Lawyers’ perspectives on how to manage the psychosocial risks they face in the legal assistance sector

Abstract

A growing body of research reveals that the psychosocial risks faced by lawyers working in the legal assistance sector are not being adequately managed by employers, which is taking its toll on the on the mental wellbeing of lawyers. In this qualitative study, 16 lawyers from the sector in Australia describe measures that could be taken to manage these risks. This includes managing work loads/type/clarity/control, supporting isolated staff, creating supportive teams, training, supervision and mentoring, effective and supported managers, rewards and recognition, a safe physical environment, recruitment and retention, risk assessment and management processes, reporting mechanisms and adequate policies and procedures. Participants recommended preventative measures, suggestions solutions need to be tailored to lawyers and their work setting; and be actioned and modelled from the top of the organisation. The rich detail provided by participants offers employers in the sector a much needed list of strategies to implement.

Introduction

Mounting studies and surveys have revealed that the legal profession around the world is facing a mental health crisis (Bergin & Jimmieson, 2014; Chan et al., 2014; Fah, 2021; International Bar Association, IBA, 2021; Kelk, 2009; LawCare, 2021) that is jeopardising the sustainability of the profession. This crisis in the Australian context was highlighted in a recent survey of South Australian lawyers, in which Fah (2021) reported that 47% of the respondents stated that the legal profession has a negative impact on their overall wellbeing. Over the past 2 years, almost 60% of respondents have considered leaving the legal profession entirely and in the last 12 months, almost 10% of respondents had either had suicidal thoughts or actually self-harmed as a result of their involvement in the profession’ (p. 22).

There is no shortage of literature supporting the link between the work of lawyers and the foreseeable risks to their mental health, including but not limited to, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, vicarious trauma, burnout and compassion fatigue (Holt et al., 2024; Kim et al., 2022; Leclerc et al., 2020; Leonard et al., 2023; Levin et al., 2011; Poynton et al., 2018; Rønning et al., 2020; Vrklevski & Franklin, 2008; Weir et al., 2022). Traditionally the burden of wellbeing fell to the individual lawyer to manage (Popa et al., 2024, p. 430). However, it is increasingly recognised that ‘mental wellbeing at work is a complex issue, and to suggest that fault lies primarily with individuals misses the point that it is the whole system that needs to be examined’ (IBA, 2021, p. 13).

In Australia, the law is now clear that employers have a duty to take proactive measures when there is a foreseeable risk of psychological injury in the workplace (Kozarov v The State of Victoria, 2022). In the Kozarov case a lawyer working in the Specialist Sexual Offences Unit in the Victorian Department of Public Prosecutions suffered from PTSD and depression because of her work. The High Court found that her employers had failed in their duty to take proactive measures because of the foreseeable psychosocial risks in Ms Kozarov’s work. Within months of this decision, Safe Work Australia (a national policy body funded by the government to improve work health and safety in Australian workplaces) amended the Model Work Health and Safety Regulations (MWHSR) to cover psychosocial risks in more detail (Safe Work Australia, 2011). In addition to clarifying the law, Safe Work Australia released a Code of Practice (‘The Code’) to provide guidance for employers to identify and manage the psychosocial risks in their particular workplace (Safe Work Australia, 2022).

