by Virginia Robin
The growing emphasis on lawyer wellbeing, particularly since around 2010, reflects the legal profession’s attempt to respond to a systemic challenge.
While this paper draws primarily on empirical research relating to lawyer wellbeing within Western common law jurisdictions – principally the United States, with broader references to the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada – the challenges raised may nevertheless resonate with legal practitioners in other jurisdictions. The applicability of the solutions proposed, however, may necessarily vary across different legal systems and cultural settings.
Concern for lawyer wellbeing entered legal discourse as early as the 1980s, yet only in recent years has it become a formal policy priority across firms, regulators, and institutions. Krieger and Sheldon (2015) define lawyer wellbeing as the “sum of life satisfaction and positive affect, or mood (after subtracting negative affect).” In their study of more than 6,000 lawyers in the United States, experiences of autonomy (including authenticity), relatedness to others, and competence emerged as the strongest predictors of wellbeing across diverse practice areas and roles in both private and public sectors.
Despite specialised cognitive legal training, the data suggest that lawyer wellbeing prerequisites largely mirror those of the general population (Krieger & Sheldon, 2015). Collier’s (2025) analysis, focussing on the UK legal profession, argues that lawyer wellbeing is a “psychosocial phenomenon” not unique to the legal profession but “enmeshed with wider geo-political social, economic and cultural shifts.”
My own contemplation of lawyer wellbeing began in 2012, after a minor personal mishap disrupted my life and led me to a yoga class. Initially undertaken as a physical practice to rehabilitate injured knees, it soon became a catalyst for a broader shift in my consciousness. Through this experience, I came to understand wellbeing as relational – emerging from an embodied connection with the whole, or totality of our interconnected existence. This perspective highlighted a fundamental tension within legal practice: its adversarial framework and emphasis on analytical detachment stand in contrast to approaches that foster relatedness and integration. Following deeper reflection on the profession’s structural challenges, empirical research revealed that interpersonal relatedness, a core determinant of wellbeing, is systematically eroded during law school (Krieger & Sheldon, 2015).
The challenges I experienced align with Collier’s (2025) critique of the profession as being structurally and culturally fragmented. He argues that the valorisation of “negative stress”- where excessive stressors are framed as virtuous – combined with the pervasive influence of neoliberal ideologies, creates conditions in which wellbeing initiatives can, at best, provide superficial relief. Without addressing deeper systemic dynamics, such interventions fail to engage the structural and cultural forces that shape lawyers’ professional and personal wellbeing. In this sense, individual experiences of disconnection are not only outcomes of the system, beginning with the systemic erosion of relatedness needs in law school, but also actively perpetuate the conditions that undermine wellbeing. Relatedness, in this sense, being a basic human psychological need (Sheldon et al., 2003).
This paper reflects on Collier’s incisive critique and applies two of Sohail Inayatullah’s Six Pillars of Futures Studies: Pillar Four – Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah, 2004) and Pillar Six – Transformative Futures (Inayatullah, 2008), to examine the current state of lawyer wellbeing. The CLA framework enables us to explore multiple layers of meaning, from surface issues to deep cultural narratives. Specifically, this paper explores whether current approaches to lawyer wellbeing function more like a mirage, a fragmented and illusory promise of relief, rather than a wellspring: something that flows forth naturally and abundantly from a deep source of wholeness and coherence. If so, what conditions might allow the legal profession to move beyond the mirage and reconnect with the wellspring?
Causal Layered Analysis
Pillar 4: Deepening the Future
Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) is an established futures methodology used to explore the deeper or unseen issues arising across four interrelated layers: litany, systemic causes, worldview, and myth/metaphor (Inayatullah, 2004).
The Litany of Lawyer Distress
The surface layer reveals a catalogue of concerning statistics and experiences that have garnered professional attention since the 1980s. Notwithstanding the increasing prevalence of wellbeing initiatives and interventions evident since around 2010, career dissatisfaction (Thornton, 2016), burnout, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation persist across the legal profession (Bloomberg Law, 2024).
A recent survey reported that 48% of lawyers experienced burnout, which was associated with a decline in wellbeing and linked to substance use, such as alcohol, as a means of coping with mental health challenges (Bloomberg Law, 2024). These findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a 2016 study of 12,825 lawyers in the United States documented higher rates of alcohol use disorders compared to other professional populations (Krill et al., 2016).
