Big Law Implicit Bias – How Can it be Fixed?

“Never judge someone

By the way he looks

Or a book by the way it's covered;

For inside those tattered pages,

There's a lot to be discovered.”

Steven Cosgrove

As a member of the board of directors of the Association of Corporate Counsel, I am privileged to have the opportunity to participate in a fair share of ACC sponsored events. I recently attended the ACC Foundation GC Dinner in Chicago where twenty-four in-house counsel and law firm lawyers, gathered together in an intimate and “safe” environment to discuss how to improve the relationship between in-house lawyers and their law firm counter-parts. Assembled in the room were some of the best and brightest private practitioners in the country and their in-house counterparts.

The dinner was extraordinarily successful on many fronts. Everyone in attendance appreciated the need for outside counsel to develop close relationships with their in-house counterparts in order to build trust. Another hot topic was the need for in-house lawyers to bring “value” to their companies through the relationship with outside counsel. I’ll discuss these topics in future posts.

What really struck me as something that requires immediate comment was the experience of a young African American lawyer regarding a situation he faced while attempting to broker a deal between a client and the management team of his law firm. At the time, the young African American lawyer was pursuing a large client with potential for significant future billings. In order to help bring the client into the firm, he offered an attractive alternative fee arrangement to the client – subject to approval of firm management. As related by the young lawyer, he pitched the alternative fee arrangement to firm management and the idea was immediately dismissed out of hand. However, several months later, a lawyer who was not African American pitched a very similar proposal on behalf of the same client and the deal was accepted. The implication was very clear – the business deal was rejected in the first instance because the lawyer pitching it was African American.

I was flabbergasted. I found it very difficult to fathom that, in the enlightened world in which we live today (especially in the legal profession), a good business deal would be quashed simply because the pitch was made by a black lawyer. Of course, I have no idea what went through the mind of firm management as they made their decision. If, in fact, the conscious decision was made not to accept the proposal based on the race of the person making it then this would be a case of outright racism. However, I posit that this was not the case[1].

I cannot speak from a first person perspective when it comes to this lawyer’s experience as I am not a “big law” African American mid-level associate trying to build a book of business. However, as circumstances allow, I make it a point to seek to understand the perspectives of those who do not share my background. After the dinner ended, I reached out to another in-house lawyer who was African American. He confirmed that the experience related by the firm lawyer was not uncommon. While we did not have time to delve into the topic on a deeper level (nor do I have the space to do so here), I hope to continue the conversation soon and to follow up in an additional post on the subject. The question thus remained – “Why did this happen?”

In trying to answer the question, I circled back to some reading I had done on the topic of “Implicit Bias”. Implicit Bias (also known as “Unconscious Bias” or “Hidden Bias”) has been described as negative associations that ordinary people are found to harbor in relation to various social groups – even while honestly reporting that they regard themselves as lacking these biases. Stated another way – it is believing that one is impartial, but behaving as if one is not[2]. Experience shows that one is most likely to be implicitly biased in favor of those with whom one identifies and biased against those who are “different”. I suppose this makes sense, after all, if someone is “like me”, I can trust them – right?[3]

It is particularly important for lawyers to understand implicit bias because, once understood, it becomes an important tool for the manner in which we approach our day-to-day jobs. A study by Harvard researchers shows that implicit biases vary from person to person and that implicit attitudes are modified by experience.  And the good news is that implicit bias can be overcome through awareness, acknowledgement and conscious effort. The Harvard researchers tell us that one who wishes to rid oneself of an implicit bias can seek experiences that might reverse or undo the patterns that created the unwanted preference. A great example of a step that lawyers can take to help rid themselves of implicit bias is to interact with people or learn about people who counter the implicit stereotypes.

Once we understand that we may have a bias for a particular group or groups over others, we can attempt to manage our bias, check it at the door when making decisions or giving advice that pertains to or affects that group or a person within that group. For example, a lawyer or compliance professional must consciously discard implicit biases when assessing the credibility of a manager during an investigation or, when making decisions about accepting another lawyer’s proposal to offer a deal to a new client to bring in new business.

