Recreation: a foundation of balance and productivity

/2 Comments/in , , /by

It occurred to me this week that there’s (at least) one activity that, perhaps counterintuitively, is a foundation of work/life balance and productivity: recreation.

While coaching a client this week and introducing Stephen Covey’s Urgent/Important quadrant system for prioritizing and completing tasks, I explained that true recreation — something that’s re-energizing, that “re-creates,” rather than passive activities like vegging out in front of the TV — is a Quadrant II activity: not urgent, but important.  It isn’t urgent because there will never be a requirement to enjoy recreation.  No one will ever request you to “recreate” on their time schedule, and no law firm partner will ever drop by late in the afternoon and apologize for asking you to put in a few hours of recreation that night.  (Absurd image, isn’t it?)  But it’s vitally important.

What “true recreation”?  It varies from person to person.  Perhaps it’s writing, gardening, skiing, going to or performing in the theater, playing with children, doing volunteer work… Whatever it is that takes a person from his ordinary self into a state of flow, where time passes without notice and the end result is production of energy, enthusiasm, a rounded person.  The key point is that true recreation creates balance and energy, both of which lead to increased productivity in the office.  And that’s what makes it important.

For those of you who are inclined to try an experiment, give this a shot: if you typically eat lunch at your desk, try going out instead.  Spend 30 or 45 minutes at a museum, in a park, talking with a friend, whatever you enjoy.  And then see whether you’re more productive than usual when you get back to your desk in the afternoon.    Or take several hours over the weekend to engage in recreation, and notice the effects when you get back to work.

Addressing burnout: your productivity depends on it

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Because of the stress of practice, burnout is a real issue for lawyers.  Just about every lawyer has at least an occasional period in which it seems that work is pressing 18-20 hours a day, and most of us know intuitively that it’s important to recover following that kind of exertion.

But what about the kind of day-to-day grind that can cause low-level burnout?

As an analogy only (and not as a diagnosis) compare major clinical depression with feeling down.  According to mental health professionals, the symptoms of the two are similar, but minor depression (feeling blue, dysthymia, etc.) tends to last longer and be more mild than major depression.  Where major depression is marked by an inability to function, someone who’s feeling down often sees the world in shades of grey, doesn’t enjoy life like he used to, and has reduced energy, but he’s still able to function.

Chuck Newton has recently posted on the “Cure for Lazy Lawyer Syndrome.”  It’s a terrific article that describes with a visceral clarity what it’s like to struggle with low-grade burnout:

You know something is wrong. You intend to get into work early to catch up, but fail to do so. You just cannot seem to make yourself finish that brief that is due in a week. You avoid phone calls you know you should take. You take a phone call and you know should make a note, but you just cannot make yourself get around to it. Then you forget the necessary details. You know you should call your client, but it is so-o-o-o inconvenient. You start to feel overwhelmed and you cannot find a starting place from which to even begin to catch up. You are just feeling tired, depressed and rundown. Vitamins do not seem to help much.

Does that sound all too familiar to anyone else?  I’ve certainly been there, and I’ve talked with enough clients to know that it isn’t an isolated feeling — though lawyers who are feeling this way do tend to isolate themselves.  And that tends to add self-condemnation to the mix, and the result is not pretty.

But Chuck has a solution, and he’s hit the nail right on the head:

My suggestion is that you will feel better about yourself, your practice and your competence if you will concentrate harder on the practice of law for shorter periods of time.  When you are in the zone, be in the zone.  Focus, but not so long that you get eye strain.

***

Short times away from your work (and I mean absolutely disconnecting from your work) will help you to be more productive and energetic back at your work.

Chuck’s post appears on the Solo Lawyer blog, and he even emphasizes that this advice is especially important for “home office lawyers, connected lawyers and Third Wave lawyers.”  To my mind, it’s critical for all lawyers, especially since most of us are now “connected” most of the time.  Although some of the suggestions that Chuck makes are difficult or inappropriate for lawyers who work in a traditional law firm (i.e., working 4-day weeks on a regular basis, absent a part-time schedule), the idea of short periods of intense focus alternating with period of complete disengagement can be applied in any practice setting.  I’ve referenced the book The Power of Full Engagement before, but I’ll mention it again now because it stands for the proposition that “full engagement” requires selective disengagement from work — which is, after all, exactly what Chuck espouses.

