Law professors Nancy Levit and Douglas Linder have just published a valuable guide for lawyers of any age. Before you read on, I invite you to take a most interesting little quiz (derived from the findings in this book) which appeared in the ABA Journal. How important is money to lawyers’ happiness? Do the most satisfied lawyers come from the “top tier” law school? (Speaking of which, check out the recent New York Times story about the competition among law schools to get those coveted -and misleading-U.S News ratings.) Lawyers’ ability to be happy is challenged on many fronts. The assaults on well-being by the competitive law school environment; lawyers’ natural penchant for pessimistic thinking as described by Martin Seliman, Ph.D, the “Father of Positive Psychology”; the demands on a person’s time that are driven by the need to earn the funds to cover a six-figure student loan and the general lack of civility in legal culture and some of the most notable examples. Keeping a handle on personal relationships is so critical for personal well-being – as is the commitment not to lose connection with one’s own particular life passions. Achieving balance between professional and personal needs is ranked by lawyers of the millennial generation as their highest value. Levit and Linder provide a wonderful array of tips and wisdom for high achieving lawyers who feel their lives slipping through their fingers.
Thinking About Pompeii
I’ve got to admit, I think about Pompeii from time to time. 
When Vesuvius buried that Roman city nearly 2000 years ago in ash, the inhabitants were frozen in time. They exist today as human forms only – their personal histories, their essence, erased. Forms only. Who were these individuals? None were “famous.” Their names do not pass down the generations. But in their time, as they breathed and gazed on sunlight, they touched others with simple acts of kindness by the boatload. There must have been the teacher who encouraged a child and transformed his view of himself…and the wife who cared for an ill husband whose life faded -before a mountain erupted to bury her as well. No doubt those of light spirit brought smiles and laughter to others who were otherwise burdened by their own cares – daily worry must have been as much a part of First Century Roman life as it is in ours. Those of gentle heart or fierce passion touched their fellows and raised their spirits. Gifts were given out of the blue; visits were made to the grieving to lighten the weight of their loss; countless acts of simple kindness were made without any thought of compensation or return. And in a literal flash, they were all gone. Does that render the love and life-force-energy they shared pointless? We read history to hear stories of the storied. Yet the fabric of life is made up of the millions and millions of normal, loving, caring, giving, simply kind people who came before us and who live among us today. Every day I experience acts of kindness in my own home – simple gestures that no-one but me will ever know about. I do believe that these loving gifts have a power – a grace – that is transcendent. So when my mind wanders to these forms in ash, I invariably think about the blessings of simplicity and kindness all around me every day – and do everything I can to let them fill my heart. May 2011 be a year of kindness we provide, and receive….and recognize.
Labelling People – Thinking About Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Recently, the New York Times reported that the mental health diagnostic “bible,” the DSM is going to drop Narcissistic Personality Disorder in its 5th Edition. Laura Smith, Ph.D. provides a good explanation for why this was done, here. While an interesting development in its own right, the move brings to mind an overriding concern about the easy use of labels like “narcissistic.” Many, many, times have I heard people in recent years label someone as “narcissistic.” It’s not that “people who believe the world only exists if seen through their own eyes” don’t exist – and it’s not that these folks don’t cause a lot of distress to those close to them. (I remember hearing in my training that the only way you see a person with NPD in therapy is if their spouse or family basically says, “Get help on this or we’re outta here!”) San Diego mediator Bill Eddy identifies people struggling with NPD as one of a handful of “high conflict personalities” who challenge helping professionals mightily. But here’s the problem – it’s easy to label, isolate and dismiss another person, losing sight of the fact that this rigid shell of a personality they present to the world covers enormous, old pain. Eddy has suggested that the 4 major “high conflict personalities” at their core, are protecting themselves from the pain of early, constant violations to their developing, tender personalities. The “borderline” personality is driven by the Fear of (emotional) Abandonment, suffered so early. The “antisocial” personality is driven by the Fear of Being Dominated. The “histrionic” personality is driven by the Fear of Being Ignored. The “narcissistic personality” is driven by the Fear of Inferiority. In fact, these people with hugely (over)inflated views of themselves have buried within their hearts a glass shard of failure to measure up – of not being good enough. When we almost cavalierly label others as “narcissists” (or any other thing) we rob them of their humanity and pain. Of course, in their striving to protect themselves from the ancient, overwhelming wounds that are long-buried within, they may often overwhelm and deeply injure their intimates. But as with all injuries which we suffer at the hands of others, our own healing comes in part through our own halting efforts to understand and even hold compassion for the other. It’s not necessary to label the other so that we don’t take on responsibility for our own injuries. It was never our fault anyway. To humanize ourselves without dehumanizing the person who wounded us is an ongoing challenge and, I think, righteous goal.
