WHAT MAKES LAWYERS HAPPY? TRANSCENDING THE ANECDOTES WITH DATA FROM 6200 LAWYERS

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
L. Krieger, Kennon M. Sheldon
{"title":"WHAT MAKES LAWYERS HAPPY? TRANSCENDING THE ANECDOTES WITH DATA FROM 6200 LAWYERS","authors":"L. Krieger, Kennon M. Sheldon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2398989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Attorney well-being and depression are topics of ongoing concern, but there has been no theory-driven empirical research to guide lawyers and law students seeking well-being. The researchers gathered detailed data from several thousand lawyers in four states, to measure a variety of factors considered likely to impact lawyer well-being. These factors included choices and achievements in law school, legal career, and personal life, and psychological needs and motivations established by Self-Determination Theory. Results are standardized and organized into five tiers of well-being factors. They suggest that the priorities and values of law students, lawyers, law schools, and law firms are often misplaced, with apparent negative impacts on lawyer well-being and, by extension, performance, productivity, and professionalism. Factors typically afforded most attention and concern, those relating to prestige and finances (income, law school debt, class rank, law review, and USNWR law school ranking) showed zero to small correlations with lawyer well-being. Conversely, factors typically marginalized in law school and seen in previous research to erode in law students (psychological needs, internal motivation and intrinsic values) were the very strongest predictors of lawyer happiness and satisfaction. Lawyers were grouped by practice type and setting to further test these findings. Despite markedly lower law school grades and current income, public service lawyers had healthier autonomy, purpose, and values and were happier than lawyers in the most prestigious positions (and who had the highest law school grades and incomes). Additional measures raised concerns: subjects did not broadly agree that judge and lawyer behavior is professional, nor that the legal process reaches fair outcomes. Specific explanations and recommendations for lawyers, law teachers, and legal employers are drawn from the data, and the relationships between well-being, productivity, and professionalism are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47068,"journal":{"name":"George Washington Law Review","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/ssrn.2398989","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2398989","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Attorney well-being and depression are topics of ongoing concern, but there has been no theory-driven empirical research to guide lawyers and law students seeking well-being. The researchers gathered detailed data from several thousand lawyers in four states, to measure a variety of factors considered likely to impact lawyer well-being. These factors included choices and achievements in law school, legal career, and personal life, and psychological needs and motivations established by Self-Determination Theory. Results are standardized and organized into five tiers of well-being factors. They suggest that the priorities and values of law students, lawyers, law schools, and law firms are often misplaced, with apparent negative impacts on lawyer well-being and, by extension, performance, productivity, and professionalism. Factors typically afforded most attention and concern, those relating to prestige and finances (income, law school debt, class rank, law review, and USNWR law school ranking) showed zero to small correlations with lawyer well-being. Conversely, factors typically marginalized in law school and seen in previous research to erode in law students (psychological needs, internal motivation and intrinsic values) were the very strongest predictors of lawyer happiness and satisfaction. Lawyers were grouped by practice type and setting to further test these findings. Despite markedly lower law school grades and current income, public service lawyers had healthier autonomy, purpose, and values and were happier than lawyers in the most prestigious positions (and who had the highest law school grades and incomes). Additional measures raised concerns: subjects did not broadly agree that judge and lawyer behavior is professional, nor that the legal process reaches fair outcomes. Specific explanations and recommendations for lawyers, law teachers, and legal employers are drawn from the data, and the relationships between well-being, productivity, and professionalism are discussed.
什么能让律师开心?用来自6200名律师的数据超越了轶事
律师的幸福感和抑郁一直是人们关注的话题,但目前还没有理论驱动的实证研究来指导律师和法学院学生寻求幸福感。研究人员收集了来自四个州的数千名律师的详细数据,以衡量可能影响律师幸福感的各种因素。这些因素包括法学院的选择和成就,法律职业和个人生活,以及自决理论建立的心理需求和动机。结果被标准化并组织成五个层次的幸福因素。他们认为,法律学生、律师、法学院和律师事务所的优先事项和价值观往往是错位的,这对律师的福祉,进而对业绩、生产力和专业精神产生了明显的负面影响。那些与声望和财务相关的因素(收入、法学院债务、班级排名、法律评论和USNWR法学院排名)通常最受关注和关注,与律师幸福感的相关性为零或很小。相反,在法学院通常被边缘化的因素,以及在之前的研究中看到的对法学院学生的侵蚀(心理需求、内在动机和内在价值观)是律师幸福和满意度的最强预测因素。为了进一步验证这些发现,律师们按照执业类型和环境进行了分组。尽管在法学院的成绩和目前的收入明显较低,但公共服务律师拥有更健康的自主性、使命感和价值观,而且比那些在最负盛名的职位上(以及在法学院成绩和收入最高的人)的律师更快乐。其他措施引起了关注:受试者并不普遍认为法官和律师的行为是专业的,也不认为法律程序达到了公平的结果。从数据中得出了对律师、法律教师和合法雇主的具体解释和建议,并讨论了幸福感、生产力和专业精神之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信