Mindfulness refers to our ability to maintain our present-moment awareness without drifting unhelpfully to the past or future. That might sound like a heady concept, but a focused, steady mind truly is helpful in life, and its applications in legal practice could lead to radical improvements for lawyers and their clients. So, how do we get there? Molly Ranns and JoAnn Hathaway talk with Dr. Nehal Patel about his article, Why Lawyers Fear Love: Mohandas Gandhi’s Significance to the Mindfulness in Law Movement, where he highlights Gandhi’s teachings and explains how meditation and mindset shifts help legal professionals thrive in the practice of law.
Nehal Patel is a licensed attorney and an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Sociology at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
Molly Ranns: Hello. And welcome to another edition of the State Bar of Michigan on Balance Podcast on Legal Talk Network. I’m Molly Ranns.
JoAnn Hathaway: And I’m JoAnn Hathaway. We are very pleased to have Nehal A. Patel join us today. Dr. Patel is a sociology professor at the University of Michigan Dearborn, Director of the University’s Law and Society and Criminology and Criminal Justice Programs and also, a licensed attorney. Dr. Patel, could you share some information about yourself with our listeners, please?
Dr. Nehal Patel: Sure. Thanks for having me here today, JoAnn and Molly. I want to acknowledge that my first gurus were really my mom and dad. My mom was my first meditation teacher. She often would meditate for 15 minutes in the morning after bathing and also do it at times through the day. So, she largely thought me through example. And my dad was my first teacher of Indian philosophy. He had a book shelf of books on Indian philosophy, which I also generally just called Dharmic thought to include the thoughts of other Dharmic Traditions outside of India and world religion. He was also very interested in that.
So, I would get a good good discussion with him during daily walks. So, I was essentially in the beginning homeschooled on these topics and after I went to college, I went to graduate school and did a PhD in sociology and that was at Northwestern University outside of Chicago and went to law school at Wisconsin Law School, and it was during that time that I started running across a lot of books about Gandhi’s thought that were not on my dad’s bookshelf and wanted to integrate those insights into what I was doing in my formal schooling.
And so, a lot of what I’m working on now, that has to do with implementing aspects of Gandhi’s thought into the way we think about law and society, was really nurtured during that time, when I was sort of reading on my own. And so, a lot of Gandhi’s sensibilities are embedded in the thought that I’ll be talking about today. It’s sort of a blend of my early homeschooling with my formal studies at school.
Molly Rans: Thank you so much for being here with us today, Dr. Patel. Today, I’d like to start by focusing some attention on your article, Why Lawyers Fear Love? Mohandas Gandhi’s significance to the Mindfulness in Law Movement, in which you write about the current mindfulness and law movement, the way Gandhi’s thought has contributed to the movement and the future of the law, the legal profession, and the legal system. Can you tell us first what mindfulness and the Mindfulness in Law Movement are?
Dr. Nahel Patel: Sure. We can start with mindfulness and after we understand that we can talk about Mindfulness in Law. Mindfulness is a term that refers to present moment, awareness, or in other words, the ability to keep the mind from drifting into the past or drifting into the future. Keeping the min steady is a skill that can be developed through training and meditation and other contemplatively practices. And one of my meditation teachers once told me that, “the mind can ruminate about what happened in the past, or it can anticipate what will happen in the future. But the body is always in the present.”
So, when you find that you’re ruminating about what happened yesterday, you know, somebody said something that was very mean to you, or somebody insulted you or something like that, your mind can replay it over and over and over again. And sometimes if you’re worried or anxious or nervous about something that’s going to happen tomorrow, if you have to give a public speech or do something else that might cause some anxiety, then the mind can start replaying and sort of anticipating what problems might come up in the future. But when the mind is put where the body is, it’s always in the present moment.
And so, one of the earliest exercises I did to understand mindfulness was a body scan meditation, where you bring your mind to the sensation that is in your hands, or in your feet, in the exercise that I do. I go all the way up the body from your feet, all the way to your head, it takes about 20 minutes and you just feel the sensation that’s there in the present moment. And it’s a way to keep the mind steady and also keep it where it is. Keep it in the moment that you are. And there’s a lot of benefits to mindfulness meditation that I talked about in my article, like physical benefits.