The risk of low-level burnout is that it makes everything less pleasant; it leads to reduced energy, reduced efficiency, and reduced productivity; and if left “untreated,” it can lead to major burnout.  My father, who’s practiced law since the mid-1960s, has given me much good advice, but one piece is especially relevant here.  Make it a habit — an occasional habit, but a habit nonetheless — to escape from the office midday, whether it’s to see a movie, to visit a bookstore or museum, or to take a walk somewhere.  Although the escape is great therapy to cure burnout, it’s even better applied to avoid it.

What’s your plan to address burnout?

What restores your professional self?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

I often write here about taking the time for real recreation and relaxation.  It’s important for all of us (lawyer and non-lawyer alike) to do something that refills the pitcher of “self” so that we have more to pour out in service to our clients.

But there’s another dimension to restoration, and that’s getting the professional self recharged and refilled.  Have you ever been to a CLE meeting that’s so full of exciting ideas and interesting people that you feel yourself swelling with delight?  Remembering that sense of why you became a lawyer?  Knowing that, even on the difficult days, your decision was correct?  If not, you owe it to yourself to seek out that kind of experience.

Last Friday, I attended the annual conference of the DC chapter of the International Coach Federation.  (For those who are unaware, I split my time primarily between Atlanta and Orlando, but I’ve also elected to remain part of the DC coaching community following my completion of Georgetown’s Leadership Coaching certificate program.)  Make no mistake, I am delighted with my work as a coach on a daily basis.  And yet, attending this meeting popped my excitement to the next level, fueled my desire to learn and do more, and reignited by commitment to bringing the best of my self, my skills, and my experience into every coaching interaction, all in service to my clients.  It was an incredible day, and echoes of it will show up here over the next few weeks, I’m sure.

Several topics grabbed my attention sufficiently to share them here, albeit in shorthand.

First, sustainability.  I attended a program that asked how those of us who coach leaders can bring sustainability into the equation, and I expected to hear about personal sustainability.  Instead, the presentation addressed environmental and social sustainability.  I left mulling over what it means to be a citizen, personally or corporately.  I have an inchoate sense that there’s a role for lawyers beyond legislation and even beyond pro bono work… But I’ll tease that out over time.

Next, Marshall Goldsmith, executive coach extraordinaire to CEOs of companies such as Glaxo SmithKline, Ford, and many others, spoke about “feedforward” as opposed to feedback.  Rather than focusing on what’s happened in the past — which is, by definition, unchangeable — Goldsmith recommends a forward-looking process in which the subject selects a behavior to change and solicits suggestions on how that change might be accomplished.  The exercise is positive and forward-looking, and regardless of what idea is set forth to facilitate the changed behavior, the only acceptable response is, “Thank you.”  It’s a terrific process, and I commend the linked article to you for more information.  Can lawyers implement a feedforward process?  Hmmm, more to come on this.

And I attended a presentation on leadership in the context of advancement.  Perhaps you’ve seen the recent statistics showing the 40% of newly-promoted managers and executives fail within the first 18 months.  Scott Eblin spoke on his book The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success, particularly highlighting what behaviors will support leaders and which will undermine them.  There’s much more to say here as well.

Throughout the day, I met coaches with diverse specialties and training/experience.  Wonderful conversation popped at every turn.  And although I’d had only 3 hours of sleep the night before, I was energized by the day.

So… Where can you find professional reinvigoration?  How can you build it into your schedule?  Perhaps there’s a magazine that feeds your professional self?  Or a CLE topic, possibly directly related to your area of practice or possibly not, that stirs new ideas and excitement?  Perhaps it’s the pro bono work you do, research and writing or speaking, or simply meeting with colleagues for conversation about wide-ranging topics?

Next time you notice yourself feeling more energized professionally, notice what’s created that for you and notice the results it yields.  Chances are that you’ll find it develops you as a better-rounded lawyer who’s more committed to your profession and your clients.  It’s a win-win situation that deserves to be cultivated.

Adam Smith, Esq.’s take on “The Women Partner Problem”

/2 Comments/in , , /by

I’m a fan of Bruce MacEwan‘s Adam Smith, Esq. blog, which studies the economics of law firms.  Today, I’d like to call attention to a recent post that suggests a response to the issues of work/life balance.