Members of the legal profession work within an adversarial, competitive environment where they may be dealing with competing needs of clients and the court, high stake cases, procedural and legal restraints, and a system that neglects the emotional needs of those involved (Popa et al., 2024). There is also stigma attached to speaking up about mental health and asking for help in the legal profession (Fah, 2021; IBA, 2021; Kelk, 2009; Ko & Memon, 2023; Poynton et al., 2018). Lawyers report pressure to be stoic, perfect – not make mistakes or appear weak (Brady, 2019; Fah, 2021), suppress emotions (Holt et al., 2024; Jones, 2023; Weir et al., 2022), and protect their reputation and career prospects (IBA, 2021). In Brady (2019) lawyers reported being self-critical and experiencing bullying, sexism and a ‘culture in which it is unacceptable to express fear or distress and thus professionals were simply meant to tolerate abuse’ (see also LawCare, 2021, p. 12) Additionally, lawyers report external negative perspectives and a lack of sympathy towards lawyers from the public (Jones et al., 2020), and a denial of their psychological needs (Krause & Chong, 2019). The literature notes a lack of training, self-care and supervision (James, 2020; Popa et al., 2024), excessive job demands (Chan et al., 2014), high workloads that lack diversity (Bergin & Jimmieson, 2014; Fah, 2021; Katz & Haldar, 2016; LawCare, 2021; Nomchong, 2017; Poynton et al., 2018; Sutton et al., 2022; Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation, TJMF, 2015), long hours and lack of work/life balance (Chan et al., 2014; IBA, 2021; Popa et al., 2024), stress associated with billable hours (IBA, 2021) and a lack of support from management (IBA, 2021). Studies have linked low autonomy at work with higher rates of burnout for lawyers (LawCare, 2021; Popa et al., 2024). A similar link with burnout was found for those who reported lower psychological safety at work and high levels of work intensity, and were females (compared to males), young practitioners or those with a disability, or belonged to an ethnic minority (LawCare, 2021).

This article reports the results of a study that focused on lawyers working in the legal assistance sector in Australia. This sector includes not-for-profit organisations, typically funded by the government to provide free or low-cost legal services for vulnerable members of the community. This work comes with risks for lawyers that are less common when working in a firm (‘private practice’). In addition to working with clients who often have traumatic experiences in their backgrounds, lawyers are trying to support clients to deal with stressful legal issues in areas like family law, criminal law, mental health and elder abuse, where the outcome will likely have a significant impact on their client’s life (Verney, 2018). It is not uncommon for clients to be mentally unwell and/or homeless, plus have other major stressors to cope with at the same time. The work for lawyers often involves dealing with challenging behaviours from clients and exposure to traumatic material from their cases. Those in the legal assistance sector also contend with more demand for services than can be met, time and funding restrictions (James, 2020), greater government surveillance, excessive regulation, less face-to-face time with clients (Cooke, 2022) and competition instead of collaboration between service providers.

Whilst there is evidence that legal organisations acknowledge the crisis in mental health for lawyers, lawyers do not perceive that they are responding effectively (IBA, 2021; LawCare, 2021; Popa et al., 2024). For example, there has been cynicism and resistance to wellbeing initiatives such as Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselling (Chan et al., 2014; Fah, 2021; LawCare, 2021; Vlahos, 2021) despite research supporting their efficacy (Chan et al., 2014; LawCare, 2021; Poynton et al., 2018). A study exploring the low uptake of wellbeing initiatives identified barriers to include heavy workload (and having to return to more work), remote workers having less access, counsellors not providing constructive advice or support not being tailored to the legal profession, and there was stigmatisation associated with accessing the initiatives (Poynton et al., 2018). Similar difficulties have been reported in accessing selfcare strategies (Bober & Regehr, 2006; LawCare, 2021). In another study of 1680 lawyers in Australia (Medlow et al., 2011), over a quarter said they would not seek help from any profession. Of the practitioners that said they would, they identified three groups they would approach – GPs, psychologists and psychiatrists (p. 781). Preferences for peer support, rather than professionals, have been noted in the literature (Vrklevski & Franklin, 2008). There is also significant evidence that the stigma attached to speaking about mental health is a barrier for lawyers (Beaton Consulting for Beyond Blue, 2007; B. Burton, 2019; IBA, 2021; James, 2020, 2023; Kelk, 2009; Ko & Memon, 2023; LawCare, 2021; Poynton et al., 2018), particularly those who struggle to be vulnerable or make mistakes (Fah, 2021; Maguire & Byrne, 2017; Tufvesson, 2021; Weir et al., 2022; Weiss, 2009). These factors illustrate the importance of addressing barriers to accessing initiatives.