There have been, plenty of studies now, thousands of them showing the ability to help you with high blood pressure and other kinds of physical ailments and there’s plenty of other studies now, that are showing us the mental benefits, the ability to concentrate better, the ability to focus on a task that you’re working on lowering anxiety lowering stress.
And there’s also studies that link mindfulness to things that relate to social interaction like greater compassion and empathy for others. And so that’s in a nutshell, what mindfulness is.
And the Mindfulness in Law Movement is referring to the efforts of many lawyers, judges and also law scholars to integrate mindfulness into the law and the legal profession. So, Mindfulness in Law refers to the efforts to bring some of the insights that come from mindfulness and some of the benefits that come from meditation into the law, the legal system, and our lives as legal professionals.
JoAnn Hathaway: Dr. Patel, what are some of the ways that promoters of the Mindfulness in Law Movement have tried to integrate the insights that come from mindfulness into the law, legal profession and the legal system.
Dr. Nehal Patel: There’s really three ways that I talk about in my article and I divide them into the three different levels of the individual and society. So, the first level is the individual level. In other words, what can it do for an individual lawyer or an individual judge, or an individual court clerk, et cetera? And the second level is the interpersonal level. So that has to do with how the insights of mindfulness practice can affect the way that we enter into relationships with each other. The way that we act with each other in ways that can bring more positive benefit to the ways that we try to work out problems, for example.
And then the third one, is the structural level and that has to do with reforming our institutions, trying to make the organizations and institutions we live in ones that are supportive of many of these positive outcomes that can happen and the way that we interact with each other and also help with our individual well-being. So, people in the Mindfulness in Law Movement, law scholars, lawyers, judges, et cetera, that have tried to integrate the insights have first of all, done so at the individual level. So, I’ll talk about that first.
There’s a lot of law school programs that are popping up around the country now. And these programs are basically programs that try to improve the environment in law schools, so that students especially don’t experience as much stress, as much anxiety over law school as they have in the past. And so many of these programs are designed so that students have the ability to go and join a meditation session where they have the opportunity to be able to talk to one of the faculty members that might be involved in organizing the meditation or mindfulness program at the school so that they can also learn some of the insights and be able to do those practices at home.
So, there are things like that. Sometimes, there’s even times when faculty and students can just get together and be able to just go for walks, for example, or other kinds of things that help you build relationships with people in the Law School faculty students et cetera, outside of class and create more of a mentoring type of environment. There’s also, for example, a judge who once was in their courtroom or in their courthouse I should say, and they were approached by some of their other co-workers. And some of the co-workers had said, “Well, why are you so calm and positive in the environment that sometimes very stressful?” And he said, “Well, I meditate every day.” And what he found is that people started to come to his office and say, “Can you teach that to me? Can you teach me how to meditate?” And so, he said, “Sure.”
And so, he started to just teach people in the office how to do mindfulness meditation. And after a while he found that there was a need for it, they were a lot of people who wanted to learn and so it started to just become a regular thing that he would do at the courthouse or with others who wanted to learn.
And his colleagues started to find that it was a great way to decrease stress and also to just improve their interactions with others.
There’s a police officer as well, this is another wonderful story, who started mindfulness meditation and found that it had enormous benefit indeed being able to deal with very stressful situations, being able to remain calm and being able to try to find a constructive solution during those moments. And she started to teach the other police officers in her department how to do mindfulness meditation. So, they started having some regular sessions.
So, these are the kinds of things that at least, at the individual level, can be very helpful that people are already doing in the legal profession and more broadly in the legal system. Students and practitioners also can do, different types of exercises. Like for example, I was asked recently if a little bit of my work could be included in some of the materials for a CLE course. So, there was a person who was doing a CLE workshop on mindfulness meditation for lawyers and wanted to use some of the materials for the pamphlet or the, not the pamphlet but the little packet that they give out to the people who come to the CLE course.
And so, for practitioners as well, there’s a way that you can do these practices to decrease stress, decreases anxiety, decrease burnout and improve performance by helping you to focus, helping you to concentrate and helping you to stay in a positive space while you’re at work.
As I mentioned a little bit already at the interpersonal level for lawyers, there are those that are familiar with mindfulness meditation. There are techniques that are being taught to lawyers to improve listening and negotiation skills. So, many times when the mind is quiet, when as many people like to say, when the mind is still, it’s much easier to listen to the person who’s on the other side of the negotiating table or to listen to your client when your mind is thinking about the building hours you have to report at the end of the day or something like that. You’re not really present with the person who’s right in front of you. So, it definitely makes it easier with many practicing lawyers who found to be able to just be right in the moment and listen to what other people are saying. And as a result, it can make it easier to resolve conflict, especially improving negotiation skill.
