Law Times

Law Times • OcTOber 15, 2018 Page 7 www.lawtimesnews.com Big law and mental wellness BY DORON GOLD S ince its inception, the legal profes- sion has been driven by concepts of excellence, perfectionism, achieve- ment and the highest-level think- ing and analysis. In furtherance of those goals, centres of legal service were created in which many of the best and brightest came together to offer top-shelf legal ad- vice to clients willing to pay for that level of service. Today, some of the tallest skyscrap- ers in cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and New York house firms such as these. A couple of weeks ago, I was visiting with one of my oldest and dearest friends at one such firm at which they are a partner. My friend lamented to me that there are a lot of anxious young associates in those hallways who struggle to cope and who feel like imposters. My friend went on to say that that firm is a place filled with kind, supportive people, including thoughtful, decent leaders. As my friend stated, no- body is getting yelled at here. And yet, the distress is pervasive. I hear similar stories repeatedly from the many Big Law firm leaders with whom I speak. They are good people trying to foster healthy, supportive workplaces that are also places of legal ex- cellence and maximum profitability, the latter of which leads to sky-high billing- hour targets. This tension has never been more acute than it is right now. Law firms of all types are facing the re- ality that the old socially Darwinian ways aren't holding up anymore. Sure, within these firms there remains a considerable cohort of people who espouse a "suck it up and deal" approach, expecting associates to endure the pressure and work- load or get out of the way for one of the many who are lined up around the block ready and willing to step in. While daunt- ing financial pressures on firms necessitate the ongoing de- mand for revenue generation and even some anachronistic notions of toughness and hy- per-endurance persist, coun- tervailing tensions emerge and grow at a compelling pace. Some of this is simply a new and better understanding of the human impact of undue work pressure and work- load. We as a society and as a profession know more than we ever have about the toxic effects of stress not only on quality of life but also on the quality of one's work and one's longevity in a position. While it may be the right thing to do to treat one's associates and partners humanely, the fact that it's good legal ethics as well as good business is becoming more evident to firms. A recent U.S. study in the Jour- nal of Health and Social Behavior dem- onstrated that lawyers in prestigious Big Law jobs are more likely to be impacted by symptoms of depression. They called it the "Status-Health Paradox." In a 2015 study published in the George Washington Law Review, on average, lawyers in objectively more prestigious positions had a lower sense of well-being and abused alcohol more than colleagues who work in more public service-related roles. Those "prestige" lawyers also were observed to have had significantly higher law school grades but signifi- cantly lower belief in their level of competence. These impacts can affect not only the level of happiness, satisfaction or mental health of associates but also the bot- tom line, as these associates assimilate the impact of their environments and react ac- cordingly, often by voting with their feet. Associates who ini- tially covet Big Law positions often come to the realization that they need to be careful what they wish for. This tension is even more pro- nounced among women and members of racialized groups. These groups have an approximately 50-per-cent higher voluntary attrition rate than white men, according to the National Association of Law Placement in Washington, D.C. They observed in 2016 that 85 per cent of female lawyers from marginalized groups in the United States will quit their Big Law jobs within seven years of start- ing them. When associates leave, firms lose tal- ent, work f low, overall firm morale, repu- tation and money. In NALP's 2017 update on associate attrition, it found that the cost to a firm of losing an associate can be between $200,000 and $500,000. These costs include recruiting and training costs, resource shortage, administrative costs and time expended by HR depart- ments. In 2016, NALP found that for ev- ery 25 new associates hired by firms, 17 left their positions. As these facts become more widely ap- preciated, many in large firms are getting the message and adjusting their business models and ways of operating. Meaning- ful training and mentorship is essential to keeping talent. A culture of collegiality, kindness, compassion, as well as excellence and high performance needs to be priori- tized. And this needs to come from the top. And then there's the ever-challenging issue of billing hours. It's a tough one. I would not presume to know what the right balance is. One hint might be to take note of the data in the aforementioned Status-Health Paradox study in which "overwork and work-life conf lict" were observed to be primary contributors to the increase in depressive symptoms of associates, the prevalence of which were correlated directly with firm size. In the end, Big Law is populated with human beings with strengths and vulner- abilities, as well as competing values and needs. As the quest for more balanced and mentally healthy Big Law workplaces progresses, it's heartening that more and more of these firms are identifying that attending to associate and partner well- ness is not just the right thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do. LT uDoron Gold is a registered social worker who is also a former practising lawyer. He works