41% of lawyers say that the profession is detrimental to their mental health. The other 59% are soulless Patrick Bateman, Esq. sociopaths. I mean, think about it. Isn’t it a little odd how many lawyers absolutely love Huey Lewis & the News?
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in ’83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He’s been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
I firmly believe nearly every job is bad for for the worker’s mental health. Many attorneys, at least, are fairly compensated. It isn’t about the job, it’s about engaging in late stage capitalism.
Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
Guest
Anonymous
September 15, 2026 9:16 am
With the Supreme Court’s last update to their published and non published orders pages, it has became harder to see attorney discipline actions. They used to be listed on the page without having to search for them, just like any other orders that came out that day. Must be a bug.
Guest
Anonymous
September 15, 2026 9:18 am
I honestly really enjoy my job, and the practice of law generally.
More than most people I talk to about their jobs, I am actually glad that so much of my energy and time is going into something I am proud of and motivated by.
There are always a few fellow practitioners that make the job harder, and sometimes unpleasant. I just assume those people are among the 41% experiencing detriments to their mental health, grant them some grace, and try to avoid them.
I practice civil lit. I’ve done both defense and plaintiff work. There are benefits to both, and I have a personality that fits either (or elements of either fit elements of my personality, and have especially at different stages of experience).
I see all the things that people identify as a negative as an opportunity, part of what I can bring to the profession (or at least my own work) that another person in my seat might not be able to handle as well–
Clients: sure, many are uninformed and stressed and impolite. Those people need confident but patient counsel. Many others are incredibly grateful. I would not love this job if it was not in service of others.
Judges: the law is fluid. It’s imprecise. It’s misapplied. It surprises us. This is why we are of value. I can take a loss. I can understand that my wins are not best characterized as proof of my value. Just do you best, be prepared for the worst outcome.
Opposing counsel: most people who act terribly are reflecting what they’ve experienced or projecting their own stresses. You can disarm a lot of that by being a reasonable person. Some people, in some moments, will just be awful. They get as little bandwith as possible.
Best advice I can give to anyone is don’t let financial pressures dictate your work any more than you have to.
I hope you continue to have this positive outlook….I had your same zeal for probably 10 years. However, once opposing counsel goes after you personally, cries ethical violations and ask for sanctions that will get you fired and referred to the bar (with no substance whatsoever to the allegations), your outlook will probably change. It is not the day to day grind of the practice of law that makes us miserable, stressed out, drink/smoke too much, it’s the asshole on the other side of the isle.
I know that “isle” was a typo but I instantly imagined a situation where there’s a small island with two attorneys on it, and that a-hole on the other side is making your life hell.
I’m not saying I won’t have the misfortune of being on the receiving end of someone’s vindictive actions. I suppose it could happen to anyone. I’ve also seen similar dynamics in my wife’s profession and those of friends. We may be in a particularly adversarial profession, but pettiness is universal.
If there is no substance to the allegations I think I can handle it without becoming miserable, stressed out, or dependent on drugs and alcohol for relief.
I love my family and my life outside of work (including moderate alcohol) too much to be miserable.
I like parts of my job, litigation and motion practice in particular. Digging into a new area of law and writing novel arguments makes me feel engaged intellectually and creatively. But the unnecessary personal attacks from counsel, the judges that struggle with legal reasoning, the feeling that my work doesn’t really make a difference in the grand scheme of things, it runs me down. Not sure how people make this a 30+ year career in all honesty.
Last edited 20 days ago by
Guest
Anonymous
September 15, 2026 11:40 am
On the Les Stovall case, Judge Jennifer Dorsey’s ruling ended up snagging Jim Pengilly and now snagged Les Stovall. Word the the wise that her ruling seem to keep ending up at the State Bar.
What exactly did Dorsey do other than refer egregious misconduct to the Bar? Better words to the wise: (1) don’t make threatening statements to opposing counsel or flash your piece during a deposition [Pengilly], and (2) don’t use stolen documents with privileged comms in litigation [Stovall].
Dorsey didn’t refer Stovall to the bar. The NV Supreme Court appears to have said that Stovall was estopped from arguing against the referenced misconduct in the bar proceeding though. That’s interesting to me. 11:40’s point could really be applied to any judge’s sanction order.
The Pengilly referral from Judge Dorsey had nothing to do flashing a piece. I think the point the OP was making is that SBN is going to treat court sanctions as preclusive of any arguments against bar discipline.
Guest
Anonymous
September 15, 2026 11:44 am
Post from yesterday: The switch from Silver Flume to Orion at the Nevada Secretary of State’s office has made corporate search almost impossible to use. Another effort at taking a step forward only to take five steps backwards.
Silver flume that Ross Miller setup was by far better.
