Client, Heal Thyself?

How many times have you heard a lawyer mutter that this would be a great profession but for the clients? Truth be told, we lawyers are society's first line of defense against the ravages of those ravaged by mental illness.

I have been begging for years for more training on how to recognize, cope with and respond to the mental-health issues that arise in so many cases. Still nothing.

We are trained as lawyers to counsel the rational actor. Yet every lawyer has an intuitive grasp of the following aphorism: You can lead a client to the court house, but you can't make him think.

I sometimes think the law school curriculum should be recast. We ought not to divide courses along fussy jurisdictional lines. Rather, we should teach it in terms of the passions and emotions that fuel our cases. Why not devise a curriculum around the seven deadly sins? Greed, anger, lust, they are all present aplenty in any practice. Often our task as lawyers is to talk clients from the precipice of excess.

The problem is that nothing in our training prepares us to do this. We learn hit or miss how to become diagnosticians. Should DSM IV-R become required reading? Or perhaps Aristotle's Ethics? Maybe both.

Of course, our goal is not to heal, but to represent our client's interests, however conceived. It creates tension when a client adopts a course that is sane and comptent, but otherwise troubling. Consider the Michael Ross case in Connecticut. A client wants to die, his former lawyers oppose the death penalty. Who should speak for the client?

Any suggestions out there about CLE opportunities or courses to take? I nearly left the law not long ago out of the frustration of being held hostage by the rage of clients. I decided to remain, but I am so much more wary about the cases I take.  I am not altogether comfortable with turning away so many cases of people in such pain.

Comments

[David Giacalone]

I used to marvel at the social workers in the Child Abuse and Neglect section of our local DSS -- they dealt everyday with people enraged and/or otherwise incapable of thinking clearly or objectively about what the system was doing to them or their families. The social workers, although they often took the brunt of the anger, generally stayed unflappable. I would say to them, "we never had a moment of instruction in law school about dealing with our clients as human beings [I graduated in 1976], much less about how to be in the middle of a maelstrom." This is all to say: let's take a look at how social workers -- people who have to provide competent and caring service everyday without being personally overwhelmed -- are trained and take pointers from their education.

I also believe that good divorce mediation training might provide a useful models.

[Addicus Finch]

As an attorney who practices much of the time in family courts, all I can say is "Amen, brother!"

Do we confront the client's problematic behavior or just acknowledge it and try to carry out their wishes? I don't know the answer to this question and I agree that more needs to be done to help lawyers deal with these issues.

[Jackie]

I'll open with: "no offense to anyone, but"... I've been a paralegal for 17 years or so. Now I do mostly "lawyer-work," having passed the Bates stamping and filing phase years ago. And, after this many years in the business I am now going to law school - in large part because I can hardly stand to work FOR attorneys anymore. (Actually, I am beginning to question why I am going to law school!) In re: to Norm Pattis' "Client, Heal Thyself" blog/article, my first comment is my constant amazement at how much they DO NOT teach in law school that is actually applicable to and essential for the practice of law. I have worked with a large number of associate attorneys, in helping them learn the ropes of actual discovery and case management. Now that I am in law school, I am getting a firsthand look at the materials taught and know from experience that about 50% of what I am learning will not be applicable to my job as an attorney. Age and life's experiences will add more to an attorney's arsenal than the other 50% of what is taught in law school. If Mr. Pattis is seriously wondering what courses to add to his repertoire, the following courses would round out an attorney's educational background to deal with a host of dilemmas not confronted in law school: psychology, theology, philosophy, logic and politics. Perhaps these should be undergraduate requirements for entry to law school, but it seems that an attorney would be better served by his/her own maturing process and either including these classes within the law school curriculum, or as continuing education requirements.