How do you know if you harbor implicit biases? I invite you to test your self-awareness of bias against the actual bias shown by your behavior by taking the brief Harvard Implicit Bias Test. While not perfect or absolute, the test results should move one to serious self-reflection and openness to the possibility that one’s thinking is not as objective as one might hope or believe – you will likely be very surprised by the delta between what you believe about yourself and the objective results of the test. I also urge you to recommend the test to your colleagues and friends. Implicit biases can be weakened, but only through awareness and open-mindedness to the possibility.

“Strength lies in differences, not in similarities”

Stephen R. Covey

---

[1] “Social psychologists use the word prejudice to describe people who report and approve negative attitudes toward outgroups. Most people who show an implicit preference for one group (e.g., White people) over another (e.g., Black people) are not prejudiced by this definition. The IAT shows biases that are not endorsed and that may even be contradictory to what one consciously believes. So, no, we would not say that such people are prejudiced. It is important to know, however, that implicit biases can predict behavior. When we relax our active efforts to be egalitarian, our implicit biases can lead to discriminatory behavior, so it is critical to be mindful of this possibility if we want to avoid prejudice and discrimination.” Harvard Study, visited 5/30/16.

[2] It should be stressed that the study of Implicit Bias is not limited to racial bias – there are many biases that exist, for example biases based on age, physical appearance, gender or occupation.

[3] African Americans are not immune to negative implicit biases – about one-half of African Americans prefer Whites, the other half prefers Blacks.  National Center for State Courts paper, visited 5/30/16.

Focus on Your Big Picture to Thrive, not Just Survive!

Focus:  a point upon which attention, activity, etc, is directed or concentrated;  to fix attention (on); concentrate. Dictionary.com

I often start a column with a definition because it helps me stay focused on the message I am trying to convey. I am reminded of the need to focus every time I walk into the office and see the pile of papers on my desk and the ever present reminders popping up on my calendar; when I experience the constant interruption of phone calls and walk-ins. What do I have to do today to stay focused on the tasks at hand? However, the concept of staying focused begs an even larger question – What is the goal upon which my efforts should be focused?

We can have no focus unless we have clearly defined goals. How can one define tasks upon which to focus when one does not have goals established that allow for a strategic setting of tasks to achieve those goals? In other words, how can we figure out how to get from Point A to Point B unless we understand the location of Point B. Once we know, we can map a route to get there.

I am sure that most of you have seen the SMART acronym.  Goals must be:

S = Specific

M = Measurable

A = Attainable

R = Realistic

T = Timely

While the SMART method is useful, I am "focused" on goal setting at an even more basic level. I was vividly reminded of the need to have goals when I was recently in a meeting with a group of volunteers who assist in the leadership of a charitable organization. Many ideas on programming and how to improve the group were bantered about, all ideas were good, some were excellent! However, the unfamiliar observer might have noticed that the ideas, bright as they were, were also disparate and  non-cohesive in the sense that they did not seem to point to a common interest. One of the participants finally took a step back and interjected: What is the goal of [our organization]? We were flummoxed. All the brainstorming was taking place in a vacuum!

How does this relate to in-house counsel?  Many of us plod through life, day by day, hoping for better, thankful for what we have (as we should be), working hard at our jobs. We consider it a good day when we give some good advice, help a client out of a pickle, solve a problem, proactively manage the company away from trouble, help a friend, whatever. The next day is the same thing. You might call this “surviving” as opposed to thriving. Many of us are fine with just getting by, others need to thrive.

What do you want out of your career? Do you want to be a specialist in a particular area of the law? Are you looking to be the next general counsel of General Electric? Do you want to strike out on your own and use your in-house experience in the private firm setting? Are you looking to back down on the hours and spend more time with the family? Each of these goals demand specialized, differentiated strategies. The tasks required of one goal do not fit within the scheme of tasks required to achieve the other goals.

When goals are clearly identified, we can develop task-oriented strategies to achieve them. By knowing the big picture and focusing on the tasks required to get us there, we have purpose. With each task completed comes a sense of accomplishment, a sense of having done something concrete and worthwhile – because we have inched closer to our goal.