Systemic Barriers to Wellbeing
Beneath the litany lie systemic structures and processes that undermine and distort the vision for wellbeing. These systems appear to create and sustain a sense of fragmentation, rendering sustainable wellbeing elusive:
- Educational Origins of Fragmentation: The erosion of lawyer happiness and satisfaction begins in law school (Krieger & Sheldon, 2015), indicating that fragmentation of self occurs before practice even begins, where something intrinsic to legal education and culture may be fundamentally at odds with wellbeing.
- One-Size-Fits-All Solutions: Broad, often corporate-firm-centric wellbeing models are applied uniformly across a highly “fragmented and disaggregated” profession. (Collier, 2025). Initiatives designed for large private practices are expected to work equally well for in-house counsel, solo practitioners, or community legal aid lawyers, despite vastly different work conditions and pressures (Soon et al., 2023).
- Superficial Interventions: When wellbeing interventions do emerge, they typically fail to address underlying causes, resulting in “superficial and cosmetic responses” such as “wellbeing weeks” and the “lunchtime neck massage” (Collier, 2025). These initiatives tend to add wellness programming to existing dysfunctional systems rather than examining the systems themselves. As a result, it is difficult to establish sustainable wellbeing practices that endure beyond the intervention period.
- Market-Driven Intensification: Market liberalisation has opened previously monopolised legal services to less regulated competitors, creating unique pressures for lawyers who must compete on price and efficiency while remaining bound by strict professional regulations, their paramount duty to the court, to upholding the law and to the administration of justice (Dal Pont, 2020). This competing loyalty dynamic presents a tension that is more pronounced in law than in other liberalised professions.
The introduction of the “billable hour” has become a “disciplinary mechanism” and “a key site of proletarianization”. Work increasingly encroaches on personal time, with the “long hours culture” intensified by the online availability of legal services (Thornton, 2016; Collier, 2025).
- Cultural Reinforcement of Dysfunction: These structural pressures operating within neoliberal and hierarchical cultures continue to reward behaviours fundamentally at odds with wellbeing. Billable hours, adversarial culture, perfectionism, and the stigmatisation of vulnerability remain the true performance metrics, subtly undermining wellness efforts and creating additional feelings of “failure” when lawyers cannot achieve promised wellbeing outcomes within unchanged toxic systems (Collier, 2025).
Worldviews Legitimising Current Approaches
The worldview layer reveals the ideological frameworks that make current systems seem natural and inevitable. Several interconnected paradigms shape legal professional culture:
- Neoliberal Professionalism: This worldview positions lawyers increasingly as individual entrepreneurs responsible for their own success and wellbeing. It emphasises market competition, efficiency, and personal responsibility while minimising collective action or structural change (Collier, 2025).
- The “Ideal Worker” Paradigm: Drawing from Acker’s (1990) analysis, Collier (2025) suggests the worldview assumes professionals should “prioritise work, minimise outside obligations and display loyalty and commitment through long hours”. This paradigm treats work-life integration as individual weakness rather than systemic design flaw.
- Technical Rationality: Legal education and practice prioritise analytical reasoning and emotional detachment. This worldview treats emotional responses as unprofessional, creating what Collier (2025) describes as tension around the “unemotional” legal professional ideal.
- Individualistic Solutions Framework: This paradigm assumes wellbeing problems stem from individual deficits: poor stress management, inadequate resilience, or personal weakness (Collier, 2025).
- Adversarial Jurisprudence: Perhaps largely underexplored in the wellbeing literature is how the legal system’s foundational assumptions may themselves undermine practitioner wellbeing at the deepest level.
As Justice Gordon observed in Love v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3 at [289], the common lawyer negotiates one-way proprietary rights over property in contrast to Australian Indigenous legal frameworks that view “the land and everything that exists on it and in it as organic parts of one indissoluble whole”. Further, Indigenous legal scholars such as Christine Black (2011) view law in terms of “a continuous feeling for the web of interconnected relationships that patterns humans into their environment”.
The reference to Australian Indigenous jurisprudence here illustrates a contrasting worldview and does not presume to speak for all Indigenous legal systems. This philosophical difference manifests practically in how lawyers approach client relationships, professional collaboration, and problem-solving. When the legal system’s foundational architecture assumes disconnection as natural and competition as necessary, attempts to build wellbeing through connection and collaboration work against the profession’s underlying logic.
Myths and Metaphors Shaping Professional Identity
The deepest CLA layer reveals unconscious images and stories that give meaning to professional life. Several powerful myths underpin lawyer identity:
- The Warrior-Advocate Myth: This narrative positions lawyers as heroic fighters battling for justice. While inspiring, it promotes adversarial thinking, emotional armour, and the glorification of professional sacrifice.
