Alexander Wang Accused of Sexual Assault, Denies Allegations

GettyImages-1204546087

Harvard And Yale Law School Alums Take Stand Against Election Bullsh*t

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

2021 has officially come and the passing of the year was not actually a magic spell that did away with all of the bullshit that was the hallmark of its predecessor. That means there’s still a lot of garbage to contend with, and high on that list is the existential threat to democracy being perpetrated by Republicans. While the previous sentence is completely accurate, it could also refer to a disturbing number of recent events, so I’ll be more specific.

I’m talking about the scheme, hatched by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and joined by Ted Cruz of Texas along with Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Steve Daines of Montana, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama to object to the certification of the election results. Of course, there’s no reason to freak out — the efforts are designed to garner headlines and stave off a primary challenge, and will not stop Joe Biden from taking the oath of office on January 20th. But it’s not a good look — not if you care about American democracy, at least.

The thing about Hawley and Cruz leading/joining the effort is that they *should* know better. Both are lawyers who went to excellent law schools (Yale and Harvard, respectively), and alums and affiliates of YLS and HLS are not going to stand by and have their schools’ good names dragged.

That’s right — there are two petitions making the rounds, disavowing the actions of these famous alumni.

From the Yale petition:

Senator Hawley, however, has declared his intention to object to counting the votes of certain states won by President-Elect Biden. This objection will be as futile as it will be corrosive. What’s so troubling about his objection, moreover, is that it’s clear Senator Hawley knows better. Despite his public populist persona and his frequent disparaging of so-called “coastal elites” his résumé makes clear that he himself is a product of Stanford University, Yale Law School, the United States Supreme Court, and the prestigious, Washington, DC corporate law firm Hogan and Hartson—that is, a background that indicates that he knows both reality and the law and that what he is pushing is based on neither.

And the Harvard petition:

We, the undersigned members of the Harvard Law School community, unequivocally condemn the attempt of fellow graduate Ted Cruz ‘95 and any of his supporters to undermine democracy and our Constitution by improperly challenging the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as President and Vice-President of the United States.

Now, getting your JD — even from a top law school — is no guarantee against making bad decisions. But Hawley and Cruz are doing more than just making a boneheaded call, they’re actively undermining a free and fair election for cheap political points from the outgoing president. Seriously — do better.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Self-Reflection: Lesson For 2021

When I was younger, I used to tell people I wanted to be a lawyer just to get a reaction out of them. I wasn’t yet fluent in English, and it was more a joke than anything else.

But there’s some truth to every joke. Over time, I actually developed a desire to be a lawyer. One day, I told someone, and they laughed at me. When I told my dad how the person laughed at my aspirations, he simply said that they had an imagination problem.

That was one of the many great lessons my dad taught me: Imagine it, and it will become a reality.

Now, this doesn’t mean you can daydream all the time and expect to be a successful millionaire. What it does mean is that you yourself are the biggest cap to your potential. If you cannot imagine yourself doing something, then you’ll never achieve it. If it can’t even exist in the realm of your imagination, how will it ever come to life in the real world?

Imagination is like a womb for reality, a concept which I recently discussed on the Legal Grounds podcast with Mike H. Bassett.

But, for something to be birthed, it must be nourished and allowed to grow first. One of my destressors is using Google or doing research. If I find a problem or if I’m upset by something, I will learn all I can about it and any of its proposed solutions. Then, I will use that knowledge to solve the issue for myself.

Worrying is usually a product of overthinking. To do away with overthinking, you need to act, and informed action is the best kind. When it comes to your imagination, you should color it with knowledge. When you learn enough about all the different paths, ideas, incidences, and solutions, you bring a 2-D thought into a 3-D world — your imagined future is halfway to being real.

Now, this may seem like it’s a bit too artsy for law, but it teaches you to deconstruct complex ideas by adapting them into a narrative inside your head — an ideal skill for any lawyer. You must be able to communicate complicated things in a convincing and easy-to-understand way.

What better way to do that than with a story?

People are so prejudiced that, often, I don’t know if it’s because I’m foreign, female, or perhaps just too quirky. My dad taught me well, though, so I don’t even worry about those things anymore. I don’t have time for unproductive narratives. If I allowed myself to be fixated on what people think, then I’d never deal with the real issues. If you ignore the unproductive narratives, you can start solving problems much faster, leaving you in a better mindset.