In the Poynton et al. (2018) study, a distinction was made between initiatives that are primary and preventative, as opposed to other interventions that were secondary/tertiary and provided after a psychological injury has occurred. It has been suggested that ‘organisations may often prefer to implement secondary or tertiary interventions, due to cost and resourcing considerations’ (Poynton et al., 2018, p. 591). Primary interventions that empower the employee to manage their own mental health (such as being able to take days off, flexible work practices, having control over their work) have been found to be more effective than measures that are reactive and are designed to treat, compensate and rehabilitate workers (Chan et al., 2014; Poynton et al., 2018). Popa et al. (2024) reinforced the importance of proactive (as opposed to reactive) measures. This requires organisations to first conduct a thorough risk assessment to identify psychosocial risks before considering what measures are appropriate (Kozarov v The State of Victoria, 2022; Pirelli et al., 2020). Psychosocial risks can be exacerbated by individual risk factors such as prior personal trauma (Leclerc et al., 2020; Maguire & Byrne, 2017; Vrklevski & Franklin, 2008), prior history of mental health difficulties, negative coping strategies (Ko & Memon, 2023; Leonard et al., 2023; Poynton et al., 2018) and certain personality traits (Maguire & Byrne, 2017). Arguably, any assessment also needs to take into account the strengths of each staff member (Kezelman & Stavropoulos, 2016; Randall & Haskell, 2013).

Another issue has been a lack of recognition of the impact of trauma on lawyers and the absence of trauma-informed practice (James, 2020; Kezelman & Stavropoulos, 2016; Ko & Memon, 2023; Pike & Rebar, 2024; Popa et al., 2024; Randall & Haskell, 2013; Vlahos, 2021). As a result of support systems not keeping pace with the rise in exposure to trauma, ‘affected individuals may over-rely on equally affected colleagues for support, intensifying the cycle of trauma contagion’ (Birze et al., 2022, p. 1). Recommendations for what trauma-informed practice could look like in a Legal Aid setting were articulated by lawyers from the field, and support from literature was provided, in Pike and Rebar (2024). The participants in this study suggested changes to the physical environment, training, improving lawyers’ ability to notice the impact of trauma, debriefing, supervision, supportive management, and policies and practices. Trauma-informed practice in the profession often focuses on improving service delivery for clients (or is limited to promoting self-care for lawyers), and not how employers can use trauma-informed practice with staff. Few literary sources consider what is needed for lawyers themselves (Birze et al., 2022; Maylea et al., 2023; Nomchong, 2017).

There has been a significant lack of professional support for lawyers. The legal profession has been focused on improving clinical supervision (‘professional supervision’ or ‘supervision’) for some time, but the concept of supervision is not as developed as it is in the ‘helping professions’ such as psychology or social work (McNamara, 2020; Rose & Maylea, 2023). Giddings and McNamara (2014) identified three functions of legal clinical supervision: mentoring/support, managerial/administrative and educational/training. In contrast, clinical support in other contexts such as psychology also extends to improving practitioner competence, supporting individual resilience and occupational health across the life span of the person (Tyler, 2016). Additionally, supervision in the legal sector focused on students and early career lawyers as opposed to being provided throughout the course of the employee’s working life (Rose & Maylea, 2023). Supervision in the legal field has typically been provided by a fellow legal practitioner, instead of a trained supervisor who is able to respond to the specific needs of the employee.

Often focusing on wellbeing or vicarious trauma, there is a growing body of research and commentaries on the imperative of providing support at the organisational level (Bober & Regehr, 2006; Kezelman & Stavropoulos, 2016; Maguire & Byrne, 2017). Studies in this area have highlighted the importance of monitoring stress (Kozarov v The State of Victoria, 2022), implementing policies and practices such as additional leave and flexible work practices (Chan et al., 2014; Hodge & Williams, 2021; Popa et al., 2024; Poynton et al., 2018), modelling change (Chan et al., 2014; Willmot & Jones, 2022) and engaging managers in these processes (LawCare, 2021; Pike & Rebar, 2024; Popa et al., 2024). Studies have also identified the role of discussing mental health and trauma-informed practice at team meetings (Kozarov v The State of Victoria, 2022; Pike & Rebar, 2024), debriefing (K. Burton & Paton, 2021; Fleck & Francis, 2021; Kozarov v The State of Victoria, 2022; Niebler, 2019; Nomchong, 2017) and reflective practice (K. Burton & Paton, 2021; Maylea et al., 2023; Willmot & Jones, 2022).