And another place where you see this is in restorative lawyering. There’s an entire body of work on restorative justice for example, that’s focused on long-term cooperation as opposed to competitive struggle. And so, there, for example, are lawyers that work with community advocacy groups that try to build relationships with other groups that they may have had trouble with in the past. It might be a police department. It might be a city council or something like that, that they’re trying to work with. And they find that when they are well-versed in mindfulness meditation, they can approach situations in less of a stressful intense manner and more in a manner where their mind is open to the opportunities that are in front of them for building relationships. And so that’s another thing that I’ve seen in this Mindfulness in Law Movement around the country.
The third thing is the structural level where I think there’s a lot of intent to want to do things in the Mindfulness in Law Movement but there is less application up to this point, I think. There are many lawyers who advocate for marginalized clients or groups and they point to the need for the structural changes because they point out ways that the legal system or political institutions more broadly can be manipulated by those with more wealth or more power and that those advantages can accumulate to make the pursuit of justice more difficult. And so, there are lawyers who noticed these issues and this is one of the places where Gandhi’s thought I think can be very useful in trying to further the applications of my Mindfulness in Law.
Molly Ranns: Dr. Patel, speaking of Gandhi’s thought, how has his thought influenced people in the Mindfulness in Law Movement and where do you see the need for more engagement with his thought?
Dr. Nehal Patel: see a lot of Gandhi’s explicit influence at the individual and interpersonal levels, where many Mindfulness in Law proponents even mention him by name in their own writings or they’ll quote him. You know, sometimes when they’re trying to make a point about the benefits of trying to imbibe our legal profession and legal system with those sensibilities.
And really, we can go back to that idea of looking at the three different levels of society, the individual level, the interpersonal level, and the structural level, to see ways where Gandhi’s influence is already being used and where it could be used more. So, we’ll start at the individual level.
In Gandhi’s own life, we can see that he had a principle that was very important to him and he talks about it over and over again in his writing and he refers to it as the Law of Love. And the Law of Love is this idea that Gandhi had that love is a powerful force. As a matter of fact, to Gandhi, it was the most powerful force in the world. It was more powerful than brute force, or acts of violence, et cetera. That love was really such a force that was so powerful that if people can learn how to tap into it, then they would have access to what he felt was the most powerful force in human life. And the Law of Love is really related to self-awareness and the ability of self-awareness to lead to self-transformation. And what I mean by that is, when Gandhi talked about the Law of Love, the way to tap into that Law of Love was to be able to understand the self, more deeply.
In other words, in meditative practice, mindfulness is really in many ways the first step in being able to have deeper understandings of the self and the other, or the relationship between yourself and other people. There is a way that in Gandhi’s own life, when he meditated on a daily basis, he would often find it to be a very centering practice where you start to peel away all of those negative feelings that you might have, the baggage that you might be carrying around. You’re able to become much more aware of some of the ways that a lot of these negative feelings that you might be holding onto inside are affecting the way that you’re interacting with people and looking at the world. And that when you’re able to experience the absence of all of those feelings.
In other words, when the mind is very still, you start to come into this what Gandhi might call self-realization, this realization that the self and the other are not that different from each other. There’s a Sanskrit term, Tat Tvam asi which means “thou art that” or in simpler way to put it is just to say, “you are that”. And in other words, there’s this direct experience of how what is inside of you is not all that different or is indistinguishable from what is in other people.
Sometimes, you can think of something like, like the physicist Carl Sagan, who once said something like, “We’re all made of stardust”, you know, like even our bodies are made out of the material that came out of an exploding star. Well, Gandhi has a very similar view of consciousness or of awareness of the consciousness inside of us that, which experiences fears and frustrations and angers and joys, is also the same as the consciousness in everybody else. In other words, to put it in a more practical sense, we all experience all of these feelings and emotions, some of them positive and some of them negative. But once a person has a direct experience of this, then the Law of Love starts to become a modus operandi, right? It becomes a way that a person automatically looks at others and sees themselves in others.