So while the pile of paper may not seem to get any shorter, you can thrive in your career as you accomplish tasks and move forward to your end game. By focusing on the smaller tasks necessary to the achievement of your longer term goals, you make progress. Progress in turn brings a sense of well-being. A cycle is created whereby your goals are affirmed through progress and satisfaction which brings forth more effort to accomplish the next set of tasks and so on and on. Now – stop reading and get back to that stack of paper…..

“People with goals succeed because they know where they’re going.“ Earl Nightingale

Intellectually Honest Discourse

I love a good argument.  There is almost nothing better than stretching your mind while engaged in an open and honest discussion with someone who views things differently than you do.  It is most fun when engaged in the so-called taboo subjects that are important in a big picture sort of way, such as religion and politics.  These topics evoke deep emotion in people and make the challenge of intelligent and honest discourse all the more interesting.

I have a very good friend who does not share my religious beliefs or my political views.  One might describe the two of us as polar opposites – 180 degrees apart.  The interesting thing about our relationship is that, because of a lot of intellectually honest and intelligent discussion, we seem to have influenced each other on certain matters to within 45 degrees of the other.  In other words, because we are able to discuss very controversial and emotional issues that cut to the very core of our  belief systems in an honest, unemotional and respectful manner, we have brought each other around a little bit to the other’s way of thinking.

The two of us have compromised in the best sense of the word, not falsely by claiming to be in agreement for the sake of keeping peace, but having been truly moved to a new way of thinking about the issue.  This is a wonderful experience.  It is only possible if each of us open our minds to the possibility that we may not be absolutely right about everything all the time.

Having meaningful discussions requires openness, vulnerability, respect and a true and pure willingness to contemplate the argument presented by the “opposing party.”  There can be no sarcasm, no red herrings, no manipulation.  Raw honesty is required.   This is easy to do because there is no end game except enlightenment.  There is no case to win or lose, there is only the opportunity to become smarter – if not about the issue at hand, about how your “opponent” thinks.  Knowing how another who thinks differently than you approaches and analyzes issues will also make you smarter, as you experience a different way of thinking that will help you down the line in other circumstances where there is an end game.

In the “real” world, it is not always easy to be so open and honest about the way one thinks.  As lawyers, we negotiate to get our way.  We start way over here, hoping to end up over there.  We've all played the game, each side makes outrageous demands expecting the other side to do the same.  So we adjust our demands based on the expectations we have of where the other side wants to end up until eventually, after the expenditure of many resources, we end up close to where each side thinks they should be.  Each side walks away believing they got the short end of the deal, grumbling that the other side acted unfairly, complaining about the cost and waste of time, but happy to be done with the emotionally taxing process.  This scenario is played out every day across the world among lawyers, car salesman, commodity vendors, politicians, parents and children, and so on.  This is not the intellectually honest and intelligent discourse of which I speak at the beginning of this column.

Acknowledging the difficulty of acting open minded in an adversarial situation, I invite you as in-house counsel, to try a more open approach with your clients.  Say what you are really thinking, be open to viewing the matter from the perspective of the business person.  Allow yourself to be thoughtfully persuaded by the business to a different way of thinking.  It might not change your legal advice, but it will make you a better lawyer

Intimacy?

“Intimate” might at first seem like a funny word to describe the in-house attorney’s relationship with his corporate client.  But what is intimacy in the context of in-house lawyering?  According to Dictionary.com: Intimacy is “a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.”

So, intimacy is really quite an appropriate word to describe the important relationship an in-house lawyer has with his client.  Because of our professional obligations, we cannot help but have a “close association” with our clients. As in-house lawyers, we also strive for a detailed and deep knowledge and complete mastery of our businesses.  

