One of the easiest commitments to agree to, and hardest for me to keep, Is to do no harm.
Somehow, built into this lawyer-persona, is this drive to be clear and concise, to be right, and to win. Which unfortunately, too often, ends up doing the opposite, or nearly, of not causing harm. It raises the question, for me: can lawyers practice (or live) with a commitment to doing no harm? Would it put our clients in jeopardy? What about our reputations?
Or could it work? And if so, could it - would it - be in service of a different, maybe deeper, kind of justice, and fairness, and love?
One of the easiest commitments to agree to, and hardest for me to keep, Is to do no harm.
Somehow, built into this lawyer-persona, is this drive to be clear and concise, to be right, and to win. Which unfortunately, too often, ends up doing the opposite, or nearly, of not causing harm. It raises the question, for me: can lawyers practice (or live) with a commitment to doing no harm? Would it put our clients in jeopardy? What about our reputations?
Or could it work? And if so, could it - would it - be in service of a different, maybe deeper, kind of justice, and fairness, and love?
Wake Up Call #379: Wisdom Inquiries: Can Lawyers Every Really “Do No Harm”?
Hi everyone, it’s Judi Cohen and this is Wake Up Call 379. It’s been a snowy time, up here at Lake Tahoe, but today it was clear at dawn and the sun coming up over the lake was throwing the whole basin into cool shades of orange and deep dark blue. It was amazing.
Last week I talked about the sixth Zen paramita, prajnaparamita, the perfection of wisdom, and how understanding the Three Characteristics - dukkha, anicca, and anatta, in Pali, or in English, suffering (or stress), impermanence, and not-self (or emptiness) - is one big element of wisdom. But I didn’t emphasize the good news about them, so here’s that, and then I want to talk about non-harming as another element of wisdom.
With dukkha, we’re practicing to get it, on a cellular level, that suffering is a thing – that we encounter stress every day, throughout our lives. BUT, that even though stress and suffering are right here, inside the fabric – the secret lining - of our lives, we can relax about them. Truly relax. And once we realize we can do that, we can relate to them with ease. Which changes our lives for the better, or changed mine anyway: for the more possible, the more relaxed, the easier. It’s what enables me to take a breath, even in the most difficult, painful, moments. So that’s some of the good news about dukkha.
With anicca, we’re practicing get it on a cellular level that everything is impermanent. That my beautiful bowl was always destined to be broken; that the things (and people) we treasure and the ones that drive us crazy, will end; that a lifetime – our lifetime - is finite. There will come a day when I won’t be here to see the sun rise over Lake Tahoe, and eventually, when the sunrise won’t happen at all. So what’s the good news? Well, when I keep impermanence in mind, it’s like medicine: it helps me to treasure the moment. Even the difficult ones. Because one day, they’ll be gone, for me anyway.
And with annata, we’re practicing to get it on a cellular level that all this “content” that we take so seriously, or that I do: the content of who I am, the content of the arguments I make, the contents of my life, is really just moving pieces, not fixed but in motion, in flow. Which is a relief because then I know I can cultivate a more open and loving heart: I’m not stuck with this moment’s version of myself, and neither are any of us. As Suzuki Roshi once said, we’re all perfect the way we are, and we could all use a little improvement.
So that’s the good news about the Three Characteristics, and now I want to talk about another element of wisdom: non-harming.
From a mindfulness perspective, and also from a yogic perspective, and really from all perspectives, non-harming is a key element of wisdom. Don’t harm, don’t kill, don’t interfere with others’ relationships, don’t speak harshly – there’s the one big injunction, and then there are many perspectives.
And, we’re lawyers. So how do we practice non-harming? And can we practice non-harming?
I think about that article by the ex of the Wilson Sonsini partner who overdosed on prescription meds he was taking to dull the pain of the intensity of his work. And how he’d reported that for him, being a lawyer was like being a surgeon except there were always two surgeons in the operating room, one trying to save the patient and the other trying to kill them.
Yet we believe in this adversary system. My friends who do full-on social justice work – many of them believe in it as mightily as the ones who do corporate work. It’s our working theory: that in an adversary system, the truth will out.
OK. But do we have to go after one another to make that happen? Or maybe not “go after one another” but, have such an edge? Be adversarial ourselves? Be contentious with one another? Be so intense?
One of my friends is a very tough litigator and we were talking about a legal issue and for a moment they transformed before my very eyes into that tough litigator - confrontational, intense, scary! We had a good laugh, but the moment, like many I’ve lived myself, leaves me with the question: is there another way to do this?
Because I’m familiar with it, too. When I’m pressing a point I can feel that energy of wanting to be right, needing to be right, having been trained to be right – and how intense I can get. So what about that element of harm? Because the intensity alone does cause harm. Maybe not every time, but there’s a harming energy in it. It’s so different, for me anyway, from approaching a moment, or a person, with curiosity. With “don’t know” mind. With letting go of thinking I know anything, let alone everything. With letting go of wanting, or needing, to be right. With turning towards the thing, or the person, with lovingkindness.
But can we do that, at work? Can we be passionate advocates and still tune in in a loving way? Or an open-hearted way? I don’t know. Would we miss something? Would we miss a chance to make our point, to represent our client as fully as if we were driving our point home? I used to think the best we could do was commit to causing no unnecessary harm, but what is that? And wouldn’t it fly directly in the face of the mindfulness teachings, and all of the teachings, from all streams?
Maybe as a starting point it’s about developing more awareness of those moments when we’re driving our point, needing to be right, thrusting onward and not noticing what’s happening around us. Maybe as a starting point it’s about a kind of unflinching attention to our words, our actions, and the damage – the harm – we’re leaving in our wake. Maybe if you pay that kind of attention you’ll be delighted to see it’s not happening, in your case. I’m guess I’m pretty sure it’s happening in mine, though. So I’m going to be taking a look. I mean, it’s 2023, so why not go for it?
Let’s sit.
One of the easiest commitments to agree to,
and hardest for me to keep,
Is to do no harm.
Somehow, built into this lawyer-persona,
is this drive to be clear and concise,
to be right, and to win.
Which unfortunately, too often,
ends up doing the opposite, or nearly, of not causing harm.
It raises the question, for me:
can lawyers practice (or live)
with a commitment to doing no harm?
Would it put our clients in jeopardy?
What about our reputations?
Or could it work?
And if so, could it - would it -
be in service of a different, maybe deeper,
kind of justice, and fairness, and love?
[Play the John Lennon Imagine video at the end of the Paramitas – whenever that is! (It’s bookmarked under Music.)]