I’ve mentioned my dad quite a lot because he’s what I call an “adopted mentor.” He doesn’t really know how big of an influence he is for me, nor does he play an active role as a mentor. The way that he lives, his perspectives, and his lifestyle, however, all impact me. I draw from his life without asking.

In today’s world, almost anyone can become a mentor — maybe not the kind you sit down with for coffee but through observation and reciprocation, we can mimic the most powerful thing about them: the way they live. There are many inspirations online!

I have applied these principles to my legal career for many years, and I am still enjoying the benefits. You’ll be amazed at the change that comes with a more active imagination. It is very impactful. Focusing on our visions is exactly where we should start 2021.


Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

Biglaw Firm Beats Market Bonuses For High Billers, With Special Bonuses & ‘Superstar’ Bonuses On Top

When looking back upon the year that was, associates at some firms will easily acknowledge that 2020 was one hell of a year. From salary cuts to furloughs to layoffs, they really saw it all, and when bonus time came, they perhaps had reason to worry about whether their firm would match the going market rate, and if their year-end haul would include special bonuses on top.

At Katten Muchin — an Am Law 100 firm whose COVID-19 austerity measures ran the full gamut, with salary cuts ending just last month — associates were positively “thrilled” about their bonuses, which were announced just before Christmas.

Why’s that?

Not only did the firm match the market and hand out special bonuses, but even more money is being offered to associates with high billable hours. Big billers start raking in more cash at just 2100 hours. Depending on class year, those who billed 2100 hours or more will receive up to $6,000 more than market, while those who billed 2500 hours or more will receive up to $30,000 more than market. Plus, discretionary “superstar” bonuses will come into play in addition to all of the firm’s generous bonuses.

Check out the firm’s 2020 bonus scale, below:

Congratulations to everyone at Katten for finishing the year off strongly.

(Flip to the next page to see the full Katten Muchin bonus memo.)

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for all of your help!


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Donald Trump Drags Biglaw Firm Into Middle Of Election Interference Effort

(Photo by Andrew Harrer – Pool/Getty Images)

Leaked audio obtained by the Washington Post and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution caught Donald Trump harassing Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to accept a string of already debunked election fraud myths and to just “find 11,780 votes” that would deliver Georgia’s electoral votes to Trump. Is that a violation of both state and federal election laws? ALMOST ASSUREDLY! Was there a lawyer on the call who failed to protect her client from running face first into potential criminal liability? YUP!

But what made this call so incredible is that the lawyer Trump chose to bring with him wasn’t drawn from the bumbling crew of free agents willing to trade their professional credibility for an opportunity to leak hair dye on national television, but Foley & Lardner’s Cleta Mitchell. Mitchell was already brazenly spreading myths about “voter fraud” on all the networks that Trump likes to watch, so it was perhaps inevitable that he’d reach out. What wasn’t inevitable is that a Biglaw firm would allow one of their partners to officially drag them into this mess.

This isn’t the first time Mitchell’s practice has put Foley & Lardner in the hot seat. She was caught on tape running a gerrymandering seminar where she advised state legislators to destroy their notes before they go home so they won’t become part of a discovery request. Document retention policies are, fundamentally, about making sure material doesn’t end up getting produced, but it’s a considerable leap from “we delete all your emails older than six months” to “don’t take notes because we’re about to commit some civil rights violations.” That’s some Stringer Bell stuff right there.

But gerrymandering is the polite form of disenfranchisement. It’s the sort of thing Ben Ginsberg could devote his life to and still get a pat on the back from MSNBC. Leaning on state election officials to conjure up favorable votes is a lot harder for a major law firm to spin.

You know things are bad when the emerging social media narrative in defense of the call is that it was “criminal” for the Georgia SoS office to leak the conversation to the newspapers. Georgia is a one-party consent jurisdiction so they could record and leak whatever they wanted to. The more high-minded conservatives out there realize this and have moved on to casting this as a “settlement negotiation,” which is not privileged or confidential. The fact that settlement negotiations may be excluded as evidence at trial doesn’t do squat when it comes to emailing an audio file to the Post. Look, if lobbing criminal threats in settlement negotiations were off-limits, Michael Avenatti would be in much better shape.