When people ask me why I chose to work in-house, one of the reasons I offer is my desire for a higher level of intimacy with the client - a higher level than can be achieved as an outside lawyer.  As an “embedded” legal executive, I am with the business people on a day to day basis.  I sit with the top executives, participate in policy making meetings and on committees formed to address issues in various disciplines, attend marketing presentations and sales meetings and work closely with the purchasing, risk management, marketing, finance, audit, human resources, accounting departments and the board.  But even more importantly, I have the opportunity to see the warehouse, tour the plant, visit the loading dock and the quality control labs.  An in-house lawyer has a unique opportunity to learn the entire business from the bottom up.

Many companies today require executives to spend time in the manufacturing facility, at the retail store, on the production line, in the research lab, manning the grill or working some other front-line job to help them understand how the business operates.  If your company does not do this, then you should be proactive about doing it yourself.  Knowing the ins and outs of your business is essential in making you a better lawyer for the business.

When you know the business inside out, it is easier to: defend cases, draft contracts that better address the unique needs of your business, appreciate the human resource climate, understand the culture and know what is important to the business.  Most importantly, it becomes much easier to be proactive and provide value in ways the business might not expect from their lawyer.

For example, a lawyer friend of mine from another company was called by the president of one of the operating companies he supports when a customer approached the president about jointly creating a new product.  My lawyer friend's company is not an R&D company; it manufactures a low tech product sold on the commodity market.  Because my friend is embedded in the business, he knows it very well.  His clients, including the president, know how engaged he is and thus regularly consult him on a myriad of legal and non-legal matters.  The president called him as soon as she hung up the phone with the customer.  My friend sat in on the initial meeting with the business folks and the potential partner and was able to identify several very important potential pitfalls that were not even on the president’s radar screen.  My legal friend helped craft an agreement that protected his company from the pitfalls as well as ensure proper ownership in the potentially profitable jointly developed product.

In short, the lawyer who knows his business is a better team member and a much more valuable asset to the company than a lawyer who does not.  In order to be a good team member, the lawyer must be focused on cooperation and coordinate his effort with the group.  Of course, a successful team member must understand how the team works and, ultimately, the final goal of the team.  Becoming “intimately” involved with your business gets you and your team to the goal line and beyond.

Think

Think (think) think (think) think (think)

think (think) think (think) think (think)

Yeah, think (think, think), let your mind go, let yourself be free.

(Aretha Franklin – “Think”)

I once had the opportunity and privilege to hear Charlie Wunsch speak to a group of legal professionals at a daylong conference in Chicago.  Charlie is the General Counsel, Corporate Secretary and in charge of Legal and Government Affairs for Sprint Nextel.  Charlie struck me as a fairly modest man, not one to herald his title or accomplishments to impress people.  Which, of course he certainly has the right to do since he works for one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world and has a terrific amount of responsibility.   I mention his position only because it helps to know his background when we consider his remarks.    

Charlie spoke of the fast pace at which technology has advanced over the years, reviewing how human communication has evolved from pre-history communication of a few hundred feet (the distance at which the human voice can be heard) to mail delivered by horse to crude telephone communications all the way to instant communication from anywhere in the world via the internet.  I don’t have the space to relate all of the wonderful examples he gave, but each was a fascinating example of progress for that time.  Let’s just take notice of the fact that in today’s world, we can communicate instantly with anyone in just about any place on earth and beyond.

What does the age of instant communication have to do with lawyering?  Well, an awful lot.  With the age of instant communication comes the expectation of instant answers.  Clients look at us  as if  we are the legal equivalent to the internet.  Google a question and wait a few seconds for an answer.  Well, we as corporate lawyers know that providing counsel to a client requires careful thought, analytical skills, judgment, experience, emotional intelligence to interpret the data, context and other factors.  Lawyering is not only an acquired skill, but an art.  The process of thinking requires us to use all of the above mentioned qualities and roll them into an answer suitable for our client.  We can’t deliver well thought solutions without the opportunity to “well think” them!  We are not the legal equivalent of the internet with a Google search page built into our systems.

I will paraphrase some of Charlie’s remarks on how this affects lawyers.  Change is too rapid and profound today for lawyers to always be in reactive mode.  Lawyers must not only anticipate  change, but also the consequences of change in order to be prepared to help our companies.  We have to help our clients navigate the changes using the very technology that makes it harder to have the time to do the job right – by taking away the time we need to THINK!