And so, this was very important to Gandhi and it was central really and very well connected to his own meditation practice. And so, that is already present in a lot of the Mindfulness in Law Movement. On the interpersonal level, on the second level, we can see a lot of it already happening with the restorative justice movement. One of the consequences of the Law of Love is that it shifts people’s mindset from what some scholars call self-regarding to other regarding. In other words, instead of approaching others with the preoccupation with oneself, whether one, something benefits oneself, whether something is in the interests of oneself, we also pay attention to whether something is positive for the other. And there’s a wonderful story that Gandhi wrote about in his own memoir, and it’s a story about a court case that Gandhi had where he was representing a businessman and the businessman’s name was Dada Abdullah and the defendant was a man named Tyeb Chef.
And Gandhi’s client, Dada Abdullah had a strong case in Gandhi’s mind. But Gandhi noticed that, as Gandhi put it, litigation would ruin both of them. In other words, the trial was expensive. And also, more importantly to Gandhi, these two people were actually relatives and part of the same community. So, there’s an imperative not to strain the relationship too much because it would strain the other family relationships and the other people in the family.
So, Gandhi rather than suggesting trial, suggested arbitration to avoid excessive trial fees, and Dada Abdullah, his client want an arbitration, but Sheth, he realized or Gandhi realized would not be able to give payment without avoiding bankruptcy. So, Gandhi went the extra step to talk to his client to see if he would be comfortable with Sheth paying in installments. And these are the kinds of things that don’t necessarily have to be done by the lawyer of the plaintiff, right? But he achieved great results by thinking about the needs of both parties and healing the relationship. Still achieving the wanted results for both his client, and as well as the relationship as a whole.
So, Gandhi really saw this story as a way to use lawyering to advance the Law of Love. I actually have a quote that I’ll share with you right now from his writing. After this case, he wrote. “My joy was boundless. I had learned the true practice of law. I had learned to find out the better side of human nature and to men’s Hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties, Riven Asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the 20 years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby, not even money, certainly not my soul.
And so this idea that we want to be thinking about law as having or lawyering as having the potential to heal was something very important to him. And I think you see that quite a bit in the restorative justice movement where there’s a much bigger focus on self-forgiveness and other things, especially, for example, between a perpetrator of a crime and the victim’s family or the victim themselves. If you think about a situation like that, or you think about, for example, a divorcing couple, right? There’s a lot of healing to be done there where Gandhi’s ideas can be very easily applied. And so, you see a lot of that in that area of Law.
And then finally the structural level is where I see the need for more engagement with Gandhi’s thought because even though Gandhi practiced law for decades, he also saw a need to try to find other methods of communicating with opposing parties and in India, for example, under British rule, when he started the Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Campaigns, he really described it as creating a dialogue with the state for marginalized or oppressed people. This was a way for people who were not able to have easy dialogue with the state through the court or through the legislature because of a, for example, a lack of representation, to be able to talk to the state in a way that was peaceful. And this is where I think there’s a need for a lot more discussion about Gandhi’s thought in relation to law.
JoAnn Hathaway: Thank you so much, Dr. Patel. We are now going to take a short break from our conversation today, to thank our sponsors.
Welcome back. We are thrilled to be here today with sociology professor and licensed attorney, Dr. Nehal Patel. Dr. Patel why aren’t there more discussions of individual lawyer well-being, and healthy interpersonal interactions in the legal profession? And why is there even less discussion regarding structural reform? So, in other words, let’s go back to the title of your article and ask, “Why do lawyers fear love?”
Dr. Nehal Patel: I think we have to start by looking back a little bit. Looking back in time, to try to understand why lawyers fear love. Why are we so hesitant, in other words, in the legal profession to talk about something like Gandhi’s love. One of the places we can start, I think, is with legal education. When we go to law school, you know, we have this very strong emphasis in our classes on legal reasoning and reasoning our way through the jurisprudence.
And I can even remember myself and others just trying to wrestle with this question of how you navigate through legal reasoning and we really at the time weren’t necessarily able to articulate it. But there are limits to the way that we do legal education. And I see a number of hurdles embedded in legal education itself and they have to do with the way that we think about legal reasoning. There are ways for example that the work of some scholars shows us that by having to think within the boundaries that are already inside of a case can become very difficult to talk about aspects of human life that don’t fit easily into them. And one of them certainly is talking about emotional aspects of the case or aspects of the case that might involve healing people’s negative feelings and your law is often very dissociated or distance from a lot of those interpersonal dynamics. It exists in a realm of abstract ideas that then get applied to factual circumstances. But there are limits to what can be done in our own training, right? And we’re learned, we learn how to think in a certain way that sometimes makes it difficult to do so.
