Anne Lamott says, "My mind is like a bad neighborhood - I try not to go there alone." I sometimes feel that way about the law.
There's almost nothing about practicing law that I can recall, that's about creating good neighborhoods or safe neighborhoods, or safety in general.
What if that changed? Could mindfulness support the creation of an adversary system, or could it work within the current system, in a way that allowed everyone to feel safe?
It's at least worth exploring.
Anne Lamott says, "My mind is like a bad neighborhood - I try not to go there alone." I sometimes feel that way about the law.
There's almost nothing about practicing law that I can recall, that's about creating good neighborhoods or safe neighborhoods, or safety in general.
What if that changed? Could mindfulness support the creation of an adversary system, or could it work within the current system, in a way that allowed everyone to feel safe?
It's at least worth exploring.
Hi everyone, it’s Judi Cohen and this is Wake Up Call #323 on October 28th.
Last week I was trying to work through whether, in a nutshell, Chapter 8 of the Dhammapada is offering us the invitation to choose to be less concerned with our own aspirations, and more affirming, appreciative, and honoring of others. I like the framing for the humility it brings, and for the possibility it offers of transforming our relationships. What is mindfulness practice, on a personal, interpersonal, and systemic level, if not the letting go of self-concern, and learning to focus on seeing the good in, and helping, others, and the world?
Of course this is not necessarily what the law is known for, at least in its more traditional venues. There, the law is known for its right/wrong, win/lose framework, and we’re pretty much taught (unless those of us teaching, dismantle this view in our classrooms, and it’s not so easy to do that solo, and our institutions don’t necessarily support this work) – so we’re pretty much taught, that it’s not really just win or lose, it’s win or not get the job. Win or not make partner. Win or not be thought well of. Win or not think well of ourselves.
When I was a very young lawyer, the senior partner taught me a trick. Make sure the deponent, or my opponent, was facing the window, facing the view, which was gorgeous and would distract them. Make sure I was facing the wall or the closed door, with nothing to distract me. More or less, seating to win.
I also learned how to control a conversation with rhetorical devises like adding unnecessary words onto the end of my sentence…so that no one else could ever start speaking…because there was never really an end to my sentences…and … you know the drill. So, speaking to win. Do you know what I’m talking about?
And we all learned how to write a winning motion, make a winning argument, if we’re teaching, take command of a classroom. Dominating to win.
Today – in less than an hour – is the opening of the 2021 Law & Social Change Jam. The Jam will be full of lawyers, and my role as one of seven co-facilitators, is to do just the opposite of seating, speaking, and dominating to win. It’s to help co-create a container, along with our 20 participants, that’s sturdy and loving and safe.
I was talking about that with Jeff Carolin, one of my co-facilitators and a powerful criminal defense attorney in Toronto. Jeff is just a little more than half my age, but so wise, so connected, and so joyful. As we talked, I was thinking how different “sturdy, loving, and safe” is from everyday law. And wondering how to create sturdy, loving, safe, containers in which to advocate, inside our current adversary system, if that’s possible. I know this is being done in certain venue already, like in restorative justice venues – in fact, one being created and run at the San Francisco DA’s office by another Jam co-facilitator and a graduate of our 2016 Mindfulness in Law Teacher Training, Demarris Evans. And if it’s being done in certain venue, like RJ, what elements we would need to bring sturdy, loving, and safe spaces into all venues in the law? And specifically, what elements of mindfulness?
I think the first element has to be what Roshi Joan Halifax calls down-regulation: or calming the nervous system. We are so up-regulated in the law! As Spirit Rock and Zen meditation teacher Pamela Weiss says, you have to calm down before you can wake up.
In my experience, down-regulation or calming down requires two things: practice and vigilance.
The practice is present moment attention, with the breath or sound as an object, with courage and grace when difficult things arise, staying with them and not wishing things were different. Down-regulation not only happens in this practice, but also becomes more accessible in everyday life. For example Jeff Carolin says that although he can’t meditate for an hour each morning – with two little girls, a beloved partner, and a full docket, that would be a huge challenge - throughout the day he is finding moment of down-regulation: remembering to feel his body, feel his feet on the floor, breathe, check inside. And he’s vigilant about that remembering.
With just that, I think it’s possible to change our habits of up-regulation – of essentially being on high-alert all the time – without losing any of our professional edge. And when we do that, I think we make things feel a little bit safer for others: less frantic, warmer, less judgmental. And then we can say, “sit here with me. I can listen, I can hear.” And then maybe a person who accepts that invitation, colleague or client, or even opposing counsel, can relax. And maybe we can actually be better at what we do in that environment of safety and love.
The second element might be truth-telling. When we tell ourselves the truth, about how we’re feeling, about the mistakes we’ve made, about how it feels when we hurt someone, about how afraid we are to die, then at least in my experience we are not so afraid. When we tell the truth, others can hear the truth, and together, we can face the truth: the truth that we’re all inextricably connected; that everything and everyone, is impermanent; that unmitigated joy and sorrow are ours to become intimate with. I think this truth, spoken and heard, is another element of safe, loving, space.
I think kindness is another element. Kindness is not the dominant element in the courtroom or conference room yet. But what if we had a metta practice that was alive, that every time we encountered another human (or any being – I mean why not go for it?) we said a tiny bit of metta. May you be well. May you be safe. What a practice, for creating safe, loving, space, and how might that be transformative in the profession?
I would also include curiosity and attunement, which to me are the counterweights to impatience and frustration. When we let go of impatience – just mic-drop it, boom, as if it’s burning our hands – and turn towards the person we’re with and tune in – mindfulness “internally and externally” as the sutta says, meaning, mindful of the other person, tuning in directly and fully, like tuning a radio dial until the sound is clear and crisp – and see who they are and how they are, and then step one step closer, metaphorically (not to violate anyone’s personal space), wondering – wondering and not knowing - hanging on their every word, letting their words rumble around in our hearts: imagine that. Remember how that feels, if you’ve been attended to at that level. Remember how that feels, if you’ve attended to someone like that recently. Sturdy, safe, loving space.
And I guess last but not least for today, and I’m sure your list would include other important qualities and perhaps omit some of mine, and maybe I’ll think about this more and have more, or others, but for me, last but not least, compassion. Remembering the difference between empathy and compassion is that empathy is feeling how the other person is feeling, and compassion is and wanting to help: imagine if the containers we were creating in the law were containers full of care. Containers of concern. Sturdy, safe, and loving. The words for today.
Let’s sit.