Play Nice: Civility in the Legal Profession

Episode Notes

Transcript

Dave Scriven-Young:

Hello everyone and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host, Dave Scriven Young. I’m a litigator practicing environmental and construction law, the Chicago office of O’Hagan Meyer. And I also coach young lawyers on how to accelerate their careers without burning out. And on the show we talk to the country’s top litigators and judges to discover best practices in developing our careers, winning cases, getting more clients, and building a sustainable practice. Please be sure to subscribe to the podcast in your favorite podcasting app to make sure that you’re getting updated with future episodes. This podcast is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association. It’s where I make my home in the ABA. The litigation section provides litigators of all practice areas, the resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients. Learn more at ambar.org/litigation. Civility is a topic widely discussed in legal profession as courts professional rules of conduct and legal commentators have maintained that lawyers have an obligation to be professional, courteous and civil towards all persons involved in the legal system.

This obligation stems from our roles as officers of the court and as people having special responsibility for the quality of justice. But should lawyers be disciplined for not acting with civility? And is there any conflict imposed on civility by our obligations to be zealous advocates for our clients? Well, our guest on today’s episode will help us dive into those issues. And our first guest is Sonja Arndt-Johnson. She’s an associate in the San Francisco office of Steptoe, LLP, where she’s a member of the white collar and commercial litigation practices and handles a variety of complex litigation matters. She specializes in data privacy and assists various domestic and international businesses with US privacy and data breach compliance issues. She previously practiced in the criminal section of the US Attorney’s Office in Washington DC and began her legal career as a Deputy District attorney in the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office in California. She’s the author of the article, civility versus Zealous Advocacy and Attorney’s Duty, which recently appeared in Litigation Journal. Welcome to the show, Sonja.

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

Thanks. Hi, pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Our second guest is Jeanne Huey. She’s a managing shareholder at Hunt Huey PLLC in Dallas, Texas. She’s a trial lawyer with 24 years of experience assisting individuals and businesses in state and federal court litigation. Her current practice focuses on legal ethics and law practice management. She represents attorneys in disciplinary proceedings and in professional liability matters throughout Texas and consults with clients on legal ethics issues across the country. She’s currently the co-chair of the A BA Litigation Section’s Ethics and Professionalism Committee, and regularly speaks and rights on legal ethics issues. Glad to have you on the show, Jeanne.

Jeanne Huey:

Thank you Dave. Glad to be here.

Dave Scriven-Young:

So let’s begin with civility. Sonja, how would you define what civility is?

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

The reality is that online, if you look and you research it, civility has multiple and it’s kind of in the eyes of the beholder, but from the very basic understanding, just looking at the dictionary definitions, civility is defined as courtesy and politeness. I think that looks different based on the jurisdiction you’re in. I think the courts that you practice in, I think federal court and San Francisco would look a little different than federal court in the state of Texas. And I think that it is very much just it’s adaptive. And that being said though, the very baseline is this kind of politeness.

Dave Scriven-Young:

We often hear about professionalism as opposed to civility. And some people kind of talk about them as the same thing. Is it the same thing in your mind or do you differentiate between the two?

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

I would differentiate between the two. And actually Ms. Huey wrote a fantastic article just this month on it and it was entitled The Power of Three. And it kind of talks about civility, professionalism, and zealous advocacy. And Ms. Rearden has also written about civility as the core element of professionalism. When you look at it, civility is part of professionalism, but professionalism is more than civility, right? It’s the legal competence, it’s integrity, it’s ethical decisions that attorneys are making. And I think that, and I’ll credit Ms. Huey for this, civility is limited to personal interactions, right? It’s how attorneys interact with each other, the courts, judges, clerks, and people within the profession.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And Jeanne, you did write a great article on this and you also practiced in this area of legal ethics and disciplinary proceedings as well. So how would you define civility and professionalism?

