State Bar of Wisconsin

President's Message: Ultimate Pass is a Great Member Benefit for Government Lawyers; Division Reacts to Crabbs' Ruling in Siefert

By William Domina

State Bar of Wisconsin’s Ultimate Pass

As the next installment of my review of new, State Bar member products, I am featuring the Ultimate Pass, a one-year subscription that gives you unlimited access to attend any live, video, webcast, webcast replay, telephone, or CLE OnDemand seminar produced by State Bar of Wisconsin CLE. These seminars include annual updates, national speakers, and Build Your Practice and specialty skills seminars.

A subscription to the Ultimate Pass runs for 365 days from the date of purchase, and you can start anytime. State Bar members pay $595. This means that you pay for the equivalent of just three seminars, and you can attend as many additional programs you wish for free. If you renew your pass for a second year, the price drops to $425, provided your renewal occurs before the expiration date.

With the purchase of an Ultimate Pass, you have unlimited access to any form of a State Bar CLE seminar, including more than 100 titles available from the State Bar’s CLE OnDemand library titles. And, your Ultimate Pass gets you into the State Bar Annual Convention for just $75.

State Bar CLE Director Bill Connors says, “The Ultimate Pass freezes your continuing legal education costs. With OnDemand programs, a member has tremendous flexibility to choose among courses without worrying about running up expenses. If a member does not need an entire course, he or she can watch a portion without committing to an entire day."

Ultimate Pass subscribers also have discounted access to the national listing of WebCredenza telephone seminars; subscribers may attend any titles in the WebCredenza for 50 percent off the regular price.

Please note that the passes have an identified owner and are not transferable. In addition, the 2009 fall Solo and Small Firm Conference, Corporate Practice Institute, the Gulf Coast CLE Conference, Practice411 seminars, or CLE programs produced by sections, divisions, or committees of the State Bar of Wisconsin are not covered by the Ultimate Pass. There is special pricing for initial purchasers who are State Bar of Wisconsin members admitted to the practice of law for the first time within the last two years.

To subscribe or for a list of Frequently Asked Questions, visit Ultimate Pass or contact the State Bar at (800) 728-7788 or (608) 257-3838

Siefert v. Alexander Case

The day following the issuance of a decision authored by the Hon. Barbara Crabb, United States District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin, that declared the rules of judicial conduct that governed the ability of our judges to be political partisans unconstitutional, I received a visit from the Hon. John Siefert. The purpose of Judge Siefert’s visit was to deliver a copy of the decision to me. You may recall that in my President’s Perspective in the January 2009 edition of the GLD News, I reviewed the actions of the Government Lawyers Division (GLD) Board of Directors pertaining to the Seifert case. The GLD Board invited Judge Siefert to draft an article for this edition of the newsletter, and I encourage you to read his views on the subject. Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen announced on March 18 that he is appealing U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb’s decision. 

The GLD Board of Directors believes strongly that the elimination of rules of conduct for judges that have been in place for many years is folly and that this elimination is an invitation for the further degradation of our court system and the public’s view of our judges. At the most recent State Bar Board of Governors meeting, I was pleased to make a motion, which was adopted by the full board, encouraging the Wisconsin Attorney General to appeal the Siefert decision.

Top

Find out who’s running in the Spring 2009 GLD Elections

The Government Lawyers Division is very pleased to announce its outstanding slate of candidates for the 2009 division election. Members will elect a president-elect, a treasurer, a secretary, and three directors. The State Bar of Wisconsin mails out election ballots the week of April 6, 2009.

We encourage you to read about each candidate. Please watch for your ballot in the mail. Do participate in the GLD’s spring election.

President-elect

Melanie R. Swank

Milwaukee City Attorneys Office

I was elected to serve as a GLD director two years ago. I have enjoyed working with the other GLD directors, and for this reason have decided to run for president-elect. It will be a privilege to work with the GLD Board and the other members of the GLD, with the goal of meeting the needs and interests of other government lawyers and making State Bar membership more meaningful and beneficial for other government lawyers.

During my tenure as GLD director, I have become aware of areas of concern of other government lawyers, including the need for meaningful and accessible continuing legal education programs, mandatory/voluntary bar membership, and bar membership costs. As president-elect, I will work to address those concerns. I have served on the GLD continuing legal education committee for approximately four years. During that time, I have enjoyed working with other government lawyers with the common goal of developing CLE programs of interest to government lawyers that address our areas of practice in a practical and useful manner.