Guest
Anonymous
September 15, 2026 12:44 pm
New Green Card Restrictions
If I were to immigrate to any country that I can think of, my immigration status would turn on whether or not I would be self-supporting.
The idea that we should provide welfare to new immigrants who do not have a means of self-support is repugnant, mis-directed sympathy.
If you feel differently, i understand. But if you really feel differently, tell me that you are letting a destitute immigrant use your spare bedroom. Action speaks louder than words.
3:21: I don’t know, this seems exactly like what the change would effect. Sponsor families being scrutinized for accepting the same benefits that anyone else has a right to.
Yeah, and that stupid WWJD nonsense. The religious right is RIGHT. Quit taking our money and take our thoughts and prayers instead, scumbag immigrants. Whatever circumstances that you were born into must be what you deserve. Is this pretty cross around my neck sparkly enough to show how much I love God?
Guest
Anonymous
September 15, 2026 1:36 pm
Just had to fire a client for use of Grok (theirs not ours). They insisted that they be allowed to run our draft pleadings through Grok to make changes. We let it go once without comment. Second and third time we responded to their “Grok memo” with point by point refutation of why Grok was wrong. Fourth time that they insisted that the pleading with Grok’s changes is what they wanted and required be filed that we had to tell them this morning that we are not the firm for them.
Client’s should be actively warned against the use of AI models to investigate or frame their case. Sure, it’s annoying for us. But discovery of the usage could make or break a case. It could make or break an entire business or someone’s entire livelihood.
Everyone should be putting this in their retainer.
U.S. v. Heppner, 2026 WL 436479 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026)
This reminds me of a very funny moment in law school. It was criminal procedure and we were covering consent. The professor was working through different variations of hypotheticals and eventually arrived on a horse. “Can a horse give consent?” he queried the class. Eventually he found his socratic target. “Mr. Jones, can a horse give consent?” “No, professor.” “Why not?” “Well, because a horse can only say, ‘neigh'”.
Comedy gold.
Only surpassed by today’s bestiality testimony from Kash Patel.
41% of lawyers say that the profession is detrimental to their mental health. The other 59% are soulless Patrick Bateman, Esq. sociopaths. I mean, think about it. Isn’t it a little odd how many lawyers absolutely love Huey Lewis & the News?
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in ’83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He’s been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
I firmly believe nearly every job is bad for for the worker’s mental health. Many attorneys, at least, are fairly compensated. It isn’t about the job, it’s about engaging in late stage capitalism.
“late stage capitalism.” This is my favorite psuedo-academic phrase to roll my eyes to.
yes everything wrong in these commies lives gets blamed on “late stage capitalism”
did the commies also steal your ability to use punctuation?
yes, isnt that their whole thing “seize the means of punctuation” or so they say
Yep just ask Intel!
Existence is pain, pinko. It’s about finding what pain you can bear.
Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
With the Supreme Court’s last update to their published and non published orders pages, it has became harder to see attorney discipline actions. They used to be listed on the page without having to search for them, just like any other orders that came out that day. Must be a bug.
I honestly really enjoy my job, and the practice of law generally.
More than most people I talk to about their jobs, I am actually glad that so much of my energy and time is going into something I am proud of and motivated by.
There are always a few fellow practitioners that make the job harder, and sometimes unpleasant. I just assume those people are among the 41% experiencing detriments to their mental health, grant them some grace, and try to avoid them.
What type of law do you practice? I’m looking to hate my job less.
I practice civil lit. I’ve done both defense and plaintiff work. There are benefits to both, and I have a personality that fits either (or elements of either fit elements of my personality, and have especially at different stages of experience).
I see all the things that people identify as a negative as an opportunity, part of what I can bring to the profession (or at least my own work) that another person in my seat might not be able to handle as well–
Clients: sure, many are uninformed and stressed and impolite. Those people need confident but patient counsel. Many others are incredibly grateful. I would not love this job if it was not in service of others.
Judges: the law is fluid. It’s imprecise. It’s misapplied. It surprises us. This is why we are of value. I can take a loss. I can understand that my wins are not best characterized as proof of my value. Just do you best, be prepared for the worst outcome.
Opposing counsel: most people who act terribly are reflecting what they’ve experienced or projecting their own stresses. You can disarm a lot of that by being a reasonable person. Some people, in some moments, will just be awful. They get as little bandwith as possible.
Best advice I can give to anyone is don’t let financial pressures dictate your work any more than you have to.
I hope you continue to have this positive outlook….I had your same zeal for probably 10 years. However, once opposing counsel goes after you personally, cries ethical violations and ask for sanctions that will get you fired and referred to the bar (with no substance whatsoever to the allegations), your outlook will probably change. It is not the day to day grind of the practice of law that makes us miserable, stressed out, drink/smoke too much, it’s the asshole on the other side of the isle.