It’s probably news to no one that although men and women graduate from law school in roughly equal numbers for over a decade, only 17% of the partners in large firms are women.  (If this is news, please see this post, which provides background information on the gender disparity.)   MacEwan reviews data that indicates that 90% of women who take “flex-time” positions do so to spend more time with their children and data that indicates that (unlike their female counterparts) male associates and non-equity partners with children work at least as many hours as men without children.  Only at the equity partner level do both men and women who are parents work less than their childless counterparts.  “The Women Partner Problem” then posits as follows:

What does all the foregoing demonstrate?  To me, one and only one thing. That one thing seems to have been lost in all the smoke and brimstone surrounding “gender equality,” “sexism,” and the endless, fought-to-an-exhausted-standstill debates between the societal and civic virtues of stay at home Mom’s vs. the battle cry of those calling the sisterhood to the professional office ramparts.

That one thing is:  Having children is different.  It’s different than taking a sabbatical or a detour into government or nonprofit service, and it’s vastly different for men than for women.

The unspoken assumption—on both the part of the firm and the part of the individual lawyer—is that father/lawyers are more committed to their careers and more determined to succeed, but mother/lawyers have heard the siren call of the newborn and will never report back to the office feeling the same uncompromised commitment they did before. Isn’t this what we all think but dare not say?

The post continues with a proposal to “purposely ‘park[]’ women out of the workforce for five to ten years—with no stigma—so that there need not be a stark, dichotomous choice between spending a critical decade or so of your life either launching a family orpursuing partnership. You could actually get to take your stab at both, seriatim not simultaneously.”  The suggested program is outlined in some detail, recommending a voluntary sabbatical for mothers only, with no provision for flex-time (or, as I read it, part-time) practice.

The full post is fascinating, and (as any Adam Smith, Esq. reader would expect) well-grounded in the data.  On a personal level, I admit to a visceral reaction to the seeming dismissal of reasons other than motherhood for dropping back from practice — quite probably because I am a childless woman who elected to work a part-time schedule during my mother’s terminal illness.  I’m also curious whether men with children work the hours they do because they want to, or because there’s less choice for men, though I certainly don’t have an answer.   However, there’s no question that MacEwan’s proposal is a step toward a more pointed conversation of work/life balance issues at least in the context of motherhood.  I’ll continue thinking it through, and I look forward to the conversation that will, no doubt, follow.

Another take on what constitutes work/life balance and why it matters

/1 Comment/in , , /by

I’ve been rereading First Things First, by Stephen Covey, A. Roger Merrill, and Rebecca Merrill recently, as I’m creating my list of “must read” books for clients concerned with time management, work/life balance, and the like.  This book was first published in 1994 and I read it then.  Perhaps the best accolade I can give it is to say that I’ve remembered many of its principles and still apply them today.

While reading the section entitled “The Main Thing Is to Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing,” I started thinking about work/life balance and how “the main thing” may vary from person to person, and how work/life balance is often so poorly understood because the phrase suggests that there is a perfect balance between work and life that everyone should attain.  That view is (in my mind) so fallacious as to be dangerous.  And last night, I ran across two paragraphs in First Things First that address the issue beautifully:

We live our lives in terms of roles — not in the sense of role playing, but in the sense of authentic parts we’ve chosen to fill.  We may have important roles at work, in the family, in the community, or in other areas of life.  Roles represent responsibilities, relationships, and areas of contribution.

Much of our pain in life comes from the sense that we’re succeeding in one role at the expense of other, possibly even more important roles.  We may be doing great as vice-president of the company, but not doing well at all as a parent or spouse.  We may be succeeding in meeting the needs of our clients, but failing to meet our own need for personal development and growth . . . Balance among roles does not simply mean you’re spending time in each role, but that these roles work together for the accomplishment of your mission.

(Emphasis mine.)  We each choose the roles we want to live, and we define how we want to live them through a mission statement or similar expression of values and intentions.  Outside forces may impact the roles we live (the law, for instance, provides a minimum standard of care for parents) but generally speaking, we determine how to perform in and through each role.  For instance, one person’s mission statement might open by saying, “I am a lawyer who….” Another could read, “I am a parent who….”  And yet another might write, “I am a person who….”