Jeanne Huey:

Well, I agree with Sonja. First of all, that civility is, I would call it circumstantial or situational, right? It doesn’t have just one definition, but we know that it’s more than politeness because, and it comes from the Latin CITAs. And this matters because it means that word means the behavior one citizen must show to another for our civic structures to work. When we move that over to lawyers and the justice system, the effect is the same. It is what we owe each other and the courts in order for our justice system to work. Even though civility at this time among our fellow citizens, non-lawyers may be on the decline as lawyers, we have a duty to the justice system to act with civility because lawyers are different. And as far as professionalism, as Sonja said, we’re going to agree a lot today, which is great. Professionalism is broader because it’s about upholding the integrity of the profession by adhering to the rules of professional conduct. And those are the rules under which we can be disciplined if we fall below their minimum standards. So that’s what I mean when I say professionalism, and I think most folks do as well.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Can a Supreme Court discipline an attorney for not acting civilly? How have courts been regular leading civility and can you be disciplined for not acting with civility?

Jeanne Huey:

Well, the state Supreme Courts, assuming every state supreme court is the entity that puts the disciplinary or the ethics rules in place, of course they do regulate conduct including civility, but being uncivil by itself is not grounds for discipline and it never has been. It’s part of the larger picture. So specifically every state has a rule similar to the ABA model, rule 8.4. We call that the rule that governs professional integrity and it forbids or requires us to act with honesty, integrity. We don’t defraud people, we don’t engage in criminal activity. So that rule itself is the one that folks look to at the disciplinary authorities usually. But we do have other ethics rules, and I think as I’ve talked about this with Sonja and you and come back to this, I have to point out that we’ve talked about not the state Supreme courts regulating because that implies there’s a law, but they have promulgated and state bars and local promulgated the professionalism guidelines.

These are not mandatory, they are aspirational and they’re something that is enforced by peer pressure. However, having said that, local courts have taken those to heart and made them their court rules. And so if you think of those professionalism guidelines as the very specifics about how to engage in civil behavior and you wonder if that can be enforced, it can. And that’s going to be under a model rule. And every state has a similar rule, and that’s 3.4, which says that it is a rule violation to knowingly disobey an obligation under the local court rules of a tribunal. So that’s kind of a backend way or a back doorway that we have actual enforcement of what is otherwise an aspirational professional guidelines through the courts and through that rule.

Dave Scriven-Young:

So in other words, could you be held in contempt of court for acting uncivilly then in some of these courts where the court rules have incorporated these aspirational civility guidelines?

Jeanne Huey:

Well, the court has the power to enforce the disciplinary rules on their own or they can turn you into the authorities of course for a violation of 3.4. But also, of course, the court can hold you in contempt and also use its inherent powers to sanction monetary sanctions, other kinds of sanctions for conduct that the court deems to be impeding this smooth administration of justice because their job is to ensure that the administration of justice moves smoothly, fairly, and in accordance with all of the rules. So its inherent power to sanction is there the civil procedure rules are there, federal rule 11, for example, for frivolous pleadings. So there are a number of levers that the court itself can pull to correct conduct that it thinks is uncivil. And frankly, for most courts, that’s not going to happen until the conduct has been repeated and the offender has been given warnings and possibly minor sanctions and then it gets ramped up. That’s been my experience anyway. Sonja may have a different experience with a court who had a bit more of a hair trigger and I’d like to hear about that.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, and yeah, I would love to hear an example if you have one Jeanne, we’ll go back, start with you and then Sonja to you about instances in which courts have actually either held an attorney in contempt or referred an attorney to a disciplinary authority for discipline. Because I think most attorneys do think of civility as aspirational and don’t necessarily think of it as something you can be sanctioned for or disciplined for. So can you give us one of those examples?

Jeanne Huey:

Sure. This example is taken from a few different cases that I know of, none of which were mine. And I’m going to give you an example of just the one time offense because that’s more unusual, right? It’s not uncommon. We all know that when a lawyer engages, I’m going to call it boorish, conduct, rude conduct, harassing conduct in court time and time again, the court will lose patience with that and finally sanction them. But can you just do one thing that triggers a court to turn you into the disciplinary authorities or sanction you? The answer is yes, of course. An example of that is something that I know of that the court didn’t even see. It did not happen in front of the court, but it happened out in the hall and it was one of the lawyers in a case walking by the opposing party’s spouse.