In fairness to Mitchell, she did push back on some of Trump’s nuttiest statements, noting that they don’t “know” some of the wild statements to be true. But these moments were few and far between as she leaned into claims of 18,000 ballots being counted in secret and Dominion voting machines. And she definitively did not clamp down her client while he explicitly said that he’s uninterested in facially neutral solutions to improve the vote count and just wants the state to “find” him enough votes.

Trump: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. We found a way . . . excuse me, but we don’t need it because we’re only down 11,000 votes, so we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell. But we don’t need that. All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world.

Jones Day had better send Foley & Lardner a fruit basket. When folks started to pressure Jones Day’s clients for doing business with the law firm that laid the groundwork for all the frivolous voting challenges this cycle (and I wondered why any mainstream transactional partner wasn’t immediately trying to port their business somewhere with less drama) the firm entered a feeble damage control effort and hunkered down hoping that all this would blow over. Maybe that strategy has paid off, because now they can confidently say that they may have tried to systematically disenfranchise Americans, but at least their clients weren’t on tape encouraging a state official to commit voter fraud!

And, yes, that’s what this was. Politico even checked in on Georgia’s criminal code:

Anthony Michael Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor, said: “The Georgia code says that anybody who solicits, requests or commands or otherwise attempts to encourage somebody to commit election fraud is guilty of solicitation of election fraud. ‘Soliciting or requesting’ is the key language. The president asked, in no uncertain terms, the secretary of state to invent votes, to create votes that were not there. Not only did he ask for that in terms of just overturning the specific margin that Joe Biden won by, but then said we needed one additional vote to secure victory in Georgia.”

Early yesterday, an in-house counsel posted on Twitter that his company would terminate its relationship with Foley & Lardner immediately. This is, of course, what every client should do to law firms offering aid and succor to election interference. Someone will surely trot out the “well, everyone deserves a lawyer” canard in a ploy to protect Foley & Lardner from facing the natural and logical consequences of its actions. But just because a lawyer as a professional can represent troubling clients — unless, of course, the lawyer as a professional was actively encouraging a client to go down a potentially criminal path, which would be much, much worse for a firm — the firm as a business doesn’t get a pass if they trade their goodwill with public-facing corporate clients to collect some fast bucks supporting a coup. It’s a straightforward business and branding issue and firms that take cases like these have to deal with the fallout.

And Foley & Lardner’s brand right now isn’t looking great.

‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor [Washington Post]

Earlier: Biglaw Partner On Fox News Peddling Tales Of Voter Fraud
GOP Lawyer Slams Trump For Undermining Election Confidence Despite Long Career Of Undermining Election Confidence
Yesterday Was The Day America Learned What We’ve Known About Jones Day All Along


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Election Protection Avenger Rocks The Vote For 2020 Lawyer Of The Year

The competition for 2020 Lawyer of the Year honors was not a close one, not even one little bit. The top two candidates — Marc Elias and Stacey Abrams — each had votes in the hundreds, but the new titleholder secured almost 100 more votes than the second-place finisher.

Before we announce which of the two prevailed, let’s review Above the Law’s past Lawyers of the Year:

In a year where some of the most important news in the country circled around the presidential election, it makes sense that our top two contenders played incredibly large roles in how it played out. But which one secured the votes to come out on top?

That would be Marc Elias, the Perkins Coie partner who leads Democracy Docket and continues to work tirelessly to protect the voting rights of all Americans as well as the legitimacy of 2020’s election results. Elias earned 39 percent of the vote in our annual contest, and while the election was over in November, he can’t stop — won’t stop — fighting for democracy. We’re four days into the new year, and Biden’s inauguration is fast approaching, so of course there’s a new election scandal. Elias is here to shut down one of the wildest claims made yet by an ally of the outgoing president:

Congratulations to our Lawyer of the Year finalists, and very special congratulations to our 2020 Lawyer of the Year, Marc Elias. Thanks to his zealous representation, America will be leaving the Trump years with its democracy intact. Well done!


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Hospitals lose appeal to block CMS’ price transparency rule – MedCity News

Despite hospital groups’ attempts to prevent its enforcement, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s hospital price transparency rule will go into effect Jan. 1, as scheduled.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled against the hospital groups in the legal challenge they mounted to block the CMS regulation. The rule will require hospitals operating in the U.S. to make pricing information — including prices they negotiate with health insurers — publicly available.

