other rules apply?

  • ALL OF THEM!  You must be competent & diligent.  You can’t communicate with a represented party on the subject of the representation without counsel’s consent.  You can’t lie.  In short, pro bono work is not a license to act unethically.

Mike, you mentioned competence.  Given my practice area, I don’t know much about the areas of law in which there’s a need for pro bono work. Is that a problem?

Not necessarily.  V.R.Pr.C. 1.1 mandates competence. However, here is Comment [2]:

  • “A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar.  Some important legal skills, such as the analysis of precedent, the evaluation of evidence and legal drafting, are required in all legal problems. Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in question.”

The VBA often puts on trainings in areas more likely to involve pro bono work.  Many of those trainings are available in the VBA’s video library. For more information, contact Kim Velk.

Specifically referencing the Public Service rules, Comment [4] adds:

  • “A lawyer may accept representation where the requisite level of competence can be achieved by reasonable preparation.  This applies as well to a lawyer who is appointed as counsel for an unrepresented person.  See also Rule 6.2.”

What about the conflict rules?

If certain conditions are met, the conflict rules are relaxed.  See, V.R.Pr.C. 6.5.  Those conditions are:

  • The lawyer provides short-term limited legal services,
  • under the auspices of a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or court, and
  • without expectation by the lawyer or the client that the lawyer will provide continuing representation in the matter.

If each condition is present, the conflicts rules apply only if the lawyer KNOWS of a conflict.  In other words, if the 3 conditions are met, a lawyer does not have to do a conflict check before providing the legal services.  See, V.R.Pr.C. 6.5, Comment [1] (“Such programs are normally operated under circumstances in which it is not feasible for a lawyer to systematically screen for conflicts of interest as is generally required before undertaking a representation.”

Paragraph (b) makes clear that if a lawyer who provides legal services under the specified conditions, any conflict that might result as a result of the short-term representation will not be imputed to other lawyers in the pro bono lawyer’s firm.

How can I learn about pro bono opportunities?

Mary Ashcroft is the Vermont Bar Association’s Legal Access Coordinator and is an excellent resource.  Also, here’s a list of pro & low bono programs.  Pressed for time?  Vermont Free Legal Answers is a way to provide pro bono assistance without leaving your home or office.  Finally, Sam Abel-Palmer is the Executive Director of Legal Services of Vermont.   LSV collaborates with the VBA to run the Vermont Volunteer Lawyers Project.

Thank you for considering pro bono.  And remember, it can be a source of wellness, for both you and the client.

Previous Wellness Wednesday Posts

Wellness Wednesday: Don’t Stresslax

Michael 4 Comments

It’s Wednesday, which means it’s time to discuss wellness.  Today’s topic: tips on recognizing and responding to anxiety.

I’ll cut straight to the chase: I recommend The Legal Burnout Solution: How to Identify and Manage Attorney Anxiety.  It’s by Cynthia Sharp and Rebecca Howlett and appears in the latest report from the ABA’s Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division.

I’ve mentioned Cynthia before.  I first encountered her through her work with The Sharper Lawyer. Later, I heard nothing but rave reviews for a presentation Cynthia did for the Bennington County Bar Association. Finally, I was honored that Cynthia referenced me in a post she did for the ABA Journal on how best to respond to negative online reviews.

A few years ago, Cynthia and Becky Howlett started The Legal Burnout Solution.  They’re doing good and important work.  Their piece in the GPSolo report shares great strategies on identifying and managing stress.  While I urge people to read the entire article, I’m going to highlight a paragraph that resonated with me.

I’ve often used this space to remind legal professionals to make time for interests outside the law. When Jennifer Emens-Butler was with the Vermont Bar Association, she did the same via her Pursuits of Happiness column in the VBA Journal. Well, now we can add Cynthia and Becky to the chorus — and we can introduce a new word to our lexicon!  Here’s one of their tips to manage anxiety:

  • “Have fun! On average, children laugh 300 times a day, whereas an adult generally laughs only 17 times per day. Often as attorneys, we over-prioritize our work and under-prioritize play, even to the point of ‘stresslaxing’ where we worry about what we ‘should be’ doing when we are trying to have fun. Consciously set aside time to do activities that bring you fulfillment and joy and make you laugh! Channel your inner child and do the things that brought you joy when you were younger—have a water balloon fight, go to an amusement park, play in the mud. Whatever the activity may be, give yourself permission to relax and play and just be in the moment. Laughter is medicine!”