So that would be a witness in a case, third party non-party witness. We have duties to them, by the way, under the disciplinary rules. But as this lawyer, as she walked by that witness, she knew that the witness had a particular aversion to cent and the lawyer had gone in the bathroom, covered herself in perfume, and walked as close to this witness non-party as she could two or three times until she was in a coughing fit. The bail of sought the court called the lawyer in sanctioned the lawyer, I think about five grand and also reported to the disciplinary authority.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Interesting. Sonja, have you seen a similar circumstance where a court may have either sanctioned an attorney for acting uncivilly or uncivilly or refer the matter to a disciplinary authority?

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

So I myself have not partaken or seen that. I’ve definitely seen acts Courtroom dating myself a little bit a few years ago. But I think what Ms. Huey just mentioned, the theatrics of the Courtroom, the perfume and spraying yourself and everything, I think that is a fantastic example of where that does not technically doesn’t fall on violating the law. And I think that when people look at civility, it’s very easy to look at single circumstances where there’s another law in play. I mean, there’s a great case where there’s no doubt this was incivility and should have been disciplined where an attorney threw coffee on another attorney. But that’s also an assault and it’s very easy to define incivility and have there be disciplinary action when another law has been violated. And it’s not solely based on ethics or the oath of civility which attorneys take in multiple states in regards to individual instances.

I think Ms. Huey’s spot on, they’re rare and it’s usually extreme conduct, but I think that there’s a massive move right now to have civility and incivility B, the basis of discipline. With that being said, there isn’t a very clear definition. It’s exactly Dave, what you hit on at the very beginning. How do you define civility? There are tons of articles on what incivility is, and I think that is again rooted on other conducts such as assault or taking things too far, and it’s very easy to define it when you do have that other element in play.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, and you’ve also written about the limits of civility when you talk about zealous representation of clients and the perceived conflict between the two. So how would you define or how do courts define what zealous representation is and how is that regulated within the legal profession?

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

Zealous representation refers to the ethical duty of attorneys to advocate vigorously on behalf of their clients, ensuring they’re fully represented in front of other attorneys, the court itself, but it has to be within the bounds of the law. And I think that’s where civility is starting to find its way in because the question thus becomes, if the law prohibits incivility, what does that look like And how do attorneys conduct themselves? Because sometimes during your representation, you’re going to push right up to that line and sometimes that is your duty. And I think the most common, there were studies done of uncivil acts, and one of ’em I found really interesting was in regards to discovery, right? And the question becomes what do attorneys view to be uncivil when it comes to discovery? And some attorneys will tell you not granting a continuance. Well, sometimes continuances are requested the day of the deadline.

It may not be in your client’s best interest to agree to that continuance because that attorney could face certain repercussions for not complying with the discovery requirements. And I think that’s where people have to start determining that you have a duty to your client. This is a profession that is heavily regulated. It’s also there’s an honor that comes with being an attorney and people trusting you. And some individuals, whether it’s civil or criminal, I worked on the criminal side for a very long time, right? They’re facing life in prison. And when you are kind of the in-between of the justice system and this person getting representation, you owe it to them to leave it all on the field. And sometimes that is not granting a continuance. Sometimes that is not agreeing to discovery. Late expert discovery is a huge one when it comes on the criminal side of things and really advocating and giving a voice to that individual in the Courtroom.