- The Professional Martyrdom Myth: This story suggests that meaningful legal work requires personal sacrifice where dedication means accepting unsustainable conditions as necessary for serving clients or justice.
- The Scarcity Myth: This underlying narrative assumes that success, recognition, and meaningful work are inherently limited resources requiring zero-sum competition.
- The Invulnerability Myth: Legal culture often treats emotional needs or mental health concerns as signs of weakness, promoting a myth of professional invulnerability that isolates struggling practitioners.
These myths collectively contribute to what I term the metaphor of a “wellbeing mirage”. Labouring under identity myths, wellness initiatives often function as “tick-box” compliance measures that are, at best, superficial, while the fundamental conditions creating distress remain unchanged. The real illusion remains that relief and satisfaction lie just beyond the next promotion, the next successful case, or the next externally validated achievement.
While the system has acknowledged a wellbeing deficit, its responses remain largely superficial. The CLA reveals deeper systemic causes of fragmentation, which have, in turn, further fragmented the legal practitioner. A fragmented system cannot offer a source of wellbeing so it will likely remain illusory.
CLA’s power lies not just in revealing and understanding deeper dimensions of a question but in opening space for transformative futures (Milojević & Inayatullah, 2015). The wellspring metaphor, something that flows forth naturally and abundantly from a deep source of nourishment, offers a compelling alternative to the mirage. Unlike mirages, which disappear upon approach, wellsprings provide genuine sustenance and renewal. True satisfaction requires turning inward to reclaim a sense of wholeness. (Krieger & Sheldon, 2015).
Visioning and Backcasting
Pillar 6: The Preferred Future – The Professional Wellspring by 2050
What if a new governance model emerged – a platform which operates on the premise that we are part of one organic indissoluble whole in a non-hierarchical space, or as “free agents within complex systems” (Yunkaporta, 2019)? This would align with the recommendations of Krieger and Sheldon (2015) that a wellspring of lawyer happiness and life satisfaction arise from autonomy, authenticity, and relatedness needs. Systemic shifts would begin with law schools embedding emotional intelligence as a core skill which is reinforced in mandatory ongoing professional training modules. This approach is bolstered by governmental support for the evolution of regulatory frameworks to legitimise and incentivise alternative practice models. Table 1 summarises the CLA of the profession’s state of being currently, and the preferred vision for 2050.
Table 1: CLA – Transformation of Lawyer Wellbeing
| Layer | 2025: Wellbeing Mirage | 2050: Transformed Wellspring |
|---|---|---|
| Litany | Burnout, substance abuse, dissatisfaction, and suicidal ideation persist despite wellbeing initiatives (Bloomberg Law, 2024). | Relational wellbeing emerges organically; wellness is not a programme but a condition of practice. Stories of thriving lawyers replace cautionary statistics. |
| Systemic Causes | Law school erodes relatedness (Krieger & Sheldon, 2015). Corporate-centric wellbeing models fail to address structural diversity (Collier, 2025). Superficial initiatives like “wellness weeks” offer cosmetic relief. System prioritises billables, perfectionism, emotional suppression. | Workloads, governance, and education structures reform. Inner work becomes the core of continuing education schemes. Firms restructure around heterarchical, emotionally intelligent, sustainable models. Relational lawyering gains institutional legitimacy. |
| Worldview | Neoliberal professionalism promotes individualism. Technical rationality privileges intellect over emotion. “Ideal worker” norm assumes long hours, minimal outside life. Wellbeing framed as individual weakness. | Worldview of interconnectedness. Lawyers as part of an indissoluble whole (Love v Commonwealth, 2020). Success redefined through personal and professional coherence, reflection, and sustainable contribution. Emotional intelligence is professional strength. |
| Myth/Metaphor | Warrior-advocate myth. Professional martyrdom. Scarcity and invulnerability myths. Wellbeing as distant mirage, always just out of reach. | Wellspring metaphor. Lawyers draw from inner and collective sources of nourishment. Legal practice becomes presently life-affirming, interconnected, and renewing. |
Backcasting from 2050: The Legal Wellspring Timeline
Backcasting is a powerful futures methodology. It involves envisioning a desired future and then reverse-engineering the steps to achieve it. This process, by prompting us to imagine the preferred future as already realised, can significantly reduce resistance to its creation (Inayatullah, 2008), making it particularly valuable in navigating the legal system’s entrenched nature.
2050 – The wellspring flows as a river: Relational, reflective lawyering becomes a visible norm. Wellbeing is the natural current of the profession, nourishing the system.