I hold that the mission statement that revolves around the person, not the roles that person seeks to fill, stands the greatest chance of success because the statement recognizes that a variety of attributes and skills will create the life that the person wants to live.  The same is true, I believe, for career success.  We bring our whole selves to work.  As Judge Tuttle put it, “[S]ome specialized and highly developed techniques may be included, but [the professional’s] mode of expression is given its deepest meaning by the personality of the practitioner. In a very real sense his professional service cannot be separate from his personal being. He has no goods to sell, no land to till. His only asset is himself.”

Work/life balance is necessary to replenish the self and to keep the asset fresh.  The balance supports the work.  And so (as I continue to seek a different descriptor) work/life synergy renews and sustains the resource that accomplishes the work.  Just as some of us need 6 hours of sleep a night and some need 9, the source of renewal will vary in quality and quantity from person to person.  What’s more, the synergy goes both ways: just as “life” facilitates “work,” “work” may facilitate “life.”  A lawyer may carry out the duties of her work in part to teach her child of what it means to be a professional, or perhaps she may use her work to further her political beliefs.  And quality and quantity will vary in this direction as well.  What matters is the recognition that each part of a lawyer’s life, each role that he chooses to assume, will either support or undermine his overall effectiveness in life — recognition that exists in concert with appropriate action.  And that’s why “work/life balance” and “work/life synergy” matter.

I challenge you today to consider what roles constitute your life.  And then, search for the synergy among the roles that creates the whole.  How can you strengthen your performance in each role in a way that will strengthen the whole of your life?

Women in law firms

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

The WSJ Law Blog has an interesting post asking whether women lawyers are reaching a crisis point.  The MIT Workplace Center has issued a report titled “Women Lawyers and Obstacles to Leadership,” which states that of the 1000 Massachusetts lawyers surveyed, 31% of female associates and 18% of male associates had left private practice, as had 35% of female associates with children and 15% of male associates with children.  As might be expected, the report criticized heavy billable hour requirements, inflexible schedules including the lack of real part-time options, and “a lack of appreciation for the need to balance work and family.”

The WSJ Blog then goes on to ask whether readers would encourage their daughters to enter the law and whether readers agree with the report’s summary that “nothing is changing” concerning women’s role in law.  And as is often the case, much of the fun of the post lies in the comments.

Steve Seckler of the Counsel to Counsel blog has a different take on the report in his post Women Are “Staying” in Droves.  Reviewing the same report, and having attended a presentation on it, Steve leads with the statistics that almost 80% of women who leave law firm practice stay in or return to the workforce and more than 50% stay in the legal profession.  The issue, as Steve sees it, is focused on women’s decisions to leave law firms, resulting in the much-quoted statistic that only 17% of large law firm partners are women.   (Robert Ambrogi treats the issue similarly in his post The Uneven Partnership Track.)  Fascinating to me is the email attached at the end of Steve’s post from Sheila Statlender, a clinical psychologist who is a member of the Boston Bar Association’s Standing Committee of Work/Life Balance, in which she fantasizes about women and their “male supporters” walking out of their firms for a couple of hours or a day to protest current conditions for women and to support/brainstorm/educate around strategies to address those conditions.  Good reading, though I’m not sure I’ll be holding my breath for enactment.

This issue presents a variety of challenges: opportunities for women vs. men in career and family; biological imperatives and societal response to them; sociological stereotypes; law firm economics; family economics… The list could go on and on.  Looking at the questions raised on the “big picture” level, it seems to me that what we’re seeing is the challenge that arises whenever someone takes on a one-dimensional role that is (or is expected to be) all-encompassing.  It’s the perception that a lawyer who’s a Big Firm Partner (or Associate) can’t also be a Mother, because those two roles conflict.

Perhaps I’m feeling unduly idealistic today, but I wonder whether demoting these roles to being aspects of an integrated, whole person might be a step in the right direction — with a hefty dose of reconciling the whole person to the realities of law firm and personal economics.  Not to say that finding that integration is an easy process or without challenges and trade-offs, but most questions tend to move toward solution when posed as A and B rather than A or B.  I also will take a stand for the proposition that working fathers are as entitled to the same personal/professional integration as working mothers, and the “societal stare decisis” that holds otherwise (to quote a brilliant turn of phrase by a “2L Woman” commenter on the WSJ Law Blog) deserves to be overturned.