with lawyers and law students in his role as a staff clinician and presenter with the Member Assistance Program as well as with members of the general public in his private psychotherapy practice. He's available at dorongold.com. Gendered dress codes are antiquated BY SARAH MOLYNEAUX O n-campus interviewing season is upon us. And with it, there is a new crop of commentary addressing the pressing questions about how to make the best possible impression on interviewers. Ontario lawyers are conducting interviews for posi- tions at their firms, and prospective students are ag- gressively seeking good positions. There's just one question I wish would stop com- ing up in conversation: Should female students wear a skirt suit? You'd think the question might be moot by now. However, some women students have told me that's the advice some lawyers, law professors, career devel- opment offices and older students keep giving them. As a lawyer, I've heard a similar message about how to dress for court: "It's just that judges consider a skirt more conservative." On top of this, I've been told that some students hear feedback that their hair is unprofessional because it is too long or too short or too curly. They're cautioned to wear heels but that they shouldn't be too high. If they wear a skirt, they need to put on pantyhose. They should wear makeup, of course, but not too much. They should wear nail polish, but it ought to be neutral and it can't chip. If you look young, try to look older. If you look old, try to look younger. I think that most people providing these fashion tips have good intentions. They don't want a smart student to miss out on a good opportunity because she doesn't know the rules. But I would encourage law stu- dents not to take this advice. I would encourage them to wear pants. I love pantsuits. They are warmer in the winter. They are better suit- ed for running to catch a streetcar. They make it easier to carry a large litigation bag up and down stairs, which one will likely do a lot of if she gets the job. They are just as professional as skirt suits. Interview days are busy enough without wasting extra minutes in the shower shaving your legs. Your nylons may run. Pantsuits remind me of Hillary Clinton, in a good way. But if a woman actually prefers a skirt, she should wear one because she will perform better in the inter- view if she feels comfortable with what she's wearing. Not only that, but women deserve a job where they are respected. People who don't like to hire women who wear pants to job interviews don't like women. It doesn't stop on call day. Those people may judge a woman if the skirt she wears is too short or too long. They may quietly (even unconsciously) penalize her when she takes maternity leave after hire-back. They may make snide comments about her leaving early to pick up her kid at daycare during her annual reviews. They will not invite her golfing. They may make inappropriate comments about her shoes, hair and cultural background until she can't stand it any- more. They may say she is too aggressive or not aggres- sive enough for the job. There is no pleasing them. It's not just men. Plenty of women have internalized the sexist messages they received during their student days. Our profession has a sexism problem. We have a women lawyer retention problem. We have a mommy- track problem. In this context, the skirt suit thing seems small, but it's a big red f lag. In saying this, I know that not all students can afford to be picky or to risk turning their nose up at advice just because it's sexist. Law school is expensive and it is hard. Some stu- dents have families to support. Almost all of them have student debt to pay. The job market is competitive. If you can't take a risk, make the choice that's right for you and your family. But maybe keep your eye open for better op- portunities after you're called to the bar. It's a long career and you can definitely do better than an of- fice stuck in the 1950s — or 1850s. That's why it's more important that lawyers stop giving this advice and start calling each other out. We need to look at our colleagues and our hiring commit- tees and demand better. Since students don't have the power to call it like it is, we need to do so. Tell your colleagues that a preference for hiring women who wear skirts over women who wear pants isn't "old-fashioned," it's discriminatory. It's contrary to the spirit of the Ontario Human Rights Code, our professional obligations and those personal statements that got so much press this spring. People with these hiring preferences shouldn't be on your hiring com- mittees. Lawyers need to be conscious of what our dress codes say about how we feel about women's place in our offices. Gendered dress codes (even unwritten ones) dis- advantage women, particularly queer women, gen- der-non-conforming folks, women who adhere to religious modest dress requirements and women of colour. They force us into less comfortable clothing and painful footwear and treat us like window dress- ing instead of skilled employees. Manicures, makeup, hair straightening — it adds extra worry, time and expense for students who should be focusing on prepping for interview questions. They make some of us feel less comfortable in our clothes and in our skin. It shouldn't be radical for women to wear pants to work or job interviews in 2018. Or f lats. Or long hair. Or short hair. Or natural hair. Or your natural face. Law firms like these don't deserve good law stu- dents like you. LT uSarah Molyneaux is a labour, employment and human rights lawyer at Molyneaux Law in Hamilton, Ont. Her practice focuses on gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. u SPEAKER'S CORNER COMMENT The Lawyer Therapist Doron Gold

• Cover