And I think that’s pretty much what our founding fathers envisioned when they wanted people to have this representation. And I think that the question becomes, in the rare instances want to be very clear, I think all attorneys should act civil. That being said, in the very rare instances where you are zealously advocating for your client to prevent them from potentially going to prison for life, and the other side of it, do you agree to continuance? Do you agree to other people’s schedules? Are you adaptive? Are you friendly? Are you civil right? And civility, the politeness is part of that definition. Is it solely no, but it is part of that should you be polite and agree? The answer sometimes is going to be no. And I think that’s where you have to really remember that duty. You may not be liked in a Courtroom because you have a duty to that client to fight for them. Sometimes in our professions, we’re not going to be liked by opposing counsel and they may call you uncivil, and it’s something attorneys should not be shy of because like I said, it’s an honor to be in the profession. In some instances, individuals are trusting you with their lives and that should never be taken lightly.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And Jeanne, let’s bring it back into the conversation. There does seem to be always a question, at least in my mind, when somebody is asking for a continuance or is trying to get something in terms of discovery, they’ll always ask, can I get this continuance? Or will you agree to continuance? Will you agree to allow me to take a late deposition or amend my interrogatory responses or what have you? Or even for example, file a late request to admit. How does civility as opposed to zealous advocacy come into play in those instances?

Jeanne Huey:

Well, first of all, we don’t have to agree to anything, and we’re not the decider. They can still have a continuance if the court grants it, right? So this has to do with the sort of situational circumstances we talked about at the very beginning as far as civility. One of the things we have to do in order to know what our best move is in that situation is to know our court and our judge, because in front of some courts, civility may strengthen my credibility if the court’s going to grant the extension anyway. We know that very few cases are going to be one on some deemed admissions or something like that. That is not what the court believes should just be the deciding factor in any case. And we’ll almost always give that if you know the court’s going to give it and your credibility strengthened, therefore your client’s case is strengthened, then you go ahead and agree.

I mean, you have to consider the strategic advantage. And of course, Zeus advocacy doesn’t mean acting like a zealot, okay? You are advocating for your client with dedication and diligence using all lawful and ethical means to achieve their goals. And professionalism always provides the professional rules, disciplinary rules, they provide the guardrails that prevents zealous advocacy from turning into a free for all, from turning into anarchy, just like civility in our democracy, keeps it from turning into anarchy. This is something that we have to keep in mind at all times, and it’s just one of the three pillars of what a tripod or a tent, whatever you want to call it, that holds up the justice system and keeps it moving. So of course, no, we don’t have to agree. That’s my short answer, but the court might grant it anyway.

And so being strategic and knowing your judge and knowing what’s coming down the pike, we’re all experienced. We all have discernment. We’re highly trained, and like Sonja said, we’re very lucky to be doing this, but whatever it is, if you don’t agree to the continuance, you are going to write an email that it doesn’t agree to it, and you’re going to be civil. Because remember, every one of those emails is simply written for the judge, and it will be before the judge when the other side says, well, I asked Ms. Huey if she would agree, and she said no. And whether the court respects that or not, that’s a different story. But certainly civility does not conflict with zealous advocacy. I don’t believe. I do want to add one more thing. The instances in the news that you see, many of them, by the way over the decades have taken place in Texas.

Many of them take place, as Sonja mentioned, behind the scenes in depositions. That’s a very fun place that lawyers have behaved badly, that they think they can get away with certain behavior. Of course, it’s all on the record. It might even be on video. So it’s unwise to be uncivil there. But we have to remember that a judge or a lawyer who behaves erratically when uncivil behavior becomes more than just rude or uncooperative and is a little off kilter, that we have an issue in the legal profession with wellness and wellbeing, and that person or that judge lawyer may just need some additional support or help. And it’s something that we can call the Lawyer’s Assistance Program about. We’ve had a judge in the surrounding area, and since I live in a big area, no one will be able to know who this is, I think.