They are so right! And I LOVE the term “stresslaxing.”

I’m terrible at practicing what I preach.  At countless CLEs and in numerous blog posts, I’ve urged legal professionals to consider not just time away from work, but time that they’re fully away from work.  For example, setting and honoring boundaries, or, making sure that vacation includes a vacation from devices.  Alas, not only do I rarely take time off, when I do, I reflexively, or perhaps compulsively, respond to work matters that, in a vacuum, I know can wait until I’m back. 

Why?  Because I constantly worry that I should be available and responding.  That’s stresslaxing. It’s not good and I know I’m not alone.

Instead, all of us should heed Cynthia and Becky’s advice:

Don’t stresslax! 

When making time for something outside the law, fully commit to enjoying it!  It is perfectly okay to do so and it is exactly what you are supposed to be doing when you’re there. Also, for you supervisors, strive to ensure that your employees know that it’s not only okay to be fully away, it’s healthy and it’s expected.

Previous Wellness Wednesday Posts

It’s healthy for legal employers to value employees as people.

Michael 1 Comment

In 2018, the Vermont Commission on the Well-Being of the Legal Profession published its State Action Plan.  As I blogged here and here, I’m a big fan of the recommendations made by the Commission’s Legal Employers Committee.  Among other things, the Committee stated:

  • “Legal employers, meaning all entities that employ lawyers, paralegals and legal assistants, can play a pivotal role in promoting and maintaining lawyer well-being.”

I agree 100%.  Which is one of the reasons that I’ve incorporated wellness and referred to the Committee’s recommendations for legal employers at nearly every CLE I’ve presented so far this month.  I will continue to do so, that’s how much of a fan I am of the Committee’s work.

Today, however, I’m here to share a new tip for legal employers: the more you value your employees as people instead of as revenue producers, the better for their well-being.

Says who?

Experts who asked the employees.  That’s who.

In 2020, the California Law Association (CLA) and the District of Columbia Bar Association (DC Bar) agreed to participate in a research project to study issues related to lawyers and their behavioral health.  Last Friday, the CLA announced the project’s most recent findings.  The findings are based on “research [that] examined the relationship between what lawyers think their employers value most about them, and the mental and physical health of those lawyers.”

To me, the key findings are both unsurprising and eye-opening.

As summarized by the CLA, the study

  • “found that lawyers who felt most valued for their professional talent/skill or overall human worth had the best mental and physical health. Lawyers who felt most valued for their billable hours, productivity, and responsiveness were a distant second in mental and physical health. Lawyers who did not feel valued by their employers or did not receive enough feedback to know what their employers value about them fared the worst in terms of mental and physical health. In addition, lawyers who felt most valued for their professional talent/skill or overall human worth were much less likely to report they were considering leaving the profession.”

Imagine that! Valuing your employees for their “human” worth is better for their well-being than valuing them as revenue-producers or not showing them that you value them at all!

(The findings appear in a report by the researchers that was originally published in Behavioral Sciences.1)

The researchers surveyed thousands of members of the CLA and DC Bar. Based on their responses, lawyers were broken into three groups.  Those groups, and each group’s percentage of the total were:

  • Feel valued for their talent, skill, humanity:                               62%
  • Feel valued for their productivity & financial worth:                28%
  • Don’t feel valued or receive no feedback as to value:                10%

And here’s how the researchers ranked each group’s behavioral health and risk of attrition from the profession:

  • Feel valued for their talent, skill, humanity:                               Best health, lowest risk
  • Feel valued for their productivity & financial worth:                Worse health, higher risk
  • Don’t feel valued or receive no feedback as to value:                Worst health, highest risk

For more details, check out this infographic.

According to the CLA, the “key takeaways for legal employers” are:

  • “Employers who can make their lawyers feel more valued for their skill or humanity may be able to improve lawyer well-being, reduce healthcare costs, and mitigate unwanted turnover.
  • Providing clear and regular feedback may reduce stress and improve mental health.
  • By targeting and seeking to improve maladaptive behaviors in their workplace, employers may be able to improve the stress levels and mental health of their lawyers.”

In other words, when employers make people feel valued as people, the people are healthier and less likely to leave. And while I’m no expert, my guess is that healthier employees who aren’t looking to leave make for better business.

Here’s to making people feel like people.

For additional tips on how to create a healthy work environment, check out the ABA Well-Being Toolkit for Lawyers and Legal Employers or, my favorite, the ABA Well-Being Toolkit in a Nutshell.