Treasurer

Ann Marie Molitor

Administrative Law Judge

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development - Unemployment Insurance Hearing Office

I am an administrative law judge in Madison for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Division of Unemployment Insurance, responsible for conducting administrative hearings and issuing decisions involving Unemployment Insurance claims. I have worked in myriad of government positions, including legislative aide in the Wisconsin State Senate, Assistant Corporation Counsel in Waukesha County, and municipal judge in the Village of McFarland.

I have served on the GLD Board since 2005 and on the GLD CLE Committee since 2004. I have developed strong relationships on the GLD Board, within the Bar, and within state and municipal governments – all of which I will use to address the issues facing government lawyers and to make sure that your concerns are heard at the Bar.

Secretary

David H. Nispel

Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds

I am employed as General Counsel for the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds. In this position, I provide legal counsel and assistance to the Department’s Secretary, managers and staff, as well as the several boards attached to the Department. I also handle the in-house litigation work, which consists primarily of disability, insurance, employment, and retirement law cases. Recently, I served as a part-time Assistant District Attorney for Marinette County.

I have been an active member of the Government Lawyers Division for many years, and I have served on the GLD’s Board of Directors since 2002. I serve on the Board’s Website Committee and was involved in the total revision of the GLD website.  

GLD Board Director Positions

There are three (3) open Board positions. Six candidates are running.

Rhonda K. Gorden

Ozaukee County Assistant Corporation Counsel

I began my government lawyer career in Milwaukee County with the Department of Child Support Enforcement in 1995. During my five years with Milwaukee County, I developed a project to collect unpaid child support by targeting jail and prison inmate accounts, resulting in payments to many custodial parents who were receiving no child support. In June, 2000, I became the Assistant Corporation Counsel of Ozaukee County. I manage the Ozaukee County Child Support Agency, serve as its legal counsel and work on CHIPS, mental health, county debt collections and research and opinion writing.

Of the various hats that I wear in the small town of Port Washington, I most enjoy doing appellate work, when the occasion has arisen. I view the appellate process as an opportunity to seek a just result that government attorneys are uniquely positioned to pursue with the available time and inexpensive tools we enjoy.

I am also interested in ways in which government lawyers can improve the numerous laws that affect the citizens of the State of Wisconsin. Because many government lawyers spend much time in courtrooms, I believe we have first hand knowledge of laws in the real world, including which ones do or do not serve the people well. Consequently, I believe there is great potential for government lawyers to be part of the process to improve laws through collective discussion and action.

Meighan Anger

State Public Defender Milwaukee Criminal Trial Office

I have been a Senior Assistant Public Defender in the Milwaukee Trial office for almost 20 years, and I have served as a litigation attorney, probation and parole revocation specialist, and as an attorney manager.

Although the current GLD board includes representatives for prosecutors, corporation counsel, agency attorneys, and municipal attorneys, if elected, I would be the lone representative for public defenders on the GLD board.

Public defenders represent almost 10 percent of all government lawyers – we need a voice on the GLD board. Every day, I serve low-income clients under the heavy criminal caseload and hectic court schedules. Some of the challenges public defenders face in the work place are distinct from agency lawyers, but all government lawyers share common concerns. In addition to the obvious issues of low compensation and high workloads, all government lawyers face issues of declining numbers of attorneys who are asked to assume more duties and responsibilities. Exploring the issues of mandatory/voluntary Bar membership and dues, and bridging the gap between the members’ needs and Bar resources will be my primary goals.

I will work to make sure PDs are represented and all government lawyers are served by the State Bar.

Lauri A. Rollings

Senior Staff Attorney

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

I am a senior staff attorney with the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). After graduation from law school, I served as a law clerk to the Hon. Terence Evans on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court. After my clerkship, I spent several years in private practice, specializing in commercial litigation.

At MMSD, I work on a number of issues unique to government lawyers, including Public Records Law and public procurement issues. Another major area of my work involves the procurement, negotiation, and day-to-day administration of a large privatization contract. My ongoing work on this contract has given me insight into the host of legal and practical issues surrounding public-private partnerships. Litigation is also a component of my work at MMSD; it has given me experience with issues unique to government litigants, such as the notice and immunity provisions of Wis. Stat. Sec. 893.80.

Currently I serve on the GLD Continuing Education Committee. As a member I help to plan and produce CLE programming targeted to the interests of government lawyers.

