The Big Picture

Holistic Law is expanding its purposes in the hopes of providing a wider-client services base.  As you may already know, holistic law is this idea that instead of regarding clients in a narrow ways, the holistic lawyer focuses on legal issues through the lens of the whole person.  This means that other professionals should be part of the Holistic Law Group's network.

Holistic Law Group is looking for therapists, accountants, lawyers who specialize in bankruptcy and estate planning, social workers and other supportive service providers to compliment Holistic Law Group and its commitment to the whole person.

While our justice system is an adversarial one, with the right supports in place, the process can be, potentially "win/win."  The holistic lawyer -- along with the client and other professionals -- asesses the client's role, works with the client to draw a client-focused solution, and gauges the effect of the problem on both the client and the community.

Comments:  

Want to be part of a whole-person approach to legal issues?  Interested in referrals?  Please comment or contact Jenna.

Changing Times

Barbara Lenk has won confirmation for a seat on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  Justice Lenk becomes the first openly gay or lesbian person to sit on Massachusetts’s highest court.  Justice Lenk’s biography, featured below, is edited from the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s website where she sat as a judge prior to being elevated to the Supreme Judicial Court:

Associate Justice Barbara A. Lenk was born in Queens, New York.  She received a B.A., magna cum laude, from Fordham University in 1972;  a Ph.D. in political philosophy from Yale University in 1978;  and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979.  She began her legal career in 1979 at the Boston law firm of Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer where her practice specialized in First Amendment matters.  In 1993, she was appointed to the Superior Court, where she served until 1995, when she was appointed to the Appeals Court.  Justice Lenk has served on the Board of Directors of the Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association;  as Chair of the Board of Editors of the Boston Bar Journal;  and as a member of the Judicial Administration Council of the Massachusetts Bar Association.  She currently serves as a Trustee of Western New England College and as a member of the Boston Inn of Court.

And, she's a lesbian.  This openness of Justice Lenk's is a sure sign of openness of the populous.  In the days before the Stonewall Riots in June of 1969, the appointment of an openly gay judge was unthinkable.  But today, thoughts are different.  Congratulations Justice Lenk.

Limited Representation: Why do it?

There has been a recent shift in thinking in the minds of some lawyers that "limited representation" is a new way to be helpful to clients.  In fact, it has been around for a long, long time in the form of "counsellor-at-law."  While many lawyers like the tradition of the lawyer representing ALL interests for a client's ENTIRE matter, some clients want a different arrangement.

With so many possibilities, there simply cannot be a one-size-fits-all way to represent a client's interest.  Lawyers need to be accommodating and flexible in their representation and offer flat-fee billing.     

A survey conducted in 1998 by the Boston Bar Association indicated that in over two thirds

of cases, one or both of the litigants are pro se.  This means that clients are going it alone.  Why?  And, what might be the up-shot? 

 

In many cases, self-represented litigants don't finish their family law action due to lack of understanding of the process.  They give up, feeling hopeless.  Most litigants do not qualify for legal aid, or live in areas where the legal aid resources are insufficient to meet their needs.  These litigants are forced to go pro se because they cannot come up with a huge retainer.  They feel as though they are forced into a financially-bound corner.  Others find that while they can afford to pay for some legal assistance, the cost of full service representation is simply prohibitive.  Then, there are some who desire to retain more control over their cases, and turn to attorneys to coach them, or assist with their paperwork.  These litigants retain primary control over their legal matters and appear in court by themselves. 

Comments?

Is approaching a multi-faceted case like a "pick-and-choose menu" a smart way to have a client-lawyer relationship?

Connecting to the Client

Recently, I have been working with a clients whose personal stories are emotionally traumatic.  Both from the perspective of any compassionate human but also, more existentially, to the person who's telling it.  Details emerge about trauma suffered at the hands of a sexually-abusing spouse, of a prison guard, of a father deserting his children.  Really ugly events left to stew in the minds of those victimized.

My clients frequently say, "I'm sorry to unload this on you."  My response, "Don't be."  And, I mean it.  If a lawyer cannot do the hard work of being both an attorney and counsellor at law, then she should get out of the business.  Clients, while interested in sage legal advice, want to be heard emotionally.

Clients need to be able to trust their chosen advocate with the ugliness of their pasts. 

The only way for this trust to authentically germinate demands the emotional risk a lawyer must take to be "present" with the client.  This risk-taking need to happen before the client arrives for the initial consultation.  Extra time needs to be put aside in the estimated "hour" to accommodate not only the "get-to-know-you" small talk but also the "you-may-unload-that-on-me" discussion.