Charlie reminded the group that we have to force our clients to give us time to think.  Why?  Because “It is our capacity to think critically, creatively and clearly explain our reasoning, that gives our service value.  If you eliminate the thinking time, you eliminate the value of those costly legal services.”

You would almost think that Aretha was singing about the lawyer/client relationship when she sang:   “You need me and I need you (don't you know).  Without each other there ain't nothing people can do. Think (think) think (think) think (think). ”

A very thoughtful lady that Aretha Franklin!        

Courage, influence and civility*

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C. S. Lewis

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of attending an ethics program co-sponsored by DLA Piper  and Major, Lindsey & Africa .  Susan Lichtenstein (Hill-Rom), Stasia Kelley (DLA Piper) and Paul Williams (MLA) informed an attentive audience of what it is like to be in the boardroom when it comes time to make a very personal decision – whether to “press the button” that will effectively end your future with the company, if not your career.

In a nutshell, the program focused on the GC as trusted adviser, financial analyst, compliance officer and legal advocate.  The panel discussed the business needs for a GC with multi-dimensional skill sets and what happens as a result – an increase in the number of circumstances in which the GC is faced with business/legal situations requiring ethical (and not just business or legal) considerations. 

GCs are faced with balancing the need for creating trust and synergy with the business team against ethical obligations to ensure the company is behaving “properly” – meaning legally and, in some cases, “ethically”.  How can a GC continue to build relationships with the business operation executives while also acting as the company’s moral compass, responsible for reporting ethical breaches to the board?

First, the GC must have an unwavering commitment to ethical conduct at all levels in the company.  She must sow the seeds of a “culture of compliance” and nurture that culture throughout her tenure.  This commitment must be unwavering, for it will no doubt be tested.

Second, she must not only talk the talk, but she must also walk the walk.  Ethical considerations should be raised whenever an ethical concern presents.  Ethical considerations should also be part of the decision matrix, so as to ensure consideration of the ethical implications of a decision, even if ethical concerns are not immediately obvious.

Third, the GC must make known her commitment to ethics to every board member, executive and line worker in the company.  It must be communicated to the company frequently and regularly.  GCs have influence within their organizations and should use it.

Fourth, she must have an excellent relationship with the board so that each member feels absolutely confident that if the time comes, she will press that button and make them aware of all serious issues affecting the company.  More importantly, they will trust her judgment and follow her advice in rectifying the problem.    

In thinking about how we might influence our organizations in the care and feeding of an ethical environment, often overlooked is how we might influence our outside lawyers to practice in an ethical and civil manner.  Lawyers do not enjoy a reputation for being kind to one another.  Often, clients expect us to act nasty, disrespectful and mean to our adversaries.  Some clients even believe that a lawyer cannot possibly zealously represent a client unless they act in such a manner. 

I believe in-house lawyers, and particularly GCs, are well positioned to work a change in the legal environment so that clients will learn to expect nothing less than the utmost in decency from their lawyers.  In-house lawyers hire and pay firm lawyers.  Firms listen to their clients.  If we charge our outside team of lawyers with the responsibility to be civil, professional and yes, even polite – they will listen.  I am absolutely convinced that if we reward professional behavior (with fees and more work) and discourage underhanded gamesmanship (by referring work to other firms), the legal world will change. 

In-house lawyers have the responsibility to foster a culture of compliance and ethics within their own organizations.  In thinking outside the box (extending her influence outside the company), the GC can extend her influence beyond a culture of ethics, to one of civility by and between the outside lawyers, as they zealously advocate for their clients. 

Each of us must be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be content with what we see.  We must know that we have done our best to represent our clients zealously, professionally, competently and ethically and that we have conducted ourselves in a manner that reflects well on the profession we have chosen.