Mary L. Schanning

City Attorney

West Bend City Attorneys Office

I have been the City Attorney for West Bend, Wisconsin since 2001. I handle all aspects of municipal law including eminent domain, land use and development, zoning, public construction, employment law, and open meetings and public records. Before accepting the appointment to my current position, I was the Assistant City Attorney for West Bend and was responsible for handling the City’s prosecutions and collections. I also have prior experience in private civil litigation practice and as a Special Prosecutor for the Walworth County District Attorney’s Office.

I have never served on the GLD’s Board of Directors, but I believe that all Wisconsin attorneys should dedicate some of their time to serving and improving the State Bar and the practice divisions within the Bar. The needs of the government lawyer are different from those of other attorneys, and I believe it is very important for the Bar to meet the unique needs of government lawyers and to communicate the availability of those services to the government lawyers in the Bar.

Miriam Rachel Horwitz

Milwaukee City Attorneys Office

I am an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Milwaukee. I joined the City Attorney’s office in 2000 and currently handle employment law and general litigation. Substantive areas of law include constitutional challenges under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, all aspects of federal and state discrimination claims, as well as contract and other actions for and against the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Public Schools.

I spent my first year of practice as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee. In 1979 I joined the firm of Zubrensky, Padden, Graf & Bratt, which eventually became Zubrensky, Padden, Horwitz & Weir. My primary areas of private practice were workers compensation, personal injury, and labor and employment law. I am experienced in class action suits and settlements, and I primarily practice in federal court. I am currently a member of the Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association. In the past, I have served on the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Group and Prepaid Legal Services Committee, the Board of Directors of the Milwaukee Jewish Council, and various committees of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation.

If elected as a member of the Board of Directors for the GLD, I intend to help government lawyers increase the stature of government practice as a career. This includes greater visibility to, and communication with, the private bar. Having substantial experience in both private and public practice, I understand the potential government lawyers have as subject matter experts in substantive areas of law. Our expertise needs to be translated into tangible contributions to the private bar and the general community. Our expertise may also expand the opportunities government lawyers have as writers, speakers, and consultants. I also believe the GLD should support efforts to improve the salary structure of underpaid government positions, such as the sorry state of salaries for district attorneys.

Cathy A. Lake

Wisconsin Dept. of Workforce Development-Workers Compensation

I have been a Worker’s Compensation Administrative Law Judge at the Department of Workforce Development since 1999. Prior to my current position, I worked in the insurance and risk management industry. I previously practiced law in the area of worker’s compensation and Social Security in Michigan. I am past president of the Wisconsin Association of Worker’s Compensation Attorneys (WAWCA). I have also been an active member of the Wisconsin State Attorney’s Association (WSAA). I have served on the bargaining team, as a grievance representative, on the board of directors and as the grievance chair for the union.

It is my intention to be a conduit between my fellow government lawyers and the State Bar. As consumers with the legal process, government lawyers have a vested interested in the passage of laws and policies; thus our input is vital. I will work to ensure that the voice of government lawyers is heard.

Top

Leaving the Government Lawyers Division Board

The Government Lawyers Division salutes James Godlewski, MaryNell Regan, Stephanie Rothstein, and William Honrath. We salute these dedicated government lawyers for their outstanding service on behalf of the division and the legal profession. Thank you.

Ruminations on State Bar involvement

By Jim Godlewski, Past President, Government Lawyers Division

As I reflect on my nine years of involvement with the Government Lawyers Division Board of Directors, I am reminded of the advice I received from then Oneida County Corporation Counsel Larry Heath when I was first elected in 2000. He told me to get involved and to use the membership on the board to make contacts and influence events. He said putting in the time will prove more valuable personally than the cost of involvement.

Larry was absolutely right. During the past nine years, the GLD spearheaded an effort to assist military families after 9/11; promoted the development of numerous government law related CLE materials and seminars; expanded government lawyer involvement in State Bar governance and pushed hard for resources provided by the State Bar of benefit to government lawyers. Most recently, the GLD is in the thick of the discussion regarding whether the Bar should be mandatory or voluntary. All in all, it has been a busy nine years.

The most valuable take-away from this experience is all the people I’ve met and contacts I’ve made that allowed me to be a more effective advocate for my government client. I leave the board this summer with an admonition to other government lawyers: don’t discount the value of State Bar involvement. Whatever position one takes on the status of the bar, clearly bar involvement brings significant benefits to the individual. I know involvement benefited me and made me a more effective advocate for my client! 