Couples Therapy – What to Look For
John Gottman has observed that, on average, couples come in for counseling after they have been experiencing serious problems in their relationship for 6 years. That means that when you sit in that client’s chair for the first time, you probably will be feeling angry, hurt and hopeless. You will probably feel blamed by your partner. You may be trying desperately to save your relationship – or you may be almost out the door and have agreed to give this one more shot. You might have had a horrible fight recently that leaves both partners exhausted and wounded. So now I’m going to share a prejudice of mine: People who seek the help of a therapist for couples work should see someone who is specifically trained to work with couples. A therapist who is really good at working with individuals, may not be so helpful with couples. Teaching communication skills can be very useful, for sure, but every couple brings with them a rich and complex dynamic. It is this dynamic (or system….or cycle) that a therapist needs to understand and touch. When we are stressed in our relationship we already feel alone and isolated. Working with couples from an individual perspective only strengthens this sense of isolation, I think. There are a number of wonderful ways to think about, and work with, couples in distress. Many like Susan Johnson’s Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy. Others develop an expertise in John Gottman’s approach. Still others use Brent Atkinson’s Emotionally Intelligent Couples Therapy approach, or Dan Wile’s Collaborative Couples Therapy. I prefer Johnson’s work, spiced by the work of these other exceptional and gifted people. There are certainly more kinds of couples therapy out there. My suggestion is that whoever you work with, make sure they have specific training and focus in an approach to couples therapy.
Attachment – The Tie That Truly Binds
Two lovers come into the therapist’s office, raw and wounded from months, or years, of painful conflict. Perhaps they are in their seventh year of marriage. Maybe they’ve been together 20 years. (Marriage expert John Gottman says that the two peaks for divorce are in the first 7 years of marriage or in the 16-20 year range.) Whatever their time together, there is one thing that most of these very sad and stressed couples have in common: Their relationship shares the basic need for Attachment that this mother and child display . What is “attachment?” As John Bowlby first explained to us, attachment is a fundamental need for connection with another. It is as biologically driven as food. Children deprived of a safe, secure bond with a caregiver (usually the mother, but not always) will suffer dearly. This need doesn’t go away just because we grow hair under our arms. It prevails throughout life. Attachment for a one year old means a secure base. Touch mom. Know she’s there. Then explore your world. Without that base, life is overwhelming and the child is lost. Attachment means a safe haven. When life threatens, our attachment figure is where we turn for security. If you think this is just about babies ask yourself: Have I been more productive and comfortable in the world as an adult when I was in a secure relationship (if you have been so fortunate)? Ask as well: Who did adults call on their cell phones when the airliners slammed into the Twin Towers on 9/11? Their husbands/wives/partners/closest friends…first call was to attachment figures. The godmother of adult attachment theory and how it affects our intimate relationships is Dr. Sue Johnson. Her approach to marital therapy for these desperately struggling people who are bonded, yet alienated, is Emotionally Focused Therapy. Her book Hold Me Tight is a guiding light for couples seeking reconnection.
The Promise of Neurofeedback
Finally! Neurofeedback therapy inches its way into the general public consciousness with a very balanced and informative piece on NPR’s Morning Edition on the 1st of this month. Long recognized as effective in the treatment of many distressing conditions – including ADHD, mood disorders, anxiety and sleep disorders – Neurofeedback has shared the fate of many promising and healing approaches to individual care which are considered “out of the mainstream.” In a wholly different vein, Collaborative Law, an incredibly supportive (and even healing) approach to the personal trauma of divorce, has faced resistance (and even hostility) from those who can’t imagine doing something differently from the way its been done for a long time. The rationale for not changing? “That’s the way we do it.” One of the great books of the last many years was Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, in which he describes many a movement (social, marketing like how go viral on TikTok, etc.) which built and built until something happened….one thing….and all the dormant forces behind the movement were unleashed and the momentum driving the idea or product into legitimacy and prominence seemed, suddenly, unstoppable. We may have reached that tipping point in the recognition of the promise of neurofeedback therapy.