Wellness

1 Last year, and as part 1 of the same project that’s the subject of today’s post, the researchers released Stress, Drink, Leave: an examination of gender-specific risk factors that their findings on the factors that drive lawyers from the practice. As Bloomberg Law noted upon its release, the first report concluded that women were at a higher risk of leaving the profession for behavioral health reasons than men.

Related Videos & Posts

 Wellbeing Week in Law Videos

 Posts

Meet David Rocchio: The Move to Movies

Michael 3 Comments

Happy Wellness Wednesday!

When it comes to wellness, long-time readers likely are familiar with one of my more frequent refrains: legal professionals should make time to pursue interests outside the law.  Or, to borrow a phrase that Jennifer Emens-Butler coined when working for the VBA, “pursuits of happiness” are part of wellness.

I’m fortunate to be privy to the non-legal passions that many of you pursue.  Among the most popular, movies & film.  My friends – today’s post is for you!

This weekend marks the First Annual Vermont Film + Music Festival.  Produced by Stowe Story Labs, the Festival’s Film Program runs from Friday thru Sunday at the Stowe Cinema.  Here’s the trailer:

The Festival schedule is here. Not only is there something for everyone, but it’s also FREE!

Even better, David Rocchio, one of the founders of Stowe Story Labs, is a lawyer admitted to practice in Vermont.  Many years ago, Rocchio transitioned out of the law to pursue a long-held dream of working in film. In conjunction with the Festival, Rocchio was kind enough to agree to an interview, the latest in my series on members of the legal profession who pursue passions outside the law.  So, without further ado, I’m pleased to present the world print premiere of:

Meet David Rocchio: The Move to Movies

All typos and errors are mine.

Enjoy!

MK: David, let’s set the background.  You’re a lawyer!  I remember what I was doing when I first met you, but for the readers, share the outline of your career.

DR:  Going way, way back, I grew up in Warren, Vt., when it was a farm town with some skiers in it. I graduated from UVM in 1982 with a degree in political science and history, and my first job out of college was as a legislative aide to Jim Jeffords when he was Vermont’s lone Congressman. After three years in D.C., working for Congressman Jeffords and then Ralph Nader, which was one weird experience, I went to B.C. Law. When I graduated, I clerked for John Dooley and then went to Hale and Dorr in Boston, which I did for four years. Interesting, varied work with great people, but not how I wanted to spend my life. Jackie and I moved to Vermont and I told her then I wanted to be a writer, but it was a long turn to get there. When we moved back to Vermont in 1994, I worked as an assistant AG under Jeff Amestoy, focused on complex litigation and constitutional defense, which was terrific (and which was when I met you!). Howard Dean then hired me to be his Deputy Legal Counsel, and when Janet Ancel left, I was promoted to be Governor Dean’s legal counsel, and I served until the end of his term. That was my last job as an attorney, although for many years after I consulted on strategy, complex problem solving, and then corporate culture and cultural alignment, which I still do when I can because I love it.

MK:  An interesting and varied background! I did my first year of undergrad at BC and lived on Newton Campus. I don’t think I knew that’s where you want to law school.  I remember when you first started with the AGO – you handled the ACLU case against DOC. At the time, I was an AAG assigned to DOC.  I didn’t work on that case, but you helped me to learn a lot about how to be a lawyer.  If I’ve never thanked you for that, I apologize and, also, thank you!

DR:  You are welcome! I enjoyed the ACLU case because obviously it was wicked interesting, and Joe Winn was a joy to work with, and John Gorczyk was an incredible leader and client, but also because you were there! Always a joy working with you — at least to talk about the Sox if nothing else! And you had the tools and I was more than happy to talk with you about the cases. Just loved getting to know you and here we are nearly thirty years later!

MK: Yeah, the Sox. More on them in a bit.  So, your work for Governor Dean.  I’m intrigued in particular by two things. The first is the sort of role reversal in which the client provided the lawyer with some important advice.  The second being that the advice, albeit given long ago, is so consistent with what we talk about these days when we discuss attorney wellness and work-life balance.  Can you share your thoughts on the advice you received from Governor Dean and how, really, it was the start of a journey that you’re still on today?