Farewell

By MaryNell Regan, Treasurer

I have enjoyed the last five years serving on the Board of the Government Lawyers Division. The best part of the experience has been interacting with my colleagues and having productive discussions about substantive legal issues that affect our practices and daily work.

I am encouraged by the persons who are running for the current, open Board positions. I wish everyone well, as we work through our unique challenges as government lawyers.

Stephanie Rothstein, Secretary

Gov. Jim Doyle named Stephanie Rothstein, a 25-year prosecutor in the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office, to fill a vacancy on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. She will take over for John Franke, who resigned Dec. 31, 2008. Rothstein has been assigned to Children’s Court.

Have I Got A Deal For You!

By William Honrath, Director

Under different circumstances, I might have been a great meat-cutter like my father. Apart from the fact that I have very little physical dexterity, combined with the attention span of a four-year-old, I think I could have worked in a supermarket or warehouse at union scale with decent benefits. I’d probably be just about ready to retire. Instead, I went to law school; and for the past 30 years I have labored as a “government lawyer.”

The other day I found an old phone message I’d tucked into a book as a marker. I remember it like yesterday. I had just returned from court on one of those days when I wondered if it was too late to give meat cutting another try. (The scars on both thumbs are evidence of my father’s futile, but benign, efforts to teach me). It said, Sherwood Zink, who at the time was Legal Counsel for the Wisconsin Office of Child Support, had called and left a message, “Have I got a deal for you!” My sole connections with Sherwood were a number of child support-related appeals we’d worked on together. I associated his name with additional and unpleasant chores. Why I returned the call I have no idea. He indicated he was helping to set up a new division of the State Bar of Wisconsin specifically for “government” lawyers, and he wondered if I was interested in participating on a family court commissioner “council” within the new division. In a moment of great weakness, I said “yes.” That telephone conversation took place over 15 years ago.

And what a deal it’s been! The return on my modest investment has been invaluable. In exchange for a little time and effort during my tenure with the Government Lawyers Division, I had the opportunity to work on some unbelievable projects and to meet some incredible individuals, not only government lawyers but Bar staff as well. Was it worth it?

I worked on publications and educational programs; I helped create educational opportunities for government lawyers from different areas of practice; I helped fund social events for government lawyers, and I helped gain recognition for government lawyers who went that little extra distance to make things better than when they found them. I took positions for and against proposed rules and statutes that would hinder the work of government lawyers and lawyers in general; I became friends with a crazy Romanian author and had hundreds of worthwhile conversations with lawyers who listen and speak the same language. Was it worth it? You bet. Was it a deal? What do you think?

So why am I leaving the Government Lawyers Division Board you might ask. Well … it’s time. How about it? Is anyone out there looking for a great deal!

Top

Judge Siefert's Perspective on Litigation Challenging the Rules of Judicial Conduct

Editor’s Note: The GLD Board of Directors invited Judge John Siefert to express his views on his recent litigation challenging the rules of judicial conduct. Judge Siefert submitted the following article for publication.

Circuit Judge John Siefert called on public lawyers to adapt to an environment of more robust political speech in judicial elections. “I do not anticipate that Federal Judge Barbara Crabb's decision striking down prohibitions on judicial candidates joining political parties, speaking out on issues of public policy, or soliciting contributions to their campaigns to be appealed successfully,” Siefert said. “It is too well researched, well reasoned, and well written.”

The 65-page opinion was released in mid-February. In it Crabb pointed out that the belief in free expression and open government is central to American democracy. “Under the First Amendment,” Crabb wrote, “generally the view is that more rather than less information advances democratic values…Particularly in the context of popular elections, it is the people who decide through their votes which message resonates.”

Siefert said he felt the trend in past years has been to treat judges as “employees.” But in her decision Crabb wrote, “... it is difficult to characterize an elected judge as a mere “employee” of the government …”

Siefert also said he felt there was a danger that the political opponents of a judge or a judicial candidate might attempt to improperly use the Wisconsin Judicial Commission to label a judge or a judicial candidate as unsatisfactory. “We have to guard against that,” Siefert said. “Therefore, I was particularly heartened when Judge Crabb pointed out that “It is the people rather than the government who decide ultimately whether any judge’s performance is satisfactory.”

