May 23, 2019

Archives for February 18, 2016

The Anti-Motivation Strategy (Part 4): Why Clients Should Never Hire a Motivated Lawyer

Employee-Motivation

Why not? Because there’s a good chance that motivated lawyer is cognitively impaired.

In a series in Fall 2014, we’ve looked in depth at the research of University of Denver law professor Debra S. Austin, J.D., Ph.D., and her seminal law review article Killing Them Softly: Neuroscience Reveals How Brain Cells Die From Law School Stress And How Neural Self-Hacking Can Optimize Cognitive Performance. Prof. Austin’s research findings line up with the Mayo Clinic’s analysis we looked at last time:

Neuroscience shows that the aggregate educative effects of training to become a lawyer under chronically stressful conditions may undermine the efforts of legal educators by weakening the learning capacities of law students. Stress in legal education may also set the stage for abnormally high rates of anxiety and depression among lawyers.

The stresses facing law students and lawyers result in a significant decline in their well-being, including anxiety, panic attacks, depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Neuroscience now shows that this level of stress also diminishes cognitive capacity. The intricate workings of the brain, the ways in which memories become part of a lawyer’s body of knowledge, and the impact of emotion on this process indicate that stress can weaken or kill brain cells needed for cognition.

When stress persists for a few hours or days, a law student may experience a bad mood. Longer-term stress can cause stress-related disorders such as panic attacks, anxiety, or depression; the physical effects include increased blood pressure, heart palpitations, breathlessness, dizziness, irritability, chest pain, abdominal discomfort, sweating, chills, or increased muscle tension.

Long-term elevated levels of glucocorticoids resulting from chronic stress have been associated with the following physical conditions:

  • Impaired immune response;
  • Increased appetite and food cravings;
  • Increased body fat;
  • Increased symptoms of PMS and menopause;
  • Decreased muscle mass;
  • Decreased bone density; and
  • Decreased libido.

Chronic stress also produces the following emotional conditions:

  • Increased mood swings, irritability, and anger;
  • Increased anxiety; and
  • Increased depression.

The impact of stress on law student cognition includes deterioration in memory, concentration, problem-solving, math performance, and language processing. Curiosity is dampened, and creativity is diminished.

In other words, law schools and law firms kill brain cells, impairing the highly-motivated high achievers who populate them from doing what they’re required to do, which is to think clearly and make sound judgments, and in the meantime banishing law students and lawyers to unhappiness and maybe an early grave.

Law schools and law firms don’t have to disclose all that. Maybe they should.

Ivy_League

Time For an Anti-Motivation Strategy

By now the flaw in the typical motivation strategy is evident: motivation becomes its own loop, circles back on itself, becomes its own focus, its own end game. We’re no longer practicing motivation with a performance goal in mind, we’re practicing it for its own sake. Motivation becomes a short-term, stressful preoccupation that hampers sustainable long-term performance. In the meantime, we become tentative, uncertain, indecisive, and unfocused, which means our performance becomes tenuous, weak, and unreliable.

There’s got to be a better way. There is, and we’ll look at it, starting next time.

Rhodes_4This second collection of Kevin’s blog posts focuses on the future and culture of law, including insights on technology, innovation, neuro-culture, and entrepreneurship. Extensively researched, visionary, and written in a crisp, conversational style by a man on a mission to bring wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law.

 

 

 

Colorado Court of Appeals: Evidence of Project Funds Inadmissible in Condemnation Proceeding

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz on Thursday, February 11, 2016.

Matthew Lutz and Edward Lutz (landowners) own a stretch of land over which the Town of Silverthorne wanted to build a trail. The town applied for and received funds from the Great Outdoors Colorado Program (GOCO) to use in construction of the trail. Landowners objected to having a portion of the trail built on their land. The town offered landowners $6,000 to purchase an easement, but landowners did not respond. The town next offered $75,000 for two easements, but landowners again did not respond. The town then filed a condemnation action under its eminent domain powers, and the matter proceeded to an immediate possession hearing and subsequent valuation trial. The district court granted the town’s motion for immediate possession and the landowners were compensated according to the jury’s valuation.

On appeal, the town initially argued the landowners waived any defense by failing to challenge the condemnation proceedings or make a counteroffer. The court of appeals found no error in the district court’s allowance for the landowners to reply to the condemnation proceedings out of time. The court noted, “Technically, there is no need to file an answer in a condemnation case, but it is good practice to do so.” Next, the court addressed the landowners’ assertion that the town was barred from exercising eminent domain power because of its receipt of GOCO funds, and the district court erred in granting the town’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the source of funds. The court found it was bound by the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Pub. Serv. Co. v. City of Loveland, 79 Colo. 216, 233, 245 P. 493, 500-01 (1926), to exclude evidence of the source of funding for the eminent domain action, finding that the source of funds requires analysis of corporate finance which is wholly separate from a home rule city’s eminent domain authority. The court found no error in the district court’s grant of the town’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the source of funds.

Landowners also argued the town acted in bad faith by planning the development of its trail in such a way as to receive all GOCO funds before commencing the eminent domain action. The landowners argue this is a jurisdictional challenge to the town’s condemnation suit. The court found several flaws with the landowners’ arguments that the town failed to act in good faith, and again affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude evidence of the GOCO funds. The court also rejected landowners’ contention that the district court erred in denying their motion for attorney fees.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 2/18/2016

On Thursday, February 18, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 41 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 2/17/2016

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Dixon v. RJM Acquisitions, LLC

Webb v. Caldwell

United States v. Schad

DeMillard v. Hargett

Messick v. McKesson Corp.

Kenney v. SSA ODAR Hearing

United States v. Jones

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.