Law Times

Law Times • sepTember 25, 2017 Page 7 www.lawtimesnews.com Banish negative self-talk BY DORON GOLD Y ou're a total loser. What a com- plete failure. You should be ashamed of yourself. If I asked you whom you thought was uttering these words, you'd likely say a bully or a particularly abu- sive family member. e truth is, these types of cruel, judgmental and demean- ing comments are the types of messages many people hear in their own heads, re- lentlessly. It's called negative self-talk and it's both toxic and pervasive. e first fact to note in relation to this concept is that these messages are not coming from the individual themselves. ey are critical voices each of us has in our heads. ey are like back-seat drivers, peppering us with commentary about how we're doing, if we're good enough or what our value is. Ostensibly, the purpose is supposedly to motivate us to change and be better. e problem with this strategy is that these voices, while potentially well intentioned, almost always have the opposite impact. I once observed a counselling session. e client had a conversation with the voice in his head that was calling him names. e client would move back and forth between the chairs, in one voicing himself and in the other voicing his criti- cal voice. In this instance, the client asked the voice why it was saying all of these venomous things. e critic responded that it was trying to get the "pathetic" client to stop being so "weak" and to "suck it up" and be better. e client told the critic that this technique was causing him to want to roll up in the fetal position and cry, not get up and go. e critic persisted. ey went back and forth until the client ultimately asked the critic, given its stated inten- tion to motivate the client to act, how it thought its effort was working. e critic was stymied. If its goal was the motivation of the individual, the critic was failing miserably because the individual was paralyzed and de- moralized, disempowered and nowhere near motivated. e client subsequently reported that the critical voice got much quieter aer that session. Negative self-talk is powerful and de- bilitating. We are suggestible creatures, we humans, and if the suggestions we're hear- ing are that we're terrible people, our brains take those messages to heart and our self- esteem suffers accordingly. Psychologist Ethan Kross studied this phenomenon and noticed that simple changes to the way we talk to ourselves can make a big differ- ence in our moods. He noted that simply changing from internal "I" statements to referring to oneself in the third person using one's name gives the person enough distance from herself to offer more compas- sion and less judgment. Words soen and are more produc- tive. To feel never good enough is a miserable existence. As I mentioned before, these in- ternal dialogues usually begin early in life. Parents demand perfection and minimize ac- complishment. Peers deni- grate and isolate. Children learn early whether their value comes from who they are or what they do. People need to know they are lovable and valuable no matter what they do. is pursuit of external validation is particularly acute in law students and lawyers. ey constantly compare them- selves — usually unfavourably — to their classmates and colleagues. ey are not smart enough, hard-working enough or accomplished enough. If they encounter a particularly abusive or difficult senior lawyer, they feel as though they're failing for not being able to endure the abuse. I've heard more than a few conclude in such circumstances that they're not cut out to be a lawyer. What they're not cut out for is abuse, but that coach is in there harangu- ing and demeaning them. Inevitably, in such cases, depression, anxiety and addic- tion can oen ensue. In the end, each of us defines happiness and success for ourselves. ese things are only possible when an individual owns their own value and doesn't seek its con- firmation from others. Yours is a unique journey, incomparable to anyone else's. Negative self-talk reinforces negativity and self-diminishment and almost never spurs positive movement. So, when you notice those voices in your head calling you names or demeaning you, call them out. Notice their impact on you. Are they really motivating or are they taking the air out of your tires? As simple a technique as it seems, hold your hand to your heart for a few seconds. is basic act has been shown to increase one's instinct to be kind to oneself. You don't need to congratulate yourself for every step you take — though there's nothing wrong with that either — but start by turning off the voices that weaken you. If you can do that, you're well on your way along the path of accomplish- ing success as you uniquely define it. 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 avail- able at dorongold.com. Proceed cautiously on ABS BY CHARLES GLUCKSTEIN O ntario lawyers are currently being asked to share their opinions on alternative business structures in the province. If accepted, this would mean the delivery of legal services through civil society organizations to facilitate access to justice. I believe that alternative business structures — known as ABS — have the potential to have a positive effect in Ontario, especially when viewed from the perspective of increasing access to justice. At this stage, however, a number of significant issues and challenges remain and should be considered carefully prior to the Law Society of Upper Canada effecting any formal changes. It is my hope that the LSUC continues to re- search the effects of introducing ABS in Ontario and that consultation continues between the LSUC and members of the legal profession, as well as members of the public, before changes are made. Civil society organizations have the potential to allow for a particularly efficient means of co-ordinated deliv- ery of legal services alongside other existing services. This model was presented as a way to bridge the gap be- tween