DR: It wasn’t advice from the Governor, it was an order. The order was to take a six-week parental leave when our son Callum was born. At first, it was an offer, but when I said I didn’t think I could take the time, it quickly turned to, ‘you are not understanding me. You will take the time to be with your family.’ ‘Yes, sir,’ was the answer. And it was a wonderful time. Governor Dean was always focused on family wellness, and rightly so. That time with Callum was truly a joy. I don’t know if it made Callum a better human being, but it certainly made me one and I remember it almost minute to minute. And it helped me obliquely because I wrote the first draft of my first script with Cal sitting next to me in a bouncy seat. I cranked out a terrible first draft — which was 22 years ago almost to the day — and it turned into a pretty good script and almost got made — and might still one day. I should thank the Governor for that time, because it definitely lit a fuse with me. I always, from a very early age, wanted to write and make films but did not pursue it for dozens of reasons. The Governor took away all excuses. That fuse may be a long and slow burning one, but once lit it has not gone out.

MK:  What a great order by Governor Dean! I love that you mentioned your memories of the time with Callum.  I understand that, as lawyers, we have jobs to do.  But your story drives home a point I try to stress: wellness includes making time for what matters.  And family matters!  Ok, so, let’s backup.  You also mentioned your “first script” and a long-held interest in making films.  Tell us some more about that interest.  Who or what kindled/sparked the flame that lit the fuse?

DR:  My Dad.  He kindled my love of cinema, taking me past just liking being in the theater to thinking about story, about character, and what makes a film worthy of having been made. He was an English teacher, so lots of Socratic method on drives home from the Capitol Theater (back in its majestic art deco balconied-movie-palace version) to Warren. And he was not afraid to dig deep either. He took me to see The French Connection when it came out and, probably not a great idea, took me and a friend to see Deliverance for my 15th birthday. Not his best parenting decision. He started buying me books of scripts when I was very young. I remember reading Cool Hand Luke and The Hustler, which were two of his favorites, and he bought me a collection of Preston Sturges movies, which I still love and read now and then. And the movies are fantastic. By the time I was ready for college, I wanted to make films, but that path just was not available to me. I did make an awesome short for a class I took at UVM — and making that film remains one of my best memories from college — but I did not pursue it. The desire never dulled. Maybe my legal career was just deep research for projects to come. The challenge of making the turn mid-career, and with a growing family, is real but I couldn’t not do it.

MK: Did you know that I use Cool Hand Luke at CLEs?  In my experience, most disciplinary complaints are rooted in a lawyer’s failure to communicate reasonable expectations to the client at the outset of the representation. And speaking of The French Connection, your dad, and Gene Hackman’s later role in Hoosiers, I think I read somewhere that your dad was also a coach? Is that right?

DR:  Yes, my dad was a coach. He coached football for Montpelier High in the ‘60s and then coached football at Hanover High for years. He was also a Faulkner scholar and an English teacher and drama coach so had a pretty interesting and well-rounded run as a high school teacher in Vermont.  And my dad was the closest thing I had to film school. Beyond movie nights with Dad, I had no idea how to break into the industry. I did not go to film school and had no contacts in the industry. And it is a very closed industry, meaning it is relationship driven and the way to get work made is totally opaque — there is not one process or approach.

MK:  Interesting and well-rounded indeed!  I bet he taught or coached (whether on the grid iron or the stage) some future members of the Vermont bar!  Sounds like he was a wonderful mentor.  Something we could use more of the legal profession.  By the way, I don’t know anything about movies, film, or cinema, but I found a Preston Sturges quote that I love: “the most amazing thing about my career is that I had one.”  I can also relate to that!

DR:  Yes, that is a great quote. I think Preston Sturges felt really privileged to have done all he did.

MK: Here here!  Ok, back to you.  Your Dad lit the fuse, Governor Dean gave the order, you wrote your first script . . . what happened from there?

DR:         The first thing that happened with my work was that first script of mine actually did well. It started to come together as a project, but then as happens more than not it all fell apart.

So I kept writing. I wrote, produced, and directed a short film, and then another. As I developed my work, I had a simple test to determine whether I was crazy. Do the projects attract attention in the industry? Do they do well in contests and festivals? If yes, I’d keep going and if not I’d stop. They did well. I had a short film at Cannes, and it went to another very small but wonderful festival in Italy (Capalbio), and from there I was invited to markets for emerging filmmakers and did well in contests.

Just to make it easier to find like-minded souls, I started a filmmakers’ lab in Stowe in 2013 with a colleague I’d met at a workshop. That first year we had 16 New England based filmmakers. This became “Stowe Story Labs,” and by the third year we had hundreds of applicants and admitted 50 participants annually. We now work with about 200 emerging artists from around the world each year.