Judge David Tatel, who filed the opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that one of the providers’ central arguments “miss the mark.” In oral arguments heard in October, the American Hospital Association — which filed the appeal along with several other hospital groups — said many rates negotiated with payers are “unknowable,” as they are determined only after the patient receives care and so cannot be disclosed beforehand.

But, Tatel wrote, the rule, “does not require hospitals to disclose all possible permutations of costs based on hypothetical additional care or any other variable factor. It simply requires disclosure of base rates for an item or service, not the adjusted or final payment that the hospital ultimately receives based on additional payment methodologies.”

Further, the groups argued against the rule’s requirement that hospitals provide pricing information both via a machine-readable list and a separate, consumer-friendly shoppable services list. Tatel and the other judges sided with HHS on this point as well, saying that the secretary can “require hospitals to display the information in multiple ways.”

The hospital groups filed the appeal after a federal judge ruled against them in a lawsuit they filed in December 2019. In the lawsuit, the groups claimed that the regulation was beyond the Department of Health and Humans Services’ authority and that disclosing price information would lead to higher costs. But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled in favor of the federal agency, granting summary judgment to the HHS secretary.

Just last week, the American Hospital Association, along with several other organizations, filed an emergency stay of enforcement motion to prevent the rule from being enforced in January. But the motion was dismissed.

In a statement posted to its website, the association said that though U.S. hospitals “support the goal of increasing price transparency” they are “disappointed in today’s decision.”

“Further, the decision to decline a stay in enforcement ignores the overwhelming burden of the pandemic on hospitals,” the group said.

The association reasserted its belief that disclosing privately negotiated rates will not help patients understand how much they will actually pay for treatment and that the disclosure will “accelerate anticompetitive behavior among commercial health insurers and hinder innovations in value-based care delivery.”

The association is also asking the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden to evaluate the rule and “exercise enforcement discretion for the duration of the public health emergency.”

Photo credit: fstop123, Getty Images

Predictions For 2021

Predictions that people made on January 1, 2020, about what they expected for the coming year were blown out of the water by March. I plead guilty: My predictions for 2020 were an abomination. (So was the entire year 2020, now that we’re thinking about it.)

On the other hand, I did okay with my COVID-19 predictions. I told you early on that hydroxychloroquine was unlikely to work as a treatment for COVID-19. Even the FDA didn’t predict that; the FDA first granted an emergency-use authorization allowing hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, before later revoking the authorization. Who are you going to believe about complex medical issues — those silly experts at the FDA or me?  (Alright, alright: Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while.)

So, too with the surge in COVID-19 cases after the Christmas holidays. I warned you about it a month ago; the physicians only started talking about it late in December. (The physicians must have known that COVID-19 would surge after the Christmas holidays. Maybe the media reports only today’s news and can’t look even a month into the future. Or maybe health professionals didn’t want to scare people, whereas I’m irresponsible and didn’t care. Either way, I was talking about it before most others in the media.)

But enough of self-criticism and boasting. What does my crystal ball see for 2021?

First, on the general political/legal front: We’ll see a bunch of legislation to restore the presidential norms that Donald Trump broke.

Here’s my thinking: Many of the things that Trump did violated well-established and worthwhile norms. Just about everyone knows that.  Democrats know it and say it aloud. Republicans know it but won’t say it aloud. But everyone knows it.

With Trump out of office, Congress can pass a few laws purportedly to rein in that lunatic Joe Biden. The laws won’t be specifically aimed at Trump; Biden will be in office and will approve the reforms. Congress will want to do something to ensure that we don’t have another norm-busting president in the future.

I’m not quite sure which reforms will be enacted in the coming year.  Presidential candidates being required to release their tax returns? More effective ways of controlling conflicts of interest in the Oval Office? Better guidelines about whether the president or presidential campaigns can be investigated and who should conduct those investigations? New rules governing executive branch vacancies?

Maybe clever people could even devise reforms to the pardon power. As a matter of constitutional law, the president has the unfettered ability to pardon people. But could we impose some requirement that pardons be granted and made public before elections, rather than after them, to cause the president to pay a political price for doing outrageous things?