I know that “isle” was a typo but I instantly imagined a situation where there’s a small island with two attorneys on it, and that a-hole on the other side is making your life hell.
I’m sorry that happened to you, if it did.
I’m not saying I won’t have the misfortune of being on the receiving end of someone’s vindictive actions. I suppose it could happen to anyone. I’ve also seen similar dynamics in my wife’s profession and those of friends. We may be in a particularly adversarial profession, but pettiness is universal.
If there is no substance to the allegations I think I can handle it without becoming miserable, stressed out, or dependent on drugs and alcohol for relief.
I love my family and my life outside of work (including moderate alcohol) too much to be miserable.
I like parts of my job, litigation and motion practice in particular. Digging into a new area of law and writing novel arguments makes me feel engaged intellectually and creatively. But the unnecessary personal attacks from counsel, the judges that struggle with legal reasoning, the feeling that my work doesn’t really make a difference in the grand scheme of things, it runs me down. Not sure how people make this a 30+ year career in all honesty.
On the Les Stovall case, Judge Jennifer Dorsey’s ruling ended up snagging Jim Pengilly and now snagged Les Stovall. Word the the wise that her ruling seem to keep ending up at the State Bar.
What exactly did Dorsey do other than refer egregious misconduct to the Bar? Better words to the wise: (1) don’t make threatening statements to opposing counsel or flash your piece during a deposition [Pengilly], and (2) don’t use stolen documents with privileged comms in litigation [Stovall].
Dorsey didn’t refer Stovall to the bar. The NV Supreme Court appears to have said that Stovall was estopped from arguing against the referenced misconduct in the bar proceeding though. That’s interesting to me. 11:40’s point could really be applied to any judge’s sanction order.
The Pengilly referral from Judge Dorsey had nothing to do flashing a piece. I think the point the OP was making is that SBN is going to treat court sanctions as preclusive of any arguments against bar discipline.
Post from yesterday: The switch from Silver Flume to Orion at the Nevada Secretary of State’s office has made corporate search almost impossible to use. Another effort at taking a step forward only to take five steps backwards.
user error – i figured it out in about 1 second. It is annoying that I need to log in now though.
Not the person you replied to but you cant just blame user error. The new system is objectively more difficult to navigate.
user error
skill issue
Silver flume that Ross Miller setup was by far better.
New Green Card Restrictions
If I were to immigrate to any country that I can think of, my immigration status would turn on whether or not I would be self-supporting.
The idea that we should provide welfare to new immigrants who do not have a means of self-support is repugnant, mis-directed sympathy.
If you feel differently, i understand. But if you really feel differently, tell me that you are letting a destitute immigrant use your spare bedroom. Action speaks louder than words.
Do you consider a US Citizen family member who receives SSD to be welfare? Like, for example, a family with a child born with cerebral palsy.
@ 3:21, Your comment/question is a classic example of deflection. Unrelated to the subject of the OP.
3:21: I don’t know, this seems exactly like what the change would effect. Sponsor families being scrutinized for accepting the same benefits that anyone else has a right to.
Yeah, and that stupid WWJD nonsense. The religious right is RIGHT. Quit taking our money and take our thoughts and prayers instead, scumbag immigrants. Whatever circumstances that you were born into must be what you deserve. Is this pretty cross around my neck sparkly enough to show how much I love God?
Just had to fire a client for use of Grok (theirs not ours). They insisted that they be allowed to run our draft pleadings through Grok to make changes. We let it go once without comment. Second and third time we responded to their “Grok memo” with point by point refutation of why Grok was wrong. Fourth time that they insisted that the pleading with Grok’s changes is what they wanted and required be filed that we had to tell them this morning that we are not the firm for them.
Why Grok of all things? Did they need the pleadings to be a little less critical of fascism?
Client’s should be actively warned against the use of AI models to investigate or frame their case. Sure, it’s annoying for us. But discovery of the usage could make or break a case. It could make or break an entire business or someone’s entire livelihood.
Everyone should be putting this in their retainer.
U.S. v. Heppner, 2026 WL 436479 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026)
Good catch. Thank you for sharing.
client’s chatgpt walls of text is such an easy way to rack up billable hours.
I feel like Kash Patels testimony before Congress really screwed the pooch today.
This reminds me of a very funny moment in law school. It was criminal procedure and we were covering consent. The professor was working through different variations of hypotheticals and eventually arrived on a horse. “Can a horse give consent?” he queried the class. Eventually he found his socratic target. “Mr. Jones, can a horse give consent?” “No, professor.” “Why not?” “Well, because a horse can only say, ‘neigh'”.
Comedy gold.
Only surpassed by today’s bestiality testimony from Kash Patel.
My “I don’t molest dogs” T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.
I needed this thank you
Maybe he thinks bestiality is when you hook up at the Poodle Room.