But if you did not keep eyes forward when judge was speaking or the other side, or when you were speaking to judge, you could be taken to jail held in contempt. Now the result of that is that judge doesn’t get reelected because we have elected state judges here, but also clearly there was something else going on there and to represent my client, I kept my eyes forward, but everybody understood that perhaps some help was needed, and that’s what our lawyer’s assistance programs are for. So those are not the norm, but they do happen. And unfortunately, I think those are the cases that get the publicity and hurt the integrity of the profession.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Yeah, and it’s interesting. One of the things that you talked about was knowing your court and knowing your judge, and certainly in that instance, you had to know what that particular judge’s standard is when you appear before him. And that’s I guess, just part of being an attorney is knowing what the particular rules are and practices are in the court. I guess my question is if there are shifting standards of what happens in a Courtroom, if there’s shifting standards of civility, let’s say, is that something that I don’t, courts should do a better courts or regulatory bodies should do a better job at defining?

Jeanne Huey:

Well, similarly, judges have rules of conduct of course, and they have surveys and the judicial authorities try to get as much information and the head judge tries to get information about how things are going in the various courtrooms. But at the end of the day, I get paid to advocate and represent my client to the best of my ability. And if that means I am inconvenienced personally because I have to go the day before, sit in a couple of these hearings in a Courtroom where I don’t know the judge, see what’s going on, know how I am to conduct myself in that Courtroom, that is the chameleon effect or the circumstantial opportunity for me to amend my conduct, perhaps even amend how I appear, certainly how my client conducts themselves, that’s my job. That’s what I get paid to do is know how to do that and then do it so that I can be an effective advocate for my client.

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

I think that’s kind of the crux of it, right, is that because there is no clear definition and no body has stepped forward and said, this is what it is, and what it isn’t is that it leaves it to the judges to define it within their own Courtroom. And I know we’ve spoken about this before and stuff, and that could have real adverse effects on the legal profession. I know myself and multiple attorneys have experienced where some judges view it to be uncivil or unprofessional for a woman to wear pants in their Courtroom, and we’re not talking Jeannes, I think everyone can agree you don’t wear Jeannes in a Courtroom. We’re talking about a suit. And the question thus becomes when you put this power solely in the hands of the judges to define this, and there is the risk of discipline, and it’s only growing, right?

I mean right now before the California Supreme Court is a decision to say that should there be an independent disciplinary act for incivility, thus it becomes the question that are there certain groups within the legal profession that are new legal profession for a very long time was limited to certain individuals? Does it repress them? And I know Ms. Huey and I had discussed, and she had experienced it, I’d experienced in California, I think she experienced it in Texas, the judges that require a woman to wear dresses or skirts, I do not believe that should be a basis for incivility. And as Ms. Huey just noted, you have to look forward at all times. Well, it may be in your client’s best interest. If you know an officer’s testifying and he testified to something incorrect to double check the police report, your eyes are going to drop.

And here you are zeal, you advocating for an individual you’re about to cross. This officer potentially impeach him. You have to look down and you owe it to your client to look down and double check the police report. Should you be disciplined for this rule within this specific Courtroom, within this specific jurisdiction that you have to look forward at all times. And the same with if you are an individual that prefers maybe you’re a more effective lawyer in pants, maybe when you give your closing argument, you like to walk and you do grant gestures and stuff, and you can do that more freely in pants, you’re a better attorney for your client for it, should you be disciplined because this individual judge thinks you should be in a skirt limiting potentially your ability to be the most effective lawyer for your client. And I think that’s the issue here. When there are no clear definitions and it’s based solely on judges and jurisdictions, there are inevitable dangers that you may come against.

Dave Scriven-Young:

So Jeanne, we’ll give you the final word on this one. Should attorneys be subject to discipline or being held in contempt for wearing the wrong attire within a Courtroom, even if it’s professional, professional attire?

Jeanne Huey:

Well, should they? No, I mean I think we would all answer the same way. Does it happen or could it happen if the court’s local rule prescribes something specific? We have a judge here that prescribes certain attire on zoom calls and certain backgrounds, in other words, don’t sit in your bedroom. I suppose there could be a lawyer who didn’t have another place to sit, but I believe that’s the judge’s prerogative. They are the judge. At the end of the day, I’m a litigator and that’s the way it goes.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Absolutely. And as you said, there is a little bit of a chameleon effect where attorneys, I guess have to make ourselves into what will be best, will best serve our clients. And if judges want things a certain way, then we have to conform to that in order to best represent our clients. So Jeanne and Sonja, this is a conversation that I think we could have for quite some time and we’ll continue within the legal profession, but wanted to give us some time for some last thoughts. So Jeanne, we’ll start with you. Any kind of blast thoughts for our listeners regarding civility, professionalism, zealous advocacy, and the conflict or perceived conflict between those?