Those and similar reforms are probably needed, and Congress can start thinking about them once Trump is out of office.

Here’s my second prediction, and one that’s more specifically legal: There will be a second wave of retail bankruptcies early in the new year.

January is typically a good time for retailers to declare bankruptcy: Retailers have just been paid for Christmas purchases, so they have maximum cash on hand. This year, however, we’ll see more than the usual number of bankruptcies. Holiday sales will not be enough to save some struggling retailers. And, as a general matter, many retailers are poorly structured — too many bricks-and-mortar stores, not enough online, you know the drill — and retailers can use bankruptcy to restructure debt and be more competitive after COVID-19. (I’m really thinking about private companies in the retail space. It’s harder for public companies to use bankruptcy strategically, given what happens to their public shareholders.) If you see more retail bankruptcies early in 2021, you heard it here first!

Finally, the practice of law. I suspect the practice of law will change in at least two ways in the coming year. First, business travel will stay depressed for a good long time. I’ve always thought that Los Angeles partners “stopping in for lunch” with their Chicago clients was ridiculous. The LA partner wanted to visit Chicago to see his kids, or for a wedding anniversary trip, or to get his hair cut, and used lunch with a client as a subterfuge to get the firm to pay for the trip.

We now know that many meetings, and perhaps even depositions, can be conducted long-distance, and cost-conscious clients will insist that firms make use of that new knowledge. Some airlines and hotels may continue to suffer as businesses decide that they can travel less in a post-COVID world.

On the other hand, lawyers will want to return to the office, at least a few days each week.  It’s hard to tell your whole family to be quiet for seven hours while Mom or Dad conducts a deposition from the home office. Lawyers need space. Not only that: It’s hard to develop a collegial culture, and train new associates, when you’re speaking to people only by Zoom or telephone.

Zoom and the phone are great, but for some purposes offices are greater.  Lawyers will want to go back to their offices a few days per week, and office space will still be needed in a post-COVID world.

Last but not least — not a final prediction for 2021, but a wish: Have a happy and healthy one!


Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Morning Docket: 01.04.21

* Microsoft has asked that a lawsuit involving XBox controllers be submitted to arbitration. Would be amazing if they settled this matter with a videogame battle… [Videogame Chronicle]

* A pro-Trump lawyer is in hot water for seemingly suggesting that Vice President Mike Pence should be executed by firing squad. [Business Insider]

* Joe Biden has named a top lawyer for Facebook to the White House Staff Secretary position. [Vox]

* A federal appeals court has dismissed an election lawsuit filed by a Republican lawmaker against Vice President Mike Pence. [NBC News]

* A Supreme Court advocate reportedly doled out $100 to keep people quiet when he phoned into Supreme Court oral arguments from home. Hope he got reimbursed for that expense… [Wall Street Journal]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

A Lot Of Coffee, A Hospital, And An Ocean: Learning To Listen To Whispers About Wellness 

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome R.B. Guard to our pages. Click here if you’d like to donate to MothersEsquire.

As I walked along the ocean’s edge, my feet in the cool, damp sand, I watched the ocean remake and renew itself over and over again, and in doing so, it changed the environment around it. These morning walks are few and far between; I am here with my family for a few precious days each summer, a few carefully guarded vacation days that are, nonetheless, usually interrupted by the call of work.

But just a few weeks ago, I was far from this ocean, lying in a hospital bed in the Cedar-Sinai Medical Center where I had just been admitted. No, I was not in the hospital because of coronavirus, nor was I being hospitalized for drinking too much or taking too many pills.

Except that I was there, sort of, because of coronavirus. And, it turns out, I was drinking too much and taking too many pills, only I was drinking too much coffee and taking too much Advil, along with maxing out on triptans, the medicines prescribed for me to try to ease the pain of my chronic back pain. I took the Advil to try to numb the pain of my nervous system screaming at me, and I drank the coffee to try to feel un-numb again, awake, present.

Internally, I felt like the coffee I drank too much of — filled to the very brim, facing each day ready to boil over at any minute.

Like many lawyers, I am a Type A personality, setting high expectations for myself and then attempting to surpass them. And like many women, I have been sugar and spice and everything nice, because that’s what little girls are made of, right? I have used the “Goods” and the “Shoulds” as a roadmap for my life.  How would a good lawyer handle this? What would a good mother say? What would a good sister do? A good friend? Wife? Daughter?