Training is another area that needs attention for managers and staff, on how to manage wellbeing for lawyers and stressed/traumatised clients (Brady, 2019; Kozarov v The State of Victoria, 2022; LawCare, 2021; Pike & Rebar, 2024; Popa et al., 2024; Soon et al., 2024). Studies in this area have highlighted that training needs to be regular, be experiential, involve peer debriefing, be practical and be accompanied by organisational support for implementation (Pike & Rebar, 2024; Popa et al., 2024; Poynton et al., 2018). There has also been a call for safe physical spaces (Fleck & Francis, 2021; Maylea et al., 2023; Pike & Rebar, 2024), job redesign (Soon et al., 2024) and other measures that address workloads such as more admin support, more staff, fewer cases, better oversight in allocation of cases and more control over work done (LawCare, 2021).

The aim of this paper was to provide the perspectives of lawyers from the legal assistance sector on the psychosocial risks they face and how employers can effectively manage these. Answering this research question offers valuable insights into the specific challenges faced by lawyers and informs the development of more effective and targeted support services within the legal assistance sector.

Method

Study design

A qualitative approach was used because of its ability to explore personal experiences in rich detail (Smith, 2008). Measures for managing psychosocial risks need to be appropriate and specific to the workplace in question, and this idiographic approach enabled participants to describe their perspective of what would be effective from their lived experience. To ensure comprehensive data collection and to accommodate participants’ preferences and constraints, we employed a combination of focus groups, individual interviews and written responses, each of which have their own strengths. Focus groups have the ability to ‘trigger memories, stimulate debate, facilitate disclosure and generally encourage the production of elaborated accounts’ (Wilkinson, 2008, p. 202), individual interviews allow for in-depth exploration of personal experiences, and written responses provide an opportunity for participants to articulate their thoughts more carefully. However, focus groups can inhibit participants from sharing sensitive information, individual interviews lack the interactive element that can stimulate new ideas, and written responses lack the spontaneity of verbal communication. By triangulating data from these different methods, we aimed to mitigate the limitations of each and enhance the overall validity of our findings (Patton, 2014).

Once the data were collected, they were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) with a deductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019). RTA is used in this project because it enables a deductive yet flexible coding process, and acknowledges the active role of the researcher in identifying and interpreting meaningful patterns in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2019; Fletcher, 2017). Deductive thematic analysis involves using an existing framework to guide the coding and theme development process (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This approach was chosen to provide a structured and descriptive analysis of the psychosocial risks and management strategies as reported by participants, using the Safe Work Australia framework as a guiding structure.

RTA was also used to analyse the data because it values the reflexive perspective researchers bring to the process. This was important here, given that the primary researcher’s experience working as a lawyer in the legal assistance sector (and subsequently as a psychologist) was likely to influence her analysis of the data.

Study participants and recruitment

The study used a purposive sampling strategy to select participants, namely lawyers working in the legal assistance sector, who could speak to the research topic (Tie et al., 2019). Participants had to have been working in the sector within the last 10 years. Recruitment commenced following approval from the University of Tasmania Human Research Ethics Committee.

Peak bodies and organisations within the Legal Assistance Sector around Australia received an email with information about the study, asking them to pass the invitation on to lawyers working in the sector. An advertisement for the project was also run in several bulletins and newsletters of organisations such as Law Societies in each state. Potential participants were directed to Qualtrics to read an overview of the study, sign a consent form, enter demographic information, and then nominate their preferred participation method (focus group, interview or written contribution).