Seifert concluded by saying that Wisconsin’s tradition of an impartial judiciary could best be preserved by a viable system of public financing of Supreme Court contests. “Get big money out of Supreme Court elections. Replace it with a system of public financing that provides enough money for candidates to get out their own message instead of being drowned out by so-called independent expenditures paid for by special interests. An independent judiciary is best preserved if we keep special interest money from hijacking our elections for the Supreme Court.”

Top

Did you know? The Office of Family Court Commissioner Marks 100th Anniversary

The Wisconsin Office of Divorce Counsel was created in 1909; it was renamed the Office of Family Court Commissioner in 1959.

The Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin passed the following resolution commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Office of Family Court Commissioner on Feb. 27, 2009.

Top

Provocative and Timely Presentation on Tap for State Bar Annual Convention

Join your colleagues for a high-profile and timely presentation sponsored by the Government Lawyers Division at this year’s State Bar Convention, May 6 – 8 in Milwaukee at the Midwest Airlines Center.

The Division program is scheduled for Thursday, May 7, from 1 - 4:35 p.m.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, is the opening speaker. He will speak about the economy’s impact on neighborhoods and strategies for change. Following Attorney Barrett’s presentation, other topics will include:

• Legal Strategies for Addressing Drug Houses,

• Gang Houses, and other Nuisance Activity

• Brainstorming Nuisance Abatement and

• Community Prosecution Initiatives

• Landlord Accountability/Advising and Defending the Property Owner

This program will touch on the areas of practice of most government attorneys. Please join us for this thought-provoking and informative presentation. The division thanks Linda U. Burke, Milwaukee City Attorneys Office, for serving as program chair and all of the speakers who have committed their time to this year’s program.

Top

Assist Deployed Services Members Through Military Pro Bono Project

By Jeff Brown
State Bar Pro Bono Coordinator

The largest combat mobilization of Wisconsin National Guard troops since WWII took place earlier this year when approximately 3,500 members of the guard were called up for duty overseas.

The State Bar has partnered with the ABA Military Pro Bono Project to help assist deployed service members who need legal assistance that they cannot afford. Legal issues range from family law matters to power of attorney issues to creditor rights issues and relief available under the Service Members Civil Relief Act. All State Bar of Wisconsin members (resident and nonresident) who are interested in providing volunteer legal assistance are encouraged to join the project’s referral list.

Requests for help through this project are prescreened by a JAG lawyer who refers eligible requests to the ABA Military Pro Bono Project. ABA staff send these requests to lawyers on the pro bono panel for the state/locality where the assistance is needed and help make a match once a volunteer steps forward. Students from the U.W. and Marquette University law schools will be available to assist attorneys with legal research, writing, and other appropriate tasks. 

For more information and to join this project, visit www.militaryprobono.org; select “Join This Area” to volunteer. To find this or any other pro bono opportunities, be sure to visit the online pro bono guide at WisBar.org to search for opportunities by county, area of law, type of client and other criteria. If you have questions, contact Jeff Brown, State Bar Pro Bono Coordinator at probono@wisbar.org or (800) 444-9404, ext. 6177.

Top

Keeping Legal Minds Intact: Mitigating Compassion Fatigue Among Government Lawyers

By Linda Albert, LCSW, CSAC
WisLAP Coordinator

What is Compassion Fatigue?

There are several different terms often used to refer to the same phenomenon; to name a few: compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress, second hand shock, and secondary stress reaction. Compassion fatigue is defined as the cumulative physical, emotional, and psychological effects of being continually exposed to traumatic stories or events when working in a helping capacity. It has been studied extensively in social workers, nurses, doctors, and therapists who work with victims of trauma. Recently researchers have begun to examine the impact upon legal professionals including judges and lawyers doing criminal law or family law and judges. Compassion fatigue involves a cluster of symptoms such as, but not limited to, sleep disturbance, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, a sense of futility or pessimism about people, lethargy, isolation, and irritability. The development of compassion fatigue involves neurophysiology and is best addressed from both the neurobiological and the social psychological research and perspectives.

Who is most at risk?

An article published in the Pace Law Review, “Vicarious Trauma in Attorneys,” published in 2003, found that attorneys and judges who work in the field of criminal or family law are considered at higher risk of developing compassion fatigue compared to those who work in other areas of the law. These legal professionals listen day after day to stories of human-induced violence. They read and re-read detailed documentation of the traumatic material within cases. Attorneys are often times in long-term relationships with their clients thereby witnessing the impact of the trauma upon their client or their client’s victim. They observe domestic violence victims re-entering into risky environments without regard for safety and throughout their work with victims, offenders and the system are expected to perform at the top of their game without being impacted by the traumatic material. After all, lawyers are taught not to show weakness, to deny, defend and deflect vulnerability, while staying emotionally detached at all times.