Jeanne Huey:

Sure. And I appreciate you having me here today, Dave, and thank you, Sonja for all your great insights. We all can agree. Lawyers have always had the duty to be civil while fighting for their clients. Courts and state bars have always had the power to punish dishonest, harmful behavior that hurts the justice system. Nothing’s new there, but the current focus on civility, I believe now is happening at the right time, especially because of general distrust in our institutions, including the justice system. I think we all have a duty, judges included to raise our profession’s image in the public eye because when we do, we remind the public and our clients that lawyers can fight hard while showing respect for each other, for the court and for the legal system. And I think that’s the definition of integrity.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Excellent. And then Sonja, any last thoughts for our listeners?

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

I think civility is so important to the legal profession, and I would just ask, let’s take it a step further. Let’s clearly define it. So junior attorneys going to the profession know what they should and should not be doing, and also clearly define it so our clients can get the absolute best representation so we understand the bounds of what we can and cannot do. Civility is important. It’s a core part of the profession. I think everyone agrees, but as we have moved forward in the professions, there’s certainly individuals within the legal field that will potentially not always do what is best for their client and do it under the guise of being civil, and that may be to further their own reputation, to further their career to those and things. And I think there need to be some checks and balances, and I think that can be done by a clearly defined definition for civility, so attorneys know the bounds in which they can operate.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Sonja Arndt-Johnson, Jeanne Huey, thank you so much both of you for being on the show. We really appreciate your help and all of your valuable insights.

Sonja Arndt-Johnson:

Thank you so much and thank you, Gina. It was a pleasure. Pleasure.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And now it’s time for a quick tip from the ABA litigation section’s mental health and wellness task force. And I’d like to welcome Beth Fenton back to the podcast. Beth is a partner in the Delaware office of Ballards Spahr, where she litigates and tries cases involving business torts, shareholder and closing disputes, antitrust issues, piercing the corporate veil matters and enforcement of restrictive covenants with a focus on the Delaware Court of Chancery. Welcome to the show. Beth, what is your quick tip?

Beth Fenton:

Thank you, Dave. My quick tip is thinking about the coming holiday season and the shorter days and talking about dealing with seasonal effective disorder. December 21st is the shortest day of the year. By the time this episode comes out, we will be probably pretty close to that and we’re also going to be close to some big holidays this year at the end of December. And while holidays can be joyful, they can also be stressful. Add to the mix that this is a time when some of us start to experience the winter blues, which is a temporary mild period of sadness resulting in most cases from a specific cause like holiday stress or just the situation in the world. For some people, for a smaller group of folks, these shorter winter days can lead to what’s called seasonal effective disorder, which is actually a clinical diagnosis. And for lawyers, seasonal affective disorder can be disruptive to our law practices and to our personal lives.

So today I’m going to offer a few tips on how to manage seasonal affective disorder if you have it or if you know somebody who has it. Again, I’m just a lawyer, not a doctor, so please don’t treat anything I say as medical advice, but just some more tools in your toolbox to deal with your mental health and wellness, which we all agree is such an important part of what makes our lives and our careers fulfilling. So scientists still don’t a hundred percent know what causes seasonal effective disorder, but they think that the shorter hours of daylight in the winter interfere with the circadian rhythms that regulate our sleep. Folks who have seasonal effective disorder usually start to experience a low mood in early winter, and then their mood starts to improve as the days get longer in the spring. Some of the symptoms of seasonal affected disorder are low energy, excessive sleepiness, which is called hypersomnia withdrawal from social activities and also brain fog.