There are some philosophers and law scholars who will say that once we start thinking in terms of legal reasoning, we already are unable to imagine certain ways of thinking that might actually be useful to solving a problem. I had a colleague for example, in law school once say that during law school, he felt like he had to find ways to save this Soul. So, he was just sort of feeling down and very, very similar to some of the stories I’ve heard from many other law students. So, many classmates and former students of mine who talk about this certain emotional malaise they experience in law school, I think is very palpable and I think it’s something we have to talk about more. I think many of the programs in mindfulness that have been created in law schools are meant to try to deal with that.
But legal education, it doesn’t have to be the way that it is and that emotional sense. It can be a place that nurtures the qualities that create positive interactions in the world. But we have to be willing to talk about them and look at some of the very positive ways that a lot of the Mindfulness in Law programs around the country have benefited students.
Another thing that I think we have to look at is how legal education is sometimes something that can aid a participation in unhealthy systems. So, in other words, like other bureaucracies and this is something Gandhi used to talk about in his writing as well about the legal system. The system is often designed for productivity and efficiency, you know. Getting cases done and they’re being productive means you settle. You know, you get cases settled as much as possible. But there’s not really, a lot of discussion about human flourishing and well-being. And law school as it’s currently designed, doesn’t address those questions either. And so one of the consequences is that when people
the profession or have been in the profession for a while, they experience that dissociation. They are sort of meant to do one thing at work and then they sort of attached the rest of themselves to themselves after they leave work, and they go back home, right?
And that’s bound to make students feel a certain sense of lack in their lives or practicing lawyers themselves. And so, the inability of our law schools, our education systems to nurture positive qualities, prepare students for life in such a way where they don’t think about those things, right? And they’re not prioritized. But there are ways that we can shift the environment and many times that starts with the expectations that lawyers themselves have about their jobs.
I have plenty of friends who are lawyers, who will tell me about shouting matches that they’ve had to have with other lawyers in their firms or a lot of discussion about profit, you know, in a law firm and how they’re going to make more money. You know, it’s a very stressful environment but there are ways that you can see yourselves in the same boat where the experiences aren’t so divisive. So, some of the lawyers, I even talk to, you know, we often talk about how to make those environments much more positive. But nonetheless, cumulatively, those things can be very difficult to deal with, right?
The stresses the anxieties that is often come with seeing people at their worst, right? Seeing people under stress, seeing clients sometimes at the lowest points of their lives can be extremely difficult. And despite all this, let me say that there are ways to infuse legal education with mindful ways of knowing and also our profession. Much of the work that people have been doing in Mindfulness in Law Programs, help to make these places, places of transformation. So, it’s really been commendable and the efforts of judges and police officers around the country that have tried to integrate mindfulness, insights has been positive, but we do need to have, I think, a broader conversation about how the profession needs to look in order for it to be a place where people actually feel like they are supported in their desire for healthy balanced lives.
JoAnn Hathaway: Dr. Patel, we just have a moment left, but in that moment, I’d like to ask a final question today. Gandhi saw the law of love as a way to transform societies for the better. And I think he also saw law, the legal profession and the legal system as central in that transformation. Where does the Mindfulness and Law Movement go from here? And what is the place of lawyers in furthering that movement?
Dr. Nehal Patel: I have a lot of optimism for Mindfulness in Law despite the challenges that I see ahead. I think part of it, successful implementation requires us to see that Gandhi’s view of the Law of Love benefits individuals, relationships, and societies by summoning every profession to be catalysts of its positive impacts. This is open to people of any background, you know, people of any background can sit and feel the sensation. In their hands or just sit with their breath and do deep belly breathing. There are ways that the breathing exercises associated with mindfulness meditation, have a way of turning on the parasympathetic nervous system, which is associated with relaxation.
And when we’re in a relaxed state, we’re able to talk much more easily with each other and have much more productive interactions. And so, that is I think central to the broader changes that we need, right? I mean, I think, in many ways we have to be willing to see the needs that we have in ourselves to be able to have that peace of mind before we interact with each other. To do this in the legal profession, we have to first recognize the centrality of our own well-being, therefore, to what we do for a living. In other words, develop our own practice, have support systems around us to be able to nurture our own well-being.