2045 – The oases converge: Grassroots networks, innovative firms, and progressive educators align. The adversarial paradigm is reimagined as a relationally generative model.
2040 – Paradise found: Practices grounded in reflection, embodiment, and natural systems thinking are legitimised, attracting a new generation into human-centric legal communities.
2035 – The oases appear: Individual inner shifts influence systemic change (Bohm, 1980). As individuals embody emotionally intelligent relational practices, firms are formed that reform workloads and adopt relational, heterarchical models, gaining stakeholder trust and beginning to influence broader professional norms.
2030 – A personal oasis found: Mandatory inner work begins. Self-knowledge becomes a core professional requirement, reclaiming what was once eroded in law school. Compulsory professional development programmes support holistic, emotionally intelligent practice.
2025 – Oasis on the horizon as AI integrates: AI becomes increasingly embraced as a supportive tool, easing workloads and creating space to rediscover purpose, autonomy, and connection. Pilot programmes for emotional intelligence training are introduced, prompting corresponding regulatory reform.
Implications and Recommendations
For Legal Educators: Integrate self-reflection, emotional and relational intelligence as core competencies within curricula. Model sustainable legal identity redefining the meaning of personal strength as an inner, balanced quality.
For Professional Bodies: Reform regulatory structures to support diverse legal models. Incentivise sustainable satisfaction metrics beyond productivity. Integrate self-reflection within compulsory ongoing professional education schemes.
For Practitioners: Know yourself and your preferred futures. Join communities focused on structural transformation.
For Researchers: Study and amplify successful relational legal models. Explore ontological design and systemic feedback loops.
Conclusion
The legal profession’s approach to wellbeing in the Western common law jurisdictions considered in this paper has, to date, demonstrably failed to deliver substantive change. As Krieger and Sheldon (2015) revealed, this erosion of wellbeing begins in law school, where inner coherence gives way to external performance metrics. A decade later, Collier (2025) finds the profession’s “wellness turn” largely ineffective, constrained by deep structural and cultural fragmentation.
Through Causal Layered Analysis, we see that surface-level initiatives like wellness programmes or resilience training often reinforce the very assumptions that perpetuate the problem. The foundational myths of invulnerability, scarcity, and heroism of adversarial practice continue to shape lawyer identity in ways that inhibit collective flourishing.
To move beyond the mirage, the profession must question its core assumptions about what it means to be a lawyer. Baron (2015) observes: “Until structural issues within law and legal education … are acknowledged, these issues will continue.” This requires more than policy reform; it demands a shift in consciousness where wellbeing is understood as a naturally emergent property of relational, reflexive, and emotionally intelligent practice.
By embracing this transformative vision, the legal profession can reclaim what was lost in law school, allowing the wellspring of life satisfaction to flow as a grounded and abundant reality, rather than a distant fantasy.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158.
Baron, P. (2015). The elephant in the room: Lawyer wellbeing, legal education and the discipline of law. Legal Education Review, 25(1), 1-21.
Black, C.F. (2011). The Land is the Source of the Law: A Dialogic Encounter with Indigenous Jurisprudence. Routledge.
Bloomberg Law. (2024). 2024 Attorney well-being report: The divide between health & the legal industry. Bloomberg Law. https://aboutblaw.com/bfC3
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.
Collier, R. (2025). Whose “wellbeing” are we talking about? Culture change and the politics of the legal profession’s wellness turn. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2025.2453702
Dal Pont, G. E. (2020). Lawyers’ professional responsibility. (7th ed.). Lawbook Co.
Inayatullah, S. (Ed.). (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology. Tamkang University Press.
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six Pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4–21.
Krieger, L. S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2015). What makes lawyers happy? A data-driven prescription to redefine professional success. George Washington Law Review, 83(2), 554–627.
Krill, P. R., Johnson, R., & Albert, L. (2016). The prevalence of substance use and other mental health concerns among American attorneys. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 10(1), 46-52.
Love v The Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3.
Milojević, I., & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative foresight. Futures, 73, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007
Sheldon, K. M., Williams, G., & Joiner, T. (2003). Self-determination theory in the clinic: Motivating physical and mental health. Yale University Press.
Soon, L., McDowall, A., & Teoh, K. R. H. (2023). Towards a context-specific approach to understanding lawyers’ well-being: a synthesis review and future research agenda. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 31(3), 550–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2206879
Thornton, M. (2016) Work/life or work/work? Corporate legal practice in the twenty-first century, International Journal of the Legal Profession, 23(1), pp. 13–39.
Yunkaporta, T. (2019). Sand Talk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World. Text Publishing.