*Originally published on August 9, 2012 here:
http://h20cooler.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/inside-perspective-courage-influence-and-civility/

Emotional intelligence — don’t forget the human element*

A lawyer friend told me a story last week about a case she had been working on. Turns out that years ago, one of the employees at her company was severely injured in a tragic plant accident while on the job in South Carolina. The case settled long before her tenure at the company began. Because of a bookkeeping snafu, the company continued to make payments for medical coverage for the injured worker for years after the settlement, payments that it had no obligation to make. Recently, upon discovering its error, the company decided to discontinue making the payments. My friend, the company lawyer, was tasked with communicating the decision to the former employee.

The former employee was well respected and very well liked. Her injury impacted many of the people with whom she worked as well as those in the administrative offices who handled the subsequent lawsuit, human resources issues and workers’ compensation claims. The company bent over backwards and went far beyond its legal obligations in assisting the employee at the time of the injury and, as it turns out, after the matter should have concluded with the settlement. Even decades later, people at the company who worked with the former employee tear up when discussing the case.

You might guess that it was difficult for my friend to manage the case because of the emotional elements surrounding the injury and the impact it had on the injured worker’s life. However, lawyers deal with many “emotional” issues and must separate themselves from the personal aspects of cases such as this one. She handled the matter as she would any other personal injury case – in a very business-like and professional manner. No problem there.

 
However, the real challenge came from within the company – from those who worked closely with the former employee. Because she was so well-liked, the emotional scars that remained were aggravated after all the years. My attorney friend experienced pushback from some of the employees with whom she needed to work to resolve the cessation of the gratuitous medical benefit payments. To her, it was simply a part of her everyday business/legal work. But to those with whom she worked, the case tore open long since hidden wounds and emotional trauma that evoked very emotional responses.

As in-house lawyers, we often deal with emotional issues. To preserve our sanity, we disassociate from the emotional elements of the matter so that we can make an objective legal decision. However, once we have done that, we must invoke our emotional intelligence skills in order successfully implement the recommended action, especially when working with others who may not be used to doing that. A lawyer’s “business as usual” manner may well be off-putting to those unaccustomed to turning off their emotions in this way.

In a situation such as this, to help ensure that such an emotionally charged task goes smoothly, the first thing one should do is reach out to those involved in the original case to get a handle on how the company dealt with the emotional issues at the time of the accident and the emotional impact that it had on the work force, paying particular attention to the people who were directly involved and their feelings at the time. Then reach out to those still with the company, and who would be assisting in effectuating the change, to assess their current emotional state regarding the incident. Clearly, as it turns out, they were still very much impacted by what had happened to the former employee. According to my friend, there may have been undue feelings of guilt associated with the accident and a general feeling of “there but for the grace of God go I” mentality. This may have accounted for the generous manner in which the matter was resolved in the first place many years ago. Whether these resurrected feelings are appropriate or not, they exist and must be taken into consideration when formulating a plan.

If you are tasked with carrying out such a charged assignment and you take the time up front to assess the emotional environment, you will be that much better able to implement a plan that accounts for the feelings of those who would be needed to assist in getting the job done and help them handle it without so much additional upset. In other words, you would empathize with those with whom the former employee worked, acknowledge their feelings and address the resolution of the matter in a proper tone and manner, taking into consideration their feelings about the matter, rather than adopting a “business as usual” approach. The objective would be the same but by accommodating the current employees’ feelings, you will make the job much easier for all involved and likely minimize pushback.

The lesson of the day is to be aware of the emotional impact your legal recommendation may have on your client base and communicate your advice so that it is received not only with an appreciative intellect but with a welcoming heart.

* Originally posted December 8, 2011

Emotional Intelligence

“…the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer, “Emotional Intelligence”, 1990

A high Emotional Intelligence Quotient, or EQ, is an essential element of a successful lawyer’s personality. This is readily apparent from the definition set forth above. Some scholars believe that one’s EQ is set at birth while others believe that Emotional Intelligence can be learned and developed. In either case, breaking down the several elements that make up the EQ helps one to better understand the concept of EI. When one is aware of the various factors that enter into the EQ, one can work to harness the insight gained and enhance the ability to interact with the client.

As is the case in traditional psychological sciences, there are several schools of thought that address the concept of EI. I will look at the model posed by Salovey and Mayer in their 1990 article “Emotional Intelligence.”