The Decision to Divorce
Maybe the hardest decision in one’s life – the Decision to Divorce. In my experience it is never a decision taken lightly. Here’s how i
t seems to work in most cases. You feel disatisfied or increasingly discouraged with the relationship. After many arguments over the same thing, or attempts to get your partner to hear what is so vitally important to you, without success, the thought of ending the relationship begins to dawn. Imagine a bright line boundary – on one side is “Emotional Commitment to Marriage,” on the other, “Emotional Disengagement from Marriage.” You seem to bounce up against the boundary continually, but your commitment to your relationship is stong enough to keep you from crossing over. It looks a bit like this ……………….
You can go on for months or years, just bouncing up against that boundary. You believe you have let your partner know that you were feeling desparate about your disconnection. You know that you have tried. Then, one day, something happens inside you. Maybe it was another fight over the same thing. Maybe it was just waking up one morning and looking at yourself in the mirror and knowing something has changed inside of you. Whatever the spur – you have crossed over the boundary…and this boundary that for a moment seemed open enough for you to pass through has closed up. It has become an emotional, impenetrable wall. Now your process looks something like this:
When I start the process of divorce mediation with a couple, one of the first things I want to determine is whether one of the partners has crossed over that line. Almost always this has occurred. On the infrequent occasions it hasn’t, a referral to a couples therapist is always made.
A really important lesson I have learned over the years is that once a person has crossed over that boundary they have made a decision that is unchangeable. If you are the partner who feels left, you may experience a wide range of wrenching emotions – grief, fury, confusion, a sense of betrayal. My recommendation is to get help with those emotions. Seek out counseling. Read helpful books, like Bruce Fisher’s excellent, Rebuilding. Your life has changed – and while you may need to process through the trauma and the deep sense of injustice you may feel, once your partner has crossed over the line they will not cross back. While you may be drawn to do whatever you can to try to get them to do this, those efforts will amost certainly be fruitless and (here’s the important part) they will cause you deep and lacerating pain and frustration. My hope for those who have been left is that you find the resources you need to manage the pain and direct your energy to caring for yourself and slowly discovering your path to recovery.
Collaborative Lawyers – A Different Type Indeed (Part I)
There’s been loads written about lawyers and psychological type. Larry Richard did a landmark study in the early 90’s that became his doctoral dissertation all about lawyers and psychological type. It has even been the subject of many Law Review Articles (a place you’d expect only to see hyper technical discussions of the law for lawyers).
There are 4 pairs of preferences and 16 combinations. We have many ways to slice the same orange. Most important for this post – David Keirsey devised 4 overall temperaments from these combinations. You can explore his ideas and take his Keirsey Temperament Sorter here.
Since the ancient Greeks, philosophers and psychologists have grouped people into categories that, over time, are remarkably similar. Keirsey’s Temperaments offer a wonderful window into this world of observation. The combination of the practical, down-to-earth Sensing preference with the flexible, play-it-as it lays Perceiving preference brings us the SP Artisan. (Reading some of the links above will give some concise background of these preferences.) The combination of this same Sensing preference with the organized, results-oriented Judging preference brings us the SJ Guardian. Combining the ever-inquisitive, speculating Intuitive preference with the logical, “how does it all fit together” Thinking preference results in the NT Rational. Finally, the same meaning-seeking Intuition preference, when combined with the empathic, personal values-driven Feeling prerence results in the NF Idealist.
Let’s take a close look at each of these:
The SP Artisan lives for today. As Keirsey says, “Artisans are most at home in the real world of solid objects that can be made and manipulated, and of real-life events that can be experienced in the here and now.” 