But, when the measuring stick for so many is profits per partner, doesn’t the dollar determine the destiny?

Life at the Bar… Welcome to your game of Twister®!

/3 Comments/in , /by

Do you ever feel stressed?  Overwhelmed?  As if it’s impossible to meet all of the demands you’re facing at any given moment?  Although most of our society seems to have those feelings at least some of the time, anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant number of lawyers experience them frequently.  And perhaps it’s no surprise, given the pressures of practice and the urge that most of us have to maintain some kind of life outside the office.  And as we advance in seniority, the volume and complexity of our activities (professional and personal) are likely to intensify, not to decrease.

In thinking about all of the balls most lawyers have in the air at any given time, I came to a realization: being a lawyer is a lot like playing a game of Twister®!  Consider the “circles” a lawyer has to touch on a regular basis:

  • The client circle: delivering excellent and timely client service;
  • The team circle: coordinating with colleagues and staff who assist you (and whom you assist) in providing client service;
  • The administrative circle: billing, reviewing mail, and keeping up with all of the tasks around your office;
  • The business development circle: attending networking functions, writing articles, speaking, attending “social” functions with clients and potential clients;
  • The skills development circle: reading advance sheets, legal and business news articles, and blogs; staying abreast of what’s going on in your area(s) of practice;
  • The in-office social circle: chatting with colleagues and staff, which keeps you in the loop and creates the goodwill necessary to get things accomplished; and
  • The career advancement circle: making sure you’re advancing the way you want to in your career, which may include time spent with a mentor.

When you figure that a lawyer has to keep one hand on the client circle at all times (very often including time spent outside the office), one hand on the team circle most of the time, a foot on the administrative circle throughout the workday, and another foot sliding back and forth between the other circles, it’s no surprise that lawyers often feel frazzled and overstressed.

And don’t forget the personal game of Twister® going on in the background!  Those circles include:

  • The self-care circle: sleeping, exercising, eating, grooming, and so on;
  • The relationship circle(s): connecting with a spouse or significant other, dating, hanging out with friends, etc.;
  • The commuting circle: a twice-daily necessity for most of us;
  • The family circle: especially pressing for parents or children of aging parents;
  • The relaxation circle: vacations, reading, playing sports, or whatever refuels your batteries;
  • The housework circle: laundry, housecleaning, etc.;
  • The financial circle: paying bills, dealing with investments and taxes, researching and making financial decisions;
  • The spiritual circle: attending a house of worship, spending time in nature, inspirational reading, etc.; and
  • Many, many other circles depending on your interests.

Now, think about playing Twister®: if you’re in reasonably good shape, in a reasonably good mood, reasonably flexible, and playing with people you like and trust, it’s a lot of fun!  Sure, it’s physically challenging, and it can even be mentally challenging to figure out how to balance while moving from one circle to another.  Under the right circumstances, it’s a stretch (in the most literal sense) and it’s a good way to pass some time.

But imagine trying to play if you’re in a bad mood or feeling pessimistic.  Imagine what it would be like to resent the game or the person giving directions everytime you had to stretch out to another circle.  Or, worst of all, what if you didn’t even want to be playing Twister® and got yourself into the game just because you’d attended the party and everybody expected you not only to play, but also to be great at playing and to enjoy it?  And if, to add in some serious pressure, people were counting on you to manage every stretch and to maintain every pose flawlessly, with no complaint?  Yech.  Recipe for disaster.

I see two ways in which the practice-as-Twister® presents serious challenges to lawyers.  First, in the preparation for the game: wanting to play, being flexible, knowing the rules and the techniques, having the physical and mental strength to maintain some pretty uncomfortable poses for a time, and choosing to play with trustworthy and talented people.  And second, being forgiving enough to recognize that sometimes, it just isn’t possible to touch all of the circles required at the same time and checking to see how important each circle really is.  The preparation part is critical, but let’s focus on the second part for today.

Lawyers often feel they’re going to collapse as a result of trying to put enough time in each of the Twister® circles.  The balance becomes too difficult to maintain, because unlike a game, the practice of law deals with serious requirements… It isn’t just a red circle, it’s your client’s business (or life), or your own business, or the health/happiness/wellbeing of your family or yourself.  The stakes are high, and most of us intend to show up ideally to meet every demand.  And sometimes, that just isn’t possible.