Salovey and Mayer break down EI into four basic elements: (1) Perceiving emotions; (2) Reasoning with emotions; (3) Understanding emotions; and (4) Managing emotions. In the context of our profession, it is very important for us to be in tune with the emotions of our clients.

You might wonder why someone’s emotional state is so important in our delivery of legal advice. It is important to remember, while our client is the company, the company is made up of people. People cannot be separated from their emotions. As people and employees, they may have concerns about their job performance, the decisions they have made that are now being questioned (or are going to make based on your advice), the mistakes they may have made (or are perceived to have made) and impact they are having on the business. People also have lives outside the company. A sick wife, child or parent, financial problems, major life decisions – all have an impact on the emotional well being of the individual and hence impact the manner in which they address the business problem at hand and in turn the manner in which you provide counsel.

As lawyers, once we have a sense of the emotional state of our client, we need to understand the root of that emotion. Is it business related, or personal in nature? Does it revolve around you and the advice you have given in the past and anticipation about what advice you might give now? Or, does it involve someone else in the business? What is the client’s relationship with that person? What is your relationship with that third person and with the client?

The most important aspect of the Salovey and Mayer model for you to consider is how to deal with the knowledge and insight you have gained into your client’s emotional state. This is the real test of your EQ. Those lawyers who are successful are able to make an accurate assessment of what they are dealing with and react with an approach that is complementary to the given situation.

My friend Jenifer Robbins, General Counsel at FPL Advisory Group, summed up lawyers’ EQ in one word – “Empathy”. The ability to relate to your client on an emotional level is absolutely essential for the successful corporate attorney and business person.

As you approach your daily activities, take a moment to think about those with whom you are interacting and try to gauge their emotional state, think about why they might be feeling the way they do, and take into consideration their perspectives and emotional state as you interact with them.

“Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge”

Plato

On the lighter side — time to take a break

“It is our best work that God wants, not the dregs of our exhaustion. I think He must prefer quality to quantity”

Scottish Novelist George MacDonald

Every once on a while, we need to take a break from the pressure cooker at the office, take time to relax and refresh the mind.  Every good craftsman takes care of the tools in his tool box.  Just as the piano must be tuned to strike the right key and create the perfect tone and the lab instrument calibrated to take accurate measurements, so too must we take time to “recalibrate” our intellect.  The in-house lawyer’s tool is our brain.  A rested mind is essential to the fresh thinking required to solve problems for our clients and address our daily tasks with a smile.

Our mind has physical needs as well as psychological.  We must feed and rest our brain like we do for the other organs in our bodies.  A healthy diet is good for the body and spirit.  I concern myself here with the psychological care and feeding of the mind as it is not at all difficult for me to ensure that it is well fed physically!

Sometimes the mind itself resists the notion of downtime.  It is often difficult to find time to take rest.  We are busy people with “important” things to do.  We make good faith commitments to help others, only to find that we are overcommitted.  We have little time for our families and friends, let alone ourselves.  We work, we serve our communities on boards or service organizations, we mentor, we coach, we volunteer for this committee or that committee.  We often do so much that when we finally get home at the end of the day we fall exhausted onto the couch, motionless.  This is not healthy, nor does it allow us to perform at our highest level at any of these activities.

Fall is fast approaching and with it a less relaxed atmosphere around the office.  Fall is budget time and the approach of year-end.  School starts for the kids.  Fall seems to be the start of a myriad of activities that take us away from ourselves, it is a time when all those commitments start coming due.  So, if you have not yet taken some time off from the office this summer, do it soon.  Take a day here or there and relax on the porch, lay in the hammock, read that book that has been sitting on the nightstand for months.  Take some time for yourself to recharge and reenergize your mind.  You will think clearer, be more productive and just outright do a better job.  Your fresh approach to your job will make you happy and your positive attitude will rub off on your clients.

And don’t feel guilty about taking a little time for yourself.  Remember, even God rested on the seventh day!


“And on the seventh day God finished the work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all the work He had done.” 

Genesis 2:2