Artisan’s “go for it,” whatever their “it” may be, and resist limitations and rules if they stand in the way. Artisans are likely to have winning personalities and can be excellent at enjoying life. They’re not big cogitators. Elvis and FDR are representative Artisans in their different fields. About 30-35% of the general population tend toward the Artisan temperament.
The NF Idealist values values. Supporting others to deepen their personal growth and well-being are ardent pursuits of the Idealist. Keirsey says that , “Idealists dream of creating harmonious, even caring personal relations, and they have a unique talent for helping people get along with each other and work together for the good of all.”
Idealists base their self image on empathy, authenticity and benevolence. They tend to hold themselves to quite a high standard of personal integrity. Representative Idealists include Mohandas Ghandi and Oprah Winfrey. About 15 – 20% of the general population tend toward the Idealist temperament.
The SJ Guardian is the pillar of whatever community they may find themselves a part of. Reliable, steady, realistic and stalwart, Guardians find their greatest value in being an integral part of a greater whole. As Keirsey notes, ” if there’s a job to be done, they can be counted on to put their shoulder to the wheel. Guardians also believe in law and order, and sometimes worry th
at respect for authority, even a fundamental sense of right and wrong, is being lost.” Guardians tend to trust authority and are comfortable in a leadership role. They tend to be conservative, in that change can make them uneasy.
Representative Guardians are George Washington and actor James Stewart, in his many iconic roles from Mr. Smith going to Washington to George Bailey in Its a Wonderful Life. About 40-45% of the population tend toward the Guardian temperament.
Finally, the NT Rational is the pragmatic, ingenious seeker of knowledge and accomplishment. If there is one word that characterizes the goal of the Rational, it is competence. As Keirsey says, “They are rigorously logical and fiercely independent in their thinking — are indeed skeptical of all ideas, even their own — and they believe they can overcome any obstacle with their will power. Often they
are seen as cold and distant, but this is really the absorbed concentration they give to whatever problem they’re working on.” Rationals may see themselves – and others will see them – as technicians. Precision – in thinking and language – is highly valued.
Bill Gates and Thomas Jefferson are quintissential Rationals. Approximately 5 – 10% of the general population tend toward the Rational temperament.
As we will see in the next post, the array of these different temperaments in the legal population and in the collaborative law community may speak volumes about who lawyers are – and the kinds of people who have struck out along the path of Collaborative Law.
Collaborative Lawyers – A Different Type Indeed (Part II)
(I’d suggest you check out Part I of this 2-part post to get the foundation for what I’m going to be talking about here.)
So…..where was I? Ah, yes – we have some really good information about lawyers and the kinds of temperament categories they tend to fall into. Larry Richard’s huge study of lawyers and psychological type gave us a ton of insight. The first interesting bit is that, while about 30-35% of the general population falls into the SP Artisan temperament, only 9.1% of lawyers fall into this category – definitely the smallest percentage. This makes sense when you think about it – as lawyers really aren’t encouraged to go-go-go and live for the moment. While being quick on your feet and able to put out the fire is a valuable trait for a lawyer, it is much more valuable to be prepared. The next least likely temperament you are likely to find among lawyers is the NF Idealist. Studies have shown that Idealists experience the highest drop-out rate in law school. The intense adversarial world of litigation (the meat and potatoes of legal practice for the last 40 years) makes the profession quite uncongenial for the Idealist lawyer or law student. Richard found that 14.7% of lawyers were Idealists, about the same percentage as in the general population. (Teaser alert!: There are way, w-a-y, more Idealists in the Collaborative Lawyer sample – see below.) The next most common temperament among lawyers today is the SJ Guardian – the conservative, pillar of the community, who is preoccupied with everyone doing the right thing. Of the 16 personality types, the one with the greatest presence (17.8% of the total) is one of the 4 Guardian types (ISTJ). Fully 35% of the lawyer population are Guardians. I would suggest that this temperament reflected the prevailing approach to work and life of the lawyer community in an earlier era, before the “law as a business” crew came into prominence about 40 years ago. This also pretty much tracks the number of folks in the general population, in which 40-45% (by far the greatest percentage) are Guardians. Finally, the NT Rational accounts for 41.2% of Larry Richard’s lawyer study population. This makes sense! Lawyers are focused on the outcome, are encouraged from their first class in law school (and throughout their careers) to be logical, dispassionate and technically brilliant. In any battle between the head and the heart with these people, Head Wins. Every time. What is particularly striking is that in the general population, only 5-10% are Rationals. I’ll leave it to you to ponder the significance of such a huge majority of lawyers tending toward a temperament that a meager part of the general public shares. Now, here is where Collaborative Lawyers are such an anomoly.