The reality is that government lawyers are human beings. Any person regardless of professional competence can develop compassion fatigue. The struggle for government lawyers is the assumption (both their own and that of others) that they will not be impacted by the work that they do. The reality can be quite different. Lawyers that are exposed to traumatic stories and events may have physiological reactions such as increased heart rate, breathing rate, and muscle tension. They can have emotional responses such as sadness, anger or fear. They may also experience changes in their assumptions about life, other people, and issues of safety. Often lawyers will be unaware of these reactions or ignore or dismiss them as unimportant. These reactions are indicative of the physiological and psychological changes occurring within the mind/body due to the processes of empathy or identification, reactions of the autonomic nervous system and patterns of thinking. If left unchecked and unattended to these reactions wear on the mind and the body resulting in the above mentioned cluster of symptoms known as compassion fatigue. The results can be varying degrees of impairment for the attorney.

What places government lawyers at increased risk?

An article published in the Pace Law Review, “Vicarious Trauma in Attorneys,” published in 2003, found that compared to mental health providers and social service workers attorneys who worked with domestic violence and criminal defendants had “significantly higher levels of secondary traumatic stress and burnout.” Researchers went on to state that this is likely due to higher case loads, lack of supervision or support, and lack of education in regards to the impact of ongoing exposure to traumatic material and events. “How to Maintain Emotional Health When Working with Trauma,” published in the Juvenile and Family Court Journal in 2008, also identified similar organizational and job issues that contribute to the development of compassion fatigue. Factors included high caseloads, minimal support from supervisors, lack of peer support, excessive paperwork, inadequate resources to meet demands, and limited job recognition. These researchers also reported the impact of compassion fatigue upon the work environment listing such issues as increased absenteeism, impaired judgment, low motivation, lower productivity, and high staff turnover.

These factors coupled with the culture of practicing law may discourage government lawyers from recognizing the signs of distress, from disclosing if they are struggling or from seeking assistance. In contrast, social service and mental health workers are educated about the potential impact of the work upon their mental and physical health and are encouraged to talk about it and address how the work affects them in order to lessen the impact. This is often done in a safe, confidential, and supportive environment. Government lawyers and their office managers universally state they do not have this provision built in to their work environment, that they are bound by confidentiality and would lack the resources, time, or energy to create this environment for themselves. However, some recognize the need for it.

Those working as public defenders or prosecutors may identify with some of the above. For example, prosecutors or public defenders involved in a long, arduous trial are seldom afforded the time to replenish and restore themselves following the trial. Instead they are likely to go forward the next day into another formidable case without the ability to take pause and reflect upon how the work is impacting them physically, emotionally or mentally. One lawyer stated, “I am expected to operate like a machine, often getting notices to be at four places at the same time and go from trial to trial with no regard for what I can reasonably do or what the impact might be on myself as a professional or a person.” Another lawyer expressed, “I am supposed to take it all in and not be affected by it; it’s like mental battering.”

What can legal organizations do?

A review of the literature suggests that organizations that employ government lawyers first and foremost need to recognize and acknowledge that compassion fatigue exists and identify how it impacts the lawyer and the organization. Prevention strategies include reducing caseloads due to the correlation between high caseloads and the prevalence of compassion fatigue and educating government lawyers about what compassion fatigue is and how a person may be impacted while working with traumatic stories and events. Supervisors and managers would be astute to address this issue, educate their legal staff, and encourage staff to debrief their high trauma cases on a regular basis in a supportive atmosphere. With the current culture of budget deficits, limited space and resources, and increasing caseloads, it is imperative (albeit difficult) for managers and organizations to adopt a strategy of how offices can address and mitigate this versus why they cannot.

What can legal professionals do?

Whether an attorney, judge, doctor, or a mental health professional, the recommendations to mitigate or treat compassion fatigue are similar.

Awareness. It is important for government lawyers to understand what compassion fatigue is, be assessing for it by utilizing a survey, checklist, or other instrument on a regular basis.

Debriefing. Talking on a regular basis with another government lawyer who understands and is supportive is seen as helpful. This involves talking about the traumatic material, how one thinks and feels about it, acknowledging how one is personally affected by it and putting a plan in place for balance.