Do you ever feel as if your mind and body are rarely occupying the same circle – worrying about home when you’re at work and worrying about work when you’re at home?  Do you wish that you had more time for important activities like planning your future, or more time for “selfish” pursuits like working out?  How often do you say out loud, or even just think to yourself, “Well, I’ll get around to it one of these days,” even though you know it never happens?

Too many lawyers feel trapped in their game, unable to satisfy all of the demands they face and yet unwilling to make a change.  Maybe you’ve been there, or maybe you’ve tried the common tactics – work harder at “time management” (but the cleverest systems fall by the wayside, crushed by the burden you’re shouldering), contract for the help you need (but no PR agent will make new business contacts like you can, and does your spouse really want a substitute partner?), or just cope with “reality” and recognize that life isn’t perfect (perhaps anesthetizing the voice that reminds you of all you want out of life with another glass of wine or a brownie, even though you know the voice won’t go away – and yet you fear that it might)…

It’s time for real change.

So push the “pause” button for a minute, and consider these questions.

What do you want?  Just for a minute, release the expectations that your partner, your parents, your children, your colleagues, your friends, or even society at large may have of you, and ask what you really want from your life.  What values do you want to express in the way you live?  If family is your top priority, how will you choose to honor that?  If work is at the head of your list, how does that square with your behavior?

What would your life look like if you honored your priorities?  What changes would you have to make?  And how would you go about making them?

When would you make the changes?

Whether you engage in career/life satisfaction reflection on your own or you work with a coach or some other assistance, these are the kinds of questions you’ll examine.  You’ll find your own answers — and they won’t be like anyone else’s.  The solutions to the traps in which lawyers can find themselves are as varied as the attorneys in practice.  With guided exploration, strategic approaches to overcoming the obstacles that face you, careful attention to designing an environment that support you in making the changes that you desire, and being held accountable for what you say you want to do, your success is almost guaranteed.  And you’ll find your own way to play Twister®… And find satisfaction in it.

The role of wealth in life at the bar and in associate retention

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Money is always an interesting topic, and wealth even more so.

I remember being in middle school and fantasizing with friends about being rich.  We imagined that if we could just make about $60,000, we’d be set.  (Of course, I’d venture to guess that all of our parents were earning at least double that at the time, but that just goes to show that I ran with a rather naive crowd back then.)  And indeed, I remember starting my clerkship and making just about $28,000 and the rush of pleasure when I topped out at $50,000-ish just before my clerkship ended.  Then I did some contract work and associated with a sole practitioner before I joined Jones Day in 1999, early enough to benefit from the salary hike that hit the fall.  Was I rich?  Not by the standards I held by that time, no.  But “rich” is a standard that tends to rise over time… And that’s why I’d prefer to focus on wealth.

Wealth, for me, refers not only to having enough money to live comfortably but also to having time to enjoy that money, family and friends with whom to enjoy it, and a sense of satisfaction in what I’ve accomplished and possibility in what lies ahead.  It’s a 36o-degree measurement of life that requires reflection on more than a bank account.

Wealth depends on one’s values, so it’s a rather individual measure of success.  For some, money may be the primary component of wealth, whereas others want to feel they’ve done good in the world, others want close relationships, others want to have fun, others want adventure, and so on and so on.  And most of us want some of all of the things I’ve listed, plus who-knows-what else.  Of course, this is not to say that money is bad, since money facilitates everything from shelter, food, and medical care to education to the pleasures of hobbies and travel.  But money, for most people, isn’t the be-all and end-all.

The real measure of your wealth is how much you’d
be worth if you lost all your money.

– Unknown

True?  Probably yes for some and no for others.  But it does raise an interesting question for reflection.

The point here is that rising salaries (accompanied by rising billable hour requirements) are not adequate in themselves for many lawyers.  The money comes at a cost.  If that cost is an unhappy spouse who feels neglected, a lawyer who values relationships will be conflicted, if not unhappy.  A lawyer who values travel is unlikely to be satisfied  if he has plenty of money in the bank but no time to spend it.  And a lawyer who values money as her top priority will have an incentive to jump from firm to firm to maximize her income, unless other benefits or desires outweigh that incentive.  Firms need to be mindful of the non-economic rewards in law and need to recognize that if their lawyers don’t experience those rewards in some way, they’re unlikely to be satisfied by high pay over the long term.