We run labs, retreats, ongoing mentoring programs, and online writing programs for TV and film. Participants come from all walks of life and backgrounds, and the common denominator is a good story and a collaborative nature to getting work made.

We are about to open our Tenth Annual Lab, and I continue to write and work to develop my own projects (and make short films).

The Tenth Lab will coincide with the 1st Vermont Film and Music Festival, which will bring all the elements together. Making new work, exhibiting it, and selling it into a complicated industry. Bringing the industry into Vermont I hope will incubate projects getting made here. That is an uphill battle in Vermont for lack of a film commission and tax credit program, but that’s a whole other conversation.

MK:       Wow! It seems that, in a sense, Stowe Story Labs is mentoring in action. Helping folks to learn the ropes and find their way in the business.  Is that a fair description?

DR:         The labs are 100% designed to mentor new talents. We look for people with great ideas and the capacity to work in this collaborative art. The point is to find voices that otherwise would not be heard, and we are good at doing that.

MK:       I read on the website that you “pitched” the idea of SSL.  Using the lingo, did you “pitch” it in the same sense that you and others are now “pitching” scripts?

DR:        I did ‘pitch’ the idea of the labs to David Pope, my colleague now for ten years, and it was a good pitch just like pitching a story. He adds a lot to what we do. David is very good at explaining and demystifying the complexity of story. He also gets writers to think deeply about what they are working on. I took a workshop with him at Cannes (which I did only because it was free if you had a film in the ‘short film corner’ and I had nothing but time) and we hit it off. We then met again at the Rotterdam International Film Festival (I was at the market and he runs the producers lab there) and I pitched him on the labs over Chinese food. He’s brought a lot to what we do, which is, as he puts it, ‘meaningful feedback in a supportive environment.’

MK:       By the way . . . Cannes!  To me, in film making, making it to Cannes means you’re among the best of the best? Or, at the very least, one of a select few.  Is it the legal equivalent of arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court?

DR:        Cannes was certainly the “E ticket” of festival admissions. I was so green at the time, I thought ‘I’ll send this to Cannes,’ since I knew it. Who knew what a big deal it would be to be there? Well, I guess a lot of people knew, but I did not. And it is a good film. It’s helped me advance my work. This is a long game, though, and the community of the labs makes the road a bit less daunting, and not maybe so lonely.

MK:       I love that last bit: forging a community to make the road both less lonely and daunting.  We need more of that in the law.  Especially now when, at least it seems to me, isolation and stress are driving people from the profession.  Ok – how can folks learn more about the Labs and the Vermont Film & Movie Festival?

DR:         The Festival will be terrific. It starts Friday night at Stowe Cinema at 7 PM with The Sound of Silence, which stars Peter Sarsgaard. It was produced by one of our mentors, Jonathan Duffy. Saturday and Sunday are a mix of fantastic films – docs and features – from the deep south, blocks of horror films (for those who can take it!) and short and narrative films from our alumni, and A League of Their Own, speaking of baseball, followed by a Q&A with one of our alumni who has been cast in the TV remake. The schedule is here and there’s a trailer here.

MK:      Sarsgaard is awesome! So, it seems like there’s something for everyone.  Is that the theme? Or is there a more specific theme?

DR:         The theme of the festival is ‘portraits of America’. We have chosen films showing the breadth of life in this country (with two outliers I’ll explain about below). Each film shows some aspect of the human condition and contains notes of hope or uplift.

A key element of this program is the Southern Voices strand, built in partnership with the Sidewalk Film Festival of Birmingham, Alabama. For several years we have run a narrative lab at the Sidewalk Film Festival, and we are pleased to be working with them to bring these films addressing issues such as

  • What does it mean to be ‘Southern’ in 21st Century America?
  • An examination of the efforts to bring America out of a dark past. (SNCC, Directed by Danny Lyon)
  • The struggle of high-level high school sports against the backdrop of a failing public school and all the curve-balls life throws us (Wrestle, Directed by Suzannah Hebert and Co-Directed by Lauren Belfer)
  • And just the struggles of being young in the South (Hale County This Morning, This Evening, Directed, Filmed, Edited, and Written by RaMell Ross)

And there are a dozen more ….