Some people crave sweets or other kinds of comfort food and they gain weight, and the holiday season certainly doesn’t help with that either. So all of these symptoms can impact lawyers’ abilities to focus, prioritize, and get our work done. Here are some tips for dealing with seasonal effective disorder. If you or someone you know is suffering from it, try to get some natural sunlight every day. This is a great time also to just take a walk around the block at lunchtime or meet up with a friend and grab a hot tea and get some vitamin D together. That’s really a great way to support your mental health all year long. But especially if you’re affected by seasonal affective disorder, there are also these light boxes or lamps that you can use that basically have very bright light that helps sort of simulate the daylight that you might get in the longer days of the year.

The recommendation is to use it 20 or 30 minutes in the morning and you’re not supposed to look straight at it, keep it a couple feet away, but those light boxes can really help. In addition to taking that walk around the block and seeing friends and getting that vitamin D from sunlight, which is the best way to get it, you should also ask your doctor about whether you should take supplemental Vitamin D. That can help, especially in the winter, and it’s usually part of a multivitamin, so you may already be getting enough, but it’s a good thing to ask your doctor. And we’ve talked about exercise as such a crucial part of our mental health and wellness efforts. There’s a saying in Latin, Sano incorporates a sound mind and a sound body and exercise is really the best way to accomplish that. Watch what you eat and drink.

Again, true throughout the year, but to the extent you’re in the winter months, it’s sometimes harder to get those fresh fruits and vegetables, but really make an effort to get as many of those in as you can every day, avoid caffeine later in the day. Also challenging for lawyers and really take care of your alcohol consumption, especially again with the holidays. There’s so much of that around, but it interferes with your sleep and it really doesn’t help your efforts to combat the seasonal affective disorder symptoms. Finally, get help. We’ve talked about this over and over in the section. Every state has a lawyer’s assistance program. If you go on the a BA website, you will find the one for your state, and it’s a great resource, a confidential resource. You are not alone. So please take advantage of that resource if you need any support or help in dealing with these issues. Seasonal affective disorder is real and its impact is real. You don’t need to suffer alone or in silence. And there are many, many resources available including several episodes of this podcast that deal with mental health and wellness maintenance solutions, awareness. I just took a quick look at the website and there are at least three that cover stress, substance abuse, and wellbeing. So many, many resources out there for you. I hope you’ll take advantage of them and that you will enjoy the winter season.

Dave Scriven-Young:

Well, thanks Beth. Thanks so much for being on. Really appreciate your tips today.

Beth Fenton:

Thank you very much, Dave.

Dave Scriven-Young:

And that’s all we have for our show today, and love to hear your thoughts about today’s episode. If you have comments or questions you’d like for me to answer on an upcoming show, you can contact me at d scriven Young at O’Hagan meyer.com and connect with me on social. I’m ad attorney, DSY on LinkedIn, Instagram X, and Facebook. You can also connect with the ABA, Litigation Section on those platforms as well. But as much as I’d like to connect with you online, nothing beats meeting you in person in one of our next litigation section events. So please make plans to join us at the 2025 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee, CLE seminar in Tucson, Arizona from March 5th through the eighth. Learn about the latest developments in insurance law from leading lawyers and insurance professionals, network with professionals from around the country and enjoy a variety of outdoor activities only Tucson can offer For the complete program lineup and to register, go to ambar.org/litigation insurance.

If you like the show, please help spread the word by sharing the link to this episode with a friend or through a post on social and invite others to join the show and community. If you want to leave a review over at Apple Podcast, it’s incredibly helpful. Even a quick rating at Spotify is super helpful as well. And finally, I want to quickly thank some folks who make the show possible. Thanks, Tom. Michelle Oberts, who’s on staff with the litigation section. Thanks. Also goes out to the co-chairs of the Litigation Section’s audio contact committee, Haley Maple and Charlotte Stevens. Thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network. And last but not least, thank you so much for listening. I’ll see you next time.

Continue Reading