And Good’s helper, Should, answered those unanswerable questions for me. You should bill more hours; a good lawyer would. You should volunteer for that school committee; a good mother would. You should be thinner; all good women are. You should, you should. And I did, or at least I tried.

And that brimming, burning cup of coffee got hotter, and fuller, and overflowed with each new Good and Should.

Perhaps then, it is not surprising that the pandemic sent my already chronic back pain spinning out of control. This trip to the hospital was not the first one for my condition; I had been in the hospital many times in previous years, but the prior visits were all outpatient infusions and one day here and one day there. Not this time, though. This time, I was being admitted for almost two weeks, which meant actually taking time off work (although I might have taken a call or two) and even leaving my husband and kids at home without me.

But my identity has been wrapped up for a long time in doing it all. And yet something as stigmatized and underestimated as back pain threatened to undo that identity, to take all of it away. In prior hospitalizations, I would post pictures of myself hooked up to an IV in a small hospital room, my laptop propped open in front of me, with sayings like, “The pain may be tough, but I’m tougher.” But then the pandemic hit.

In March and April, I had managed to bill strong months, even while assisting my kids with online school and trying to keep their spirits up. I checked in on my parents and in-laws to make sure they were staying safe, did a couple of virtual conferences, brought in new clients, and dutifully logged in to virtual parent-coffees offered by my daughter’s schools.

But I could feel the dark vacuum of pain sucking me in. The pain would enter the periphery of my vision and close in on me until my world looked like it was broken, like looking through shattered glass. My bedroom became my continual refuge, lying in my bed with my eyes squeezed shut to let my brain try to rest, exhausted by chronic pain.

That pain was not the real enemy; it was merely a symptom. My body’s way of telling me … my brain’s way of forcing me … to stop, take inventory, get some perspective.  The constant pressures of our profession, the drive to bill more hours, the around-the-clock needs and demands of clients about whom I care deeply, the drive to bill more hours, despite the ensuing chaos swirling around us, were the real culprit as they interweaved with my internal perfectionism and drive.

So, as I sat in that hospital bed, detoxing from Advil and too much coffee, hooked to yet another IV, new medicines dripping endlessly and coursing through my veins, I began to get clearer. The fog began to break apart, the aura prism retreating. I could see again, both literally and figuratively, and I could especially see that I could not continue to treat myself as if I am dispensable, indestructible. Instead of ignoring and numbing the pain, instead of saying, “Oh, I am fine,” I needed to pay attention to the pain, listen to what it was furiously whispering to me, begging me to hear.

“You are already enough,” it was saying, the sharp echo of each word vibrating down each of my neural pathways. “There’s nothing more you need to prove.” The lawyer in me wanted to argue, to come to the defense of Good and Should. But the mom in me tried hard to listen, lovingly and with compassion, the kind of caring listening that I would offer my children, my husband, a friend.

“Wellness” and “mindfulness” have become trendy words in the legal profession, and yet, like other words — diversity, inclusion, equity — they are thrown around like saying them, or posting about some related initiative on a law firm website, will suffice. Most lawyers give little thought to the real and vast consequences of what un-well and mind-less-ness look like. Lawyer wellness means lawyers who are whole humans, with lives and families, and passions — lawyers who are connected to their friends and communities and still remember what it means to work for justice.

Lawyer wellness, to be meaningful and effective, will require breaking systems apart and putting them back together. Lawyer wellness encompasses diversity and inclusion efforts, gender equity, and preventing motherhood penalty, initiatives that encourage healthy behaviors and get rid of broken ones that lead to depression, substance abuse, and … wait for it … chronic overwork.

When I left that hospital bed, I was determined to also leave behind habits that rewarded and sustained being an un-well lawyer. No more Advil (I have the right medicines to use now), and more time exercising and committing to a meditation practice, taking time to listen to my body before it reaches its breaking point.  Oh, and … this one hurts … no more coffee.

And maybe, with less coffee going in, I can stop feeling like that brimming, boiling cup of coffee. Maybe instead, I can be like the ocean in the early morning, breathing in and breathing out, renewing and remaking myself according to my own internal voice, and hopefully changing the world around me for the better as I do.