And then as a result, I think the quality of our interactions with others in the system, with others in the profession, with our clients, I think can improve. There are, however, like I was saying, that one of the reasons why I’m cautiously optimistic is we have certain limits in our profession right now, in terms of what we’re able to do. I’ll just give a quick example. In Tibet before the Chinese Invasion, so this would be in the ‘40s prior to the 1950’s when the Tibetan government was not in Exile. There were judges into that who did not close a case until both parties were content.
So, imagine what a difference that can make in. cases involving interpersonal dispute if inner and interpersonal, harmony was valued more than the robotic sense of efficiency, right? The value of being productive in getting cases closed. From a broader perspective, cases aren’t really closed in people’s lives if there is still bitterness, if there is still grudges, if there is still negativity, especially when parties have to have continued interaction with each other that can function as a form of poison looking forward into the future and I think the legal profession could be a part of reducing that negative long-term impact. And imagine how we were trained lawyer differently. If we train them to have the sensibilities that Gandhi was talking about in a way that speaks to the value of our own work, we could think of ourselves as being counselors. We already talked about lawyers as being counselors, right we refer to people as counselor extra counselor why? And, that aspect of the job could include not only our own well-being but that sense that we have the ability to alter the environment around us as well, rather than meeting lawyers, when they’re already in crisis. The profession itself can be a place of health and healing in Gandhi’s view if we infuse the sensibility that Gandhi the counselor in both senses of the term already seem to have.
And so, I think that there has to be a shift in the way that we think about our profession, what we expect from it for us to be able to not only be healthier inside but also be able to make our environments healthier and places of better healing.
And then finally, there’s the need for a society that supports this. The need for the institutions around us to be designed to support our well-being and to support the idea that our relationships can be healthier with one another. And I think that has to do with sensitivity to the fact that Gandhi’s decision to engage in nonviolent noncooperation is a major way oppressed groups have dialogue with the state and that it’s not to be met with State violence or other types of aggressive means.
One of the things that sometimes we don’t talk about enough in the profession is the ways that as many people in the Mindfulness in Law Movement and also many other advocacy lawyers will say is that many times their clients who are either poor or in some other way destitute have a lot of hurdles to be able to have their voice heard. Side of the justice system or in the legal system, more broadly. And if we have a greater sensitivity to the fact that non-violent non-cooperation or, in other words, Gandhi used to use the term Satyagraha to describe the idea that you can peacefully have dialogue with the state in a way that is, at least in terms of how we understand it right now extralegal is something that we can acknowledge more, right? And see as a failure of our system to listen to legitimate concerns that pressed or marginalized groups might have, right?
So rather than seeing it as something distant, something that some “other group is doing”, we can see it as a way that our system is not responding to the needs of people. And therefore, we can see greater sympathy toward the need to better accommodate such forms of dialogue into our existing understanding of law. We have the legal tools to do so like having more expanded and more inclusive understandings of what terms like freedom of assembly may mean. There are also scholars who write about proposed criminal defense has like things. For example, that would have to do with nonviolent conscientious disobedience.
This is all part of applying the law of love to those populations that are historically left out of legal discourse and the legal profession has a role to play in acknowledging the need for these types of legal reforms or having a sensitivity or an understanding to why sometimes people might try to engage in peaceful extralegal means when our system itself is not seeing them or listening to them.
JoAnn Hathaway: Well, it seems we’ve come to the end of our show today. We’d like to thank our guest, Dr. Nehal Patel for a wonderful program.
Molly Ranns: Dr. Patel, if our listeners would like to follow up with you, what is the best way to reach you?
Dr. Nehal Patel: I think probably the best way is to contact me via email. I’ll give the letters out to you. My email is nehalp, so it’s N as in Nancy, E as in Edward, H as in Henry, A as in Adam, L as in Lincoln, and then P for Patel. So, [email protected]..
Molly Ranns: Thank you, again. This has been another edition of the State Bar of Michigan on Balance Podcast.
JoAnn Hathaway: I’m JoAnn Hathaway.
Molly Ranns: And I’m Molly Ranns. Until next time. Thank you for listening.