The two outliers are

  • Freddy Mercury: The Final Act, which is a documentary about Freddy Mercury’s struggle with aids and the groundbreaking tribute concert Queen staged in his memory. This doc was released this year. It was produced and directed by James Rogan, a Stowe Story Labs mentor (and my partner on my doc THE GUN SHOP). James and the film were nominated for a BAFTA this year and we just wanted to honor James — and Freddy — by screening it.
  • The Bootlegger, which was written by an alum and we helped develop the project. It is a Quebecois Film about a student returning to her reserve to carve a life, and chaos reigns …. Written by Daniel Watchorn

Both generally fit the theme of struggle and hope, but the stories are not based in America ….

There are also two blocks of short films, just because shorts are fun! One block features films by our alumni. The other features films from a wonderful festival called the HollyShorts Film Festival. On top of that, we are screening one block of horror shorts and a screening of The Babadook late Saturday night. The shorts are by the Nyx Horror Collective, which is a community of women writers over 40 digging deep into horror.

The entire schedule is here. And there’s music Saturday afternoon at the Alchemist (schedule is here). And the entire program is free!

MK:       Again, wow! There’s a theme, something for everyone, and it’s free! Ok.  A few final questions.  Having transitioned away from the law, do you have any thoughts or advice for members of the legal community who have similar thoughts? That is, folks who are thinking of doing something else, maybe following the dream that, like you, they had as a kid?  On the flip side, are there things you learned or skills you developed as a lawyer that helped you enter and grow in the film industry?

DR:         My thoughts on moving away from a career in law are complex. Law is a wonderful career and there is so much you can do with the degree. It is also a nice, predictable income, which film is not. For me, I took a long, slow turn away. In my mind it was like turning a large cargo ship; nothing abrupt about it and no way to turn it quickly.

Much of what I learned in my law practice is used both in my writing and the work with the labs: thinking logically, being analytical, really driving to comprehend material, seeing the way forward. Much is not useful. That same analytical thinking which helps push things forward is not a good space for creativity and pushing boundaries. For that you need to leave a lot of thoughts on process behind. For me, the best thing I did to make the move is to commit to it. I talked with my wife about the intent, I pushed some work out into the world, and slowly found myself being more of a writer than a lawyer, which was liberating for sure.

MK:       Not listening to the analytical brain can be a challenge when considering change. I get that.  What happened to the short you made your first year at UVM?  Any chance it’ll be remade by the Labs?

DR:        Ha!  I lost that film. It was a silent, black, and white cowboy movie we shot at the Webb Estate before it was restored. Was such a great experience making it and it came out great, but somehow it ended up lost.

MK:       Damn!  What about you?  What do you like to watch?  What are your all-time favorites?  And, speaking of “watching,” if memory serves, you don’t have a television. I seem to recall that you and Jackie would only watch tv once per year.  You’d go to Hanover to watch the Academy Awards . . . is that right?

DR:         You remember right! We did not have a TV for years. Now we have apple tv and stream, but still no channels. We do go each year to watch the Academy Awards at a hotel. It’s a long-standing tradition (but the show is not so good so we might stop!). My go-to movies are anything by Preston Sturges or Billy Wilder (or William Wyler — The Best Years of Our Lives is my favorite all time film). I love The Life Aquatic by Wes Anderson (and a few other Anderson films are top contenders). Another favorite is A League of Their Own, which we are screening at the Festival at 3 PM on Sunday, June 5th. The screening will be followed by an interview with an alum of our programs, Lea Robinson, who has been cast in the TV remake of the film, which will be a trans take on the thirty year old classic. Lea is both an outstanding writer and actor and we are thrilled they are part of our community.

I could write another twenty or so titles ….

MK:       There’s no crying in baseball!  Seriously though, great list.  Speaking of baseball, I cut the cord recently.  My package doesn’t include NESN. So, like you, I listen to the Sox on the radio.  Since we started this interview, they’ve lost a bunch of games to bad teams.

DR:         Yes, the Sox are driving me mad.

MK:       You should write a film about that: how mad our younger selves would be that our current selves let the Sox drive us mad even after winning 4 World Series.  Younger Us would’ve settled for ONE by now!

DR: Very good idea. I almost miss the dark days – when you could get a good seat for $10 and then move to a better one to watch Jim Rice hit into a double play. And you remind me to add Moneyball to my list of favorite films.

MK:       That made me laugh! A true Sox fan indeed. Thank you for doing this! It was great to catch-up. Good luck with Stowe Story Labs and the Festival!

DR:         Thank you! I hope people come out for the films and music. Anyone can reach out with any questions. Thanks again.

2022_First_Annual_Emblem_Logo_Evergreen_Full_Logo+(2)

RELATED POSTS