Dear Advy,
I'm attempting to refocus my practice area and have been encountering a lot of resistance. The area I'm refocusing on is something I've done before but had to step back from for a couple years while adjusting to being a new parent, and my workplace knows this and was supportive at the time. I've been told there are concerns that I'm behind on the learning curve and won't meet the "standard of excellence," but my performance has been stellar in my current role, I consistently received excellent feedback in that area before having my child, and I have had brought a lot of clients in throughout. I've stated I want to do everything I can to demonstrate I'm up to the task and have asked for feedback repeatedly, but no one will explain what that term means so I can point to relevant transferable skills and ask for guidance on how to expand on them or seek out opportunities to fill any gaps in my practice. I'm not asking for any hand holding -- I just want to go back to doing what I love, and I'm scared the only way I'll be able to do that is to leave everything I've built here. Any advice?
Sincerely,
Refocusing My Practice
Dear RMP,
I have advice for you on two fronts. You are experiencing fear and distress about the things which seem to be preventing you from doing the kind of work that you love doing and those feelings need to be manageable for you. You are also negotiating a change in behaviour with the people you work with, in that you want them to let you continue working in your current firm but go back to this practice area you used to engage in. Obviously, there is considerable overlap between those two things. When you experience resistance in discussing this change with your firm, you are having those feelings of fear and distress. However, it is best to tackle those two related issues as separate problems.
First, before we get to those two parts of the main course of this month’s column, we need to have as an appetizer a plate of that word-salad “Standard of Excellence”. I’m sorry to burst your firm’s bubble, but there’s no such thing as a static “standard of excellence”. What qualified as excellent legal work 100, 50, or 20 years ago is not the same as what qualifies for that standard now. The law changes, client needs change, and what is expected most from an “excellent” lawyer is the ability to learn and grow with that change. I suspect that whoever is telling you that going back to this practice area challenges a firm “standard of excellence” doesn’t really know what that term means either. If that person knew, then it would be simple to explain it to you. You are willing to bring yourself back up to speed in the practice area and your clients in the past seemed to believe you could do it well. If you are getting no explanation, consider the possibility that this impressive-sounding standard you are supposedly not meeting or that the firm fears you would not meet, may be a way of avoiding telling you what their real objection may be. That means having an awkward but necessary conversation about what their objection to your returning to this practice area really is, is also on the menu. We’ll talk about that more over dessert.
You say that you are scared the only way you will be able to go back to doing what you love is to leave everything you have built at your firm. Let’s do a thought experiment. We are going to visit two different versions of you, five years into the future.
- You #1 left your firm and went out on your own. You #1 had some re-building to do when leaving. Was that re-building impossible or was it something You were capable of doing? Did You bring any of what You had built at your old firm along with You? Were all the relationships You had developed at your old firm severed when You left? Were any of them severed?
- You #2 stayed at your firm. You #2 accepted the premise that you would never be able to meet the firm’s standard of excellence if you switched back to your old practice area and You stuck with what you are doing right now. Is You#2 reasonably happy with her job – not overjoyed, or loving it, but a fairly normal level of job satisfaction? What is the state of the relationships You#2 has with people at the firm? How valuable and satisfying are those relationships with firm members?
Write down your answers when doing your comparative biographies of You#1 and You#2. You may have your own questions to ask of each You that I have not thought of, so ask those and write down those answers too. I’ve deliberately framed the two scenarios in the most neutral way I can because I don’t know how severe the pressures and stresses these two versions of You may be going through. Only you can gauge that. Once you have written down the answers for these two different scenarios, compare them. On balance, how happy and successful are your two future selves? You could do the same exercise with versions of You one year, ten years or any other number of years into the future but let’s stick with just five years for our purposes here.
This exercise will be a lot easier for you to do if you do it with the help of a trained therapist or coach. Contact your local lawyer assistance program to get that help. Remember, you don’t have to be in a crisis to talk to a therapist or coach. You have a difficult choice to make right now, and it is stressful. That’s enough of a reason to get someone in your corner who can help you work through it. Many lawyer assistance programs also have peer support programs, and a peer supporter is someone else who can help you work through these choices. Many law societies and CBA branches have mentorship programs which you may also be eligible for. These are free resources that would help you right now, so why not use them?
However you do it, find a way to go through this exercise with someone supportive. Another suggestion: Do your thinking about these two scenarios while going for a walk; if possible, outside. You are much more likely to assess these two possible versions of your life without slipping into anxiety if your body is moving and even more so if you are outdoors. If your therapist/peer/mentor is willing to go on that walk with you, so much the better! Having a conversation with someone where you’re walking side by side and not tensely staring across a table at one another is usually going to be calmer and more creative. If you don’t have the opportunity for a walking meeting, try having a cup of tea or something similar that has a distinctive scent. Even smelling something new can help reset your mood when you’re getting anxious.
If the outcome is that You#2 was better off than You#1 then your decision is pretty straightforward, i.e., to stay where you are. If you choose that route after going through this thought experiment, at least you will be more certain that you are making the better choice.
Let’s assume for the moment that you conclude that You#1 edged out You#2 in terms of happiness and success.
No, I’m not suggesting you should march into the boss’s office and deliver an ultimatum. However, I am suggesting that if you believe you are better off leaving the firm to pursue what you love doing than staying and foregoing the kind of work you want to do, then you can approach your firm with a very different mindset than you would if staying at the firm no matter what the cost were to be your best option. You would be aiming for a third version of You when you talk to the firm management about your future. This You#3 is one where you stay at the firm and you develop your preferred area of practice.
You may object that You#3 is what you have been asking for all along. Of course, yes, it is. However, having gone through that thought experiment assessing the two scenarios you could live in if the firm continues to say no to you, you are much better prepared to negotiate with the firm to achieve the best outcome you have been seeking – You#3. If your considered prediction is that You#1 is better off than You#2, then you have less to lose if the firm continues to deny you what you want. You can leave. You are not only better prepared for that negotiation, but you are also likely to be less scared than you have been. To quote that wise philosopher Kenny Rogers:
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
If you’ve considered the two scenarios thoroughly and weighed their positive and negative aspects, you know exactly when to stay in the poker game….er, negotiation with your boss and when to fold and walk away. If staying in the negotiation seems to be getting you closer to the life of You#3, stay in. If it’s not, then walk away and live with your choice of You#1 or You#2.
One other thing to remember: Your firm should be considering its own future versions of itself – one with you and one without you. Is it better off with a You#1 who left and took those skills and contacts with her? Is it better off with a You#3 who might not meet the firm’s “standard of excellence” – whatever that means? In just about every negotiation with your firm, you have far more leverage than you think you do. Is your firm actually thinking this way? It’s impossible to know. People fail to do what they should do all the time – which is kind of the reason lawyers exist in the first place, right?
The bottom line is that your future happiness is worth having this conversation with your firm. Regardless of the outcome, you will feel much better and less scared if you try.
Now excuse me while I go consider the philosophical implications of Dolly Parton’s thirteenth solo album….
Be well,
Advy