As with any other business, the challenge to be mastered in thriving at life at the bar is to minimize the costs and maximize the returns.  It’s critical to make a living and it’s important to consider what will make a particular job sufficiently satisfying.  What does wealth mean to you?  Are you meeting your needs in the areas that matter to you?  If not, what changes do you need to make?

Too busy? What benefit does busy-ness bring?

/2 Comments/in , , /by

There’s a nice article in last Friday’s New York Times titled Too Busy to Notice You’re Too Busy.  While I admit to a frisson of annoyance at the author’s introduction (she’s married, two children, working part-time, a volunteer, a regular exerciser, and a socializer who employs a housecleaner twice a month), it does seem to me that many people — lawyers especially — really enjoy being busy.

Busy is worn as a badge of honor, and (gender notwithstanding) being busy is often a macho statement of one’s value.  After all, if a lawyer is talented and dedicated, why would she ever not be busy?  And who wants to find out?

I wonder sometimes what’s lost of be-ing when one is so very busy do-ing.  What’s being ignored or unnoticed?  And at the end of the day, or the end of the life, is the “busy” worth it?

I’ve worked with a client to cut back on some of the busy.  Names and details are omitted to protect confidentiality, of course, but my client realized that even when he was at home with his wife, he wasn’t truly present.  He was checking email, making lists, fielding calls, and reading up.  His body was home, but he wasn’t.  Although he was busy and successful, he wasn’t enjoying his life because he felt unconnected, and he felt more and more drained by his work.  After some examination, he decided to set boundaries around his time.  He elected to block out time to be present with his family, to sleep and exercise enough to renew his energy, and to enforce the boundaries he’s set.  The result?  He is more focused at work, he accomplishes more, and he gets to enjoy some time to be.  He is reengaged.  He’s still busy, but his busy is the result of conscious and purposeful choice.

How about you?  Is there some aspect of your life or your practice that’s busy because busy looks good?  Would you prefer something different?  Or do you feel trapped, unhappy with the schedule you have but unable to see any way to change it?  Though it may not be easy to see, choice is always present.  Spend some time in possibility and ask, if you could make one change in your time, what would it be?

Wrap-up on The Ms. JD — Legally Female Conference, and “Work-Life Blending”

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As I mentioned in a previous post, Ms. JD held a kick-off conference at Yale Law School last Saturday.  I wasn’t able to attend (sadly for me, I was literally elbow-deep in mulch, adding sweat equity to a rural Maryland property to be resold in about 3 years, for what I trust will be great profit) but I’ve scanned the web for write-ups from those who were fortunate enough to attend.

Susan Carter Liebel of Build A Solo Practice, LLC has posted a full summary of the conference (and promised more to come), while Lisa Solomon, the Legal Research & Writing Pro, offers an interesting review of a panel discussion of how women in the law can make use of technology.  Finally, the New Haven Independent covered the keynote speech by the Hon. Janet Bond Arterton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  (The article begins by describing Judge Arterton’s shock at being addressed by male lawyers as “sir.”  The import of the anecdote rests in the fact that Judge Arterton was appointed to the bench in 1995, long after a female judge should have been a novelty — indeed, she was the 100th woman appointed to be a U.S. district judge.)

And don’t overlook the reading material offered by the panels, which is available on Ms. JD.

It looks like a terrific conference, and I wish I could have attended.  Something tells me there will be more to come, though.

On a related note… Work/life balance is often tagged as a woman’s issue or, more specifically, as an issue that pertains to new mothers in the years before they decide whether to “get back to work” or to “stay home with the kids.”  (PLEASE note the quotation marks around those limited and limiting phrases!)

But I take a stand for the proposition that it’s an issue that touches all of us, and so I was delighted to see Chuck Newton, of the Chuck Newton Rides the Third Wave blog, posting on “work-life blending.”  I like the idea that well-used technology may allow lawyers to blend work and personal time, though reality for many seems to be that technology allows work to bleed into personal time without boundaries.  How flexible are you willing to allow your work/life boundaries to be?