the private bar and public support by providing legal services to individuals who fall somewhere in be- tween. Under this structure, private charitable and non- profit organizations would be able to independently raise funds and employ licensees to reach and serve indi- viduals who are currently unable to access legal services. There are many legal services that are inadequately provided by either the private bar or legal aid, including assistance with Ontario Works claims, Ontario Disabil- ity Support Program claims, Criminal Injuries Compen- sation Board claims and residential tenancy issues. As- sistance with these matters could be adequately provided to the public under the civil society organizations model. The most vulnerable populations, such as immi- grants, refugees, survivors of sexual assault and those with mental health issues, would greatly benefit from the provision of legal services in a holistic setting, al- lowing multiple needs to be met at once. On the other hand, a number of concerns remain. Particularly, the personal injury bar is concerned with the ability of civil society organizations to provide legal services under the working group's proposed "Aspire Law" model. This model involved a partnership between Aspire, a national British spinal cord injury charity, and a leading personal injury law firm. Under this model, Aspire chan- nels cases to the private firm and retains a portion of the profits from the referral. Some of these profits are then directed to Aspire to be used for other social justice pur- poses, with the remainder of the profits going to the firm. This model is concerning to the personal injury bar since it is effectively allowing a lawyer to seek an advan- tage in the private market by providing donations to charities in exchange for referrals. Permitting the civil services organizations model in Ontario has the poten- tial to create an ethical dilemma for licensees operat- ing within those structures. Accepting a referral from a civil society organization under these circumstances would violate the LSUC's Rules of Professional Conduct and the Paralegal Rules of Conduct about referral fees. Exempting organizations from these rules would great- ly disrupt the regulation of the legal profession. This regulatory challenge also has the potential to tar- nish the reputation of the legal profession in the eyes of the general public and ultimately serve against the public interest. Permitting sponsorships and associations can lead to conf licts of interest. For example, an organization may direct clients to a particular firm because of a sense of obligation created by the financial support received, without regard to the competency of the lawyers at the firm to meet the clients' needs. This could result in sac- rificing the quality of legal services provided in favour of minimizing costs and maximizing profits for the civil society organization and a failure to uphold the high standards and values of the legal profession. The topic has been brewing for a while. In Septem- ber 2014, the Law Society of Upper Canada released a discussion paper on the topic of alternative business structures in Ontario. In response, an LSUC working group presented four potential models for the provision of legal services permitting non-licensees to own law firms to varying degrees. After soliciting responses to this proposal from mem- bers of the legal profession and the general public and re- ceiving mixed responses, the working group focused on allowing the delivery of legal services through civil society organizations to facilitate access to jus- tice. Again, the LSUC welcomed members of the legal profession and general public to comment on this issue, prior to discussing the motion to implement the civil services organization model at Convocation. This past June, the working group recommended that the LSUC's bylaws be amended to permit the civil society organizations structure in Ontario. The working group outlined the following principles to guide the framing of any changes to the bylaws, that licensees have control over the delivery of their professional services, that so- licitor-client privilege will be protected and that the fun- damentals of professionalism, including independence, competence, integrity and service to the public good through client relationships and responsibilities to the administration of justice will be safeguarded. The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association provided submissions on this topic, outlining some of the ben- efits but noting significant challenges. In the submis- sions, a fourth principle was suggested, that the civil so- ciety organizations cannot directly or indirectly charge any fee from clients in respect of any legal service pro- vided by the civil society organizations to them through its embedded licensees, nor can the organization take any fee or receive any donation directly or indirectly for referring any matter to a licensee not employed by the civil society organizations. The addition of this principle is necessary to ensure proper implementation and successful regulation of the civil society organizations structure in Ontario. We are currently at a pivotal point in the profession's regula- tory history. After receiving numerous submissions on this topic, it will be interesting to see how the LSUC responds and, if alternative business structures are ulti- mately permitted in Ontario, whether these challenges will be minimized. Hopefully, the LSUC will thorough- ly consider the submissions received and the challenges presented by the civil services organization model prior to passing the motion and altering the bylaws. LT uCharles Gluckstein is a specialist in civil litigation and partner with Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers in Toronto. He is the past president and current active member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. u SPEAKER'S CORNER COMMENT The Lawyer Therapist Doron Gold

• Cover