Balance. Working on balance in all areas of one’s life is emphasized throughout the research on mitigating compassion fatigue. Because of the physiological changes that occur a holistic approach is best. Yes, this means establishing a healthy diet, sleep, and exercise program (argh), which we all talk about but few of us actually attend to. Exercise and relaxation work can be beneficial in counteracting the impact on the autonomic nervous system. Working on healthy interpersonal relationships is also a good idea (even if we have been married or divorced a zillion years, live with small children or adolescents, or have aging parents giving us the excuse to say “balance is impossible”). Most of us give up on finding balance as work and personal life just keeps pouring it on but the truth is there are probably steps we can take to simplify, to do less of, to ask for help, or just plain stop trying to be all things to all people, including our clients. Sound familiar? Start thinking about how you can work on balance versus why you cannot.

Be intentional. If your life is out of whack, if you have compassion fatigue, depression, anxiety, substance abuse problems, or are just plain overwhelmed, put a plan in place for change. Work with your thoughts. Recognize and acknowledge that the skills you possess that contribute to your success as an attorney (motivated, perfectionist, achievement oriented, driven, fixer) and the environment in which you work in may contribute to an imbalance in your life. Seeking balance encompasses a change in lifestyle which requires hard work addressing thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Intentionally seek assistance to help yourself implement change and redirect the thoughts that tell you, “I should be able to do this by myself.” Your new mantra can become, “I don’t have to do it all by myself.” 

The good news: WisLAP can be a resource specifically for you.

If you want to consult with a mental health professional or work with a trained attorney consider calling the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP). WisLAP specializes in understanding and addressing the issues that face today’s legal professionals. The program offers free in-house educational sessions or one-on-one consultation or assistance for problems like compassion fatigue, depression, anxiety, addictions, or other challenges.

WisLAP is a member service of the State Bar of Wisconsin. The program utilizes trained Wisconsin judges and attorneys who provide confidential assistance to judges, lawyers, law students, and their families. Each request for help is treated with the same confidentiality as the lawyer-client relationship. WisLAP is exempt from reporting professional misconduct to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) or to the Judicial Commission. WisLAP does not ask callers to disclose their identity and does not keep case records. The program is designed to help members build on their strengths and provide support through the enhancement of physical, mental and emotional health. Confidential support is available 24/7 by calling (800) 543-2625. Or contact Linda Albert, WisLAP Coordinator directly at (800) 444-9404, ext 6172.

Linda Albert is a licensed clinical social worker and a certified alcohol and drug counselor. She received her Master’s Degree from U.W.-Madison in Social Work. She has professional assessment/treatment/referral competencies in the areas of addictions, eating disorders, depression, anxiety, trauma, and illness impacted by stress. Linda has worked over the past 25 years as an administrator, consultant, trainer, and psychotherapist in a variety of settings including providing services to impaired professionals. She has done multiple presentations for conferences at the local, state, and national level. Currently Linda is employed by the State Bar of Wisconsin as the WisLap Coordinator.

References:

Figley, C.R., Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized. New York: Brunner/Mazel, (1995)

Jaffe, P., Crooks, C., Dunford-Jackson, B., & Town, M., Vicarious Trauma in Judges: The Personal Challenge of Dispensing Justice, 54 Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 1-9 (2003)

Levin, A.P., & Greisberg, S., Vicarious Trauma in Attorneys, Pace L. Rev. 24, 245-252, (2003).

Murry, D., & Royer, J., Vicarious Traumatization: The Corrosive Consequences of Law Practice for Criminal Justice and Family Law Practitioners, (2003).

Osofsky, J., Putnam, F., & Lederman, C., How to Maintain Emotional Health When Working with Trauma, Juv. & Fam. Court J. 58, no. 4 (2008).

Rothschild, B., Help for the Helper: The Psychophysiology of Compassion Fatigue and Vicarious Trauma, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (2006).

Trippany, R., White Kress, V., & Wilcoxon, S.A., Preventing Vicarious Trauma: What Counselors Should Know When Working with Trauma Survivors, J. of Counsel. & Devel., vol 82, Winter (2004).

Vrklevski, L., & Franklin, J., Vicarious Trauma: The Impact on Solicitors of Exposure to Traumatic Material, Traumatology, 14; 106 (2008) (online at http://tmt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/106).

Top