Be advised:  A generous and compassionate heart will result in more time, better trust, and a more meaningful lawyer-client relationship.  Clients deserve emotional connections to their lawyers.

Comments?

 Is it important for you to have emotional chemistry with your attorney?

Ask the Client

Most people list "public speaking" as one of their greater fears.  Depending on how the question gets asked, "speaking in front of a group" outranks "death."  The image that most have of lawyers is that they not only like speaking in front of groups but also are good at it.  While it has been my personal observation that most lawyers fear death well above any fear of talking in front of others, many lawyers fail to remember that people -- in general -- hate being in the spotlight.

Last week, I found myself sitting in my office with a client and going over his testimony.  I went so far as to set up a video camera and record his words and mannerisms in order to have some friends comment as to his credibility.  (Full disclosure:  He has given me permission to broadcast.)  

This seemed like good trial preparation:  Get client to tell his story (which lawyer already thinks is credible); record it; get feedback from unbiased third parties; then, based on the reviews, decide if client should take the stand in his own defense.

I spent several hours with my client.  Though, it was not until then later portion of our time together that I asked him if he wanted to get up in front of a jury of his peers and both tell his side but also be subject to cross-examination.  His response -- likely driven by my high-tech video staging and presupposition of his testimony --  was "If you think that it makes sense for me to, I will."

It seems to me that like most people, he'd rather not speak in front of a group; and, certainly not a small group of strangers who have been charged with judging him.  And though he is deferring to my professional opinion as to what he ought to do, shouldn't my professional opinion include what is best for my client?

Comments?

 When does the client's interest begin and end?  

All Work + No Play = Tired Lawyer

One of the most common complains of those who live with lawyers is the constant focus on work.  Whether the lawyer is "running ideas" by a spouse or some friends or the children are asking about "the one that got in trouble with the police," the lawyer can have little time to not be "lawyering."  In some ways, this is good:  Cherished family and trusted friends in the lawyer's "circle" are interested in how the lawyer spends her work time and the lawyer has a nearly constant stream of feedback.  In many, many ways though, this is not good:  Cherished family and trusted friends have now assumed a role of "support staff" and the lawyer seems never to have "down time."

When I was working as an investigator of child abuse and neglect for the Commonwealth, I brought every day home to my husband and relived it in excruciating detail.  Sometimes, it took five or six hours of "briefing" to get my eight hour day processed.  Thankfully, that lasted for only the first two and a half years of our marriage.  It's a wonder that Rob endured such a daily rant.  Having a master's degree in therapy probably helped him through.      

When I began law school in 2002, I was already a wife and a mother.  I had had other "life" experiences and titles to define me apart from "future attorney."  I had other roles to fill outside of the classroom.  This dichotomy served as a training ground for life after passing the bar. 


Never do I see myself as exclusively "lawyer."  For that matter, people who I meet in town -- if they even ask -- are surprised to learn of my profession.    

The ability to keep separate these two spheres is a benefit to not only my cherished family and trusted friends but also my clients.  The clients get more out of me because I am always enthusiastic about spending my lawyer time on them. 

Because I can compartmentalize -- and have done so since Day One of law school -- every one gets what each deserves, including me:  Focused attention, "down time," respectively.      

Compassionate Care

While listening to NPR yesterday, I heard a report about compassionate care in the medical setting.  Apparently, people believe that compassion -- offered by medical professionals -- can make a difference as to whether a person lives or dies.  Patients think that 81% of the time, "good communication" and "emotional support" make a difference; doctors come in at a high 71%.

See the blog at:  http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2010/11/compassionate-care-the-difference-between-life-and-death. This got me to think, naturally, about clients and lawyers.

While it is a rare day that a lawyer makes a "life or death" decision for a client, many clients feel as though their legal issues are life-determinative.  And guess what?  These decisions make a HUGE difference to the client, as well they should.

Every client must be made to feel that there is "good communication" at the very least.  Exceptionally good communication is even better.  This means calling the client back, right away.  This means keeping the client up to date as to the happenings of the case.  This means listening to the client's concerns and objectives, not just in the initial client interview but throughout the entire case, even after the case is over when the client has "a few more questions."

Every client must be made to feel "emotionally supported."  This means providing legal guidance through the lens of the client's perspective.  It is the client's case, not the lawyer's.  This means taking a holistic approach to the client; not just learning about the client's legal issue, but learning about the client -- as a person.

If doctors and patients can agree that "good communication" and "emotional support" can make a difference in "life and death," then certainly a these two simple components of basic human relations can make their way into the lawyer's office.    

Comments?

What do you think?  Could having an embracing lawyer change the outcome in a legal setting?