In the early Spring, I conducted a Myers-Briggs workshop for members of the Puget Sound collaborative community. Lawyers, mental health professionals and financial specialists all took part – yet the vast majority of this group (22 of 32) were lawyers. Each person completed the Myers Briggs Type Indicator Self Scoring Instrument. Of this group, not-a-one demonstrated an SP Artisan or SJ Guardian temperament. Of the 22 lawyers, only 5 demonstrated the NT Rational temperament that is so dominant among lawyers nationally and 17 of the total (77%) were NF Idealists. Given that the general lawyers population is comprised of only 14.7% Idealists, this difference is pretty amazing. (I realize our sample size was rather low, but still…….this difference is, well, ponderable.)
So what can we make of this? Well, for starters, it explains the intensity and passion with which most collaborative lawyers embraced this form of practice. The damage inflicted by conventional litigated divorce would be of particular distress (both professionally and personally) to people who tended towards an NF Idealist temperament. My observation is that a great number of Idealist lawyers are terribly unfulfilled with their profession. Anyone who responds to the phrase “law as a healing profession” will find the aggressive, adversarial, “my client over all, regardless of the damage to others” ethos of today’s legal world very disheartening, indeed. When collaborative law came around, you can imagine it seeming like an oasis for the NF Idealist family lawyer community.
Also, an approach to conflict resolution that seeks to address the interests of all is quintessentially NF. The collaborative Participation Agreement, in which peoples’ good faith forms an explicit cornerstone is, again, characteristic of NF law practice. When we tell our clients that we expect them to bring their best selves to this challenging process – and that we will help them be their best selves – we are acting as Idealist lawyers. In many ways, Collaborative Practice provides a home for many exceptional, caring people who might otherwise have drifted away from this wonderful profession – which provides so much opportunity to do good without harming others.
Small wonder that 77% of the lawyers (and a similar percentage of financial experts and (of course) mental health people) within our collaborative community are drawn to the Idealist temperament.
The Passing of Bruce Winick
A client I’m quite fond of has felt unfulfilled with his career. He’s got a wonderfully sharp, analytic mind and so I asked him if he ever considered law as a career. He scoffed – commenting that lawyers suffered from an impaired moral sensibility. While that’s an all-too-common belief (and at times, well placed) that moment put me in mind of a truly lovely man, and a great lawyer. Bruce Winick died last week. His life was the response to anyone who believed you could not be a lawyer and possess kindness and integrity.
Winick may be best known as a co-founder of Thearpeutic Jurisprudence, the exploration of the psychological impact of law on individuals who are swept up in its process. How is legal process harmful to our spirit? How can the law be improved so that it inflicts less personal damage? Winick and David Wexler counseled years ago in their initial work not to forget that legal involvement has profound emotional and psychological consequences. They can be justly seen, and thanked, as the forebears of Collaborative Law.
I sat next to Professor Winick a couple of years ago at a law teachers’ conference and, while he was perhaps the most eminent of the participants, he was gracious and warm. His eyesight had been stolen by the illness that took his life last week. He managed quite naturally and with good humor. I recall his description of a fairly new form of (humane) legal analysis which he called a legal autopsy. “What would happen,” he asked, “if we rewound some bit of case law (a conflict that had made it all the way to an appeals court) and explored if other choices could have been made, early on, to spare the participants the ravages of prolonged, intense, litigation?” He authored a riveting account of the Terry Schiavo case to illustrate his point. What to most of us was a political flash point around the “right to life” debate, was, in Winick’s deft hands, a tragic story of a family ripped apart by many early decisions made with the help of lawyers for whom litigation was the only tool they knew.
We lost a fine man last week. His passing should be noted in the collaborative law community.