A total of 16 lawyers participated in the study. When deciding upon a sample size in reflexive thematic analysis, Braun and Clarke (2021) suggest that the researcher reflect upon relevant aspects of the project and set a flexible lower and upper limit, rather than adopting an arbitrary figure that qualifies as ‘saturation’. These aspects include consideration of ‘the breadth and focus of the research question; the methods and modes of data collection to be used; . . . desired diversity of the sample . . . the depth of data likely generated from each participant, expectations of the local context . . . the pragmatic constraints of the project’ (Braun and Clarke, 2021, p. 211). With these factors in mind, the researchers determined that 16 participants were more than sufficient. The sample was diverse. Experience in the field as a lawyer ranged from someone who was a restricted practitioner (recent graduate) to 32 years. Twelve participants had 10 or more years’ experience in the sector. They had worked in a diverse range of organisations (at least 10 different types), locations around Australia (participants were or had worked in every state and territory around Australia) and areas of law. Five participants were part of national teams in addition to their local organisation. Some participants were part time, others were full time, and one was working fully remote. Only three participants were male, but there was a broad age range: 28–58 years of age. Seven participants had worked or were working in management within the sector.

Data collection

Data collection consisted of three focus groups (with three, two and three participants, respectively), six individual interviews, and two participants who submitted written feedback. The focus groups and interviews were conducted via Zoom videoconferencing software using a semi-structured protocol. Focus groups ran for approximately 1.5 hours, and the individual interviews were each between 1 hour and 1.5 hours.

A table summarising psychosocial risks as identified by Safe Work Australia (‘The Code’) (2022) was sent to participants for them to reflect upon prior to attending the focus group or interview. Participants in the first focus group reported that the lists of risks were overwhelming, and it was not easy to know where to start. Accordingly, in the second focus groups and subsequent interviews, the table was replaced with a briefer list of risks to prompt participant feedback. Whilst there is evidence to suggest that focus groups are suitable for exploring sensitive topics and may facilitate disclosure (Wilkinson, 2008), there was a potential risk that participants would be guarded in their contribution if they were concerned about implications for their reputation or career. Participants were informed that they could use a pseudonym, did not need to disclose their full name or place of work, and had the option of turning their camera off. All participants in the groups used kept their camera on and did not use a pseudonym.

The focus groups and interviews were audio recorded for the purpose of transcription. Following transcription, the resulting written transcripts were emailed to the participants to reflect upon and add to as part of a member checking process (Braun & Clarke, 2023). Participants were given two weeks to respond via email with any changes or corrections. If no response was received, their consent to proceed to the next stage of analysis was implied. There were no relevant requested changes to the transcripts. At this point audio recordings were erased.

Given that the researcher is a lawyer (though not practising at the time of this study) who has worked in the legal assistance sector, there was a potential risk of dual relationships. The researcher did not approach or include any participants who had a personal or professional relationship with the researcher, if the participant’s involvement could impair the objectivity of the study. RTA recognises that the researcher’s background influences the way she interpreted and analysed the data. Braun and Clarke (2023) recommend the researcher declare their assumptions and ‘link personal reflexivity to your analytic practice; don’t mention bias’ (p. 4). To ensure the trustworthiness of research outcomes, throughout data collection and analysis the researcher maintained regular self-reflections, which were discussed during research supervision (Trainor & Bundon, 2021). The process of analysis was also reviewed by the supervisor to ensure the resulting themes accurately represented the raw data.

Data management and analysis

The transcribed data were analysed using RTA. In RTA the researcher is guided by a flexible, recursive and iterative six-stage process (Braun & Clarke, 2012): (a) familiarisation with the data; (b) generating initial codes; (c) generating themes; (d) reviewing potential themes; (e) defining and naming themes; and (f) producing the report. Following the familiarisation stage, the researcher reviewed the transcripts for any psychosocial risks or management strategies mentioned by participants. A deductive or theory-driven approach to analysis was undertaken, with particular attention to codes and themes that reflected the categories of the Safe Work Australia Code of Practice. The risks or issues were colour coded red, strategies that had not been helpful were coded orange, and those that the participant recommended were coded blue. The coded sections from each transcript were then transferred under common headings or themes. Themes were identified based on the explicit meanings expressed by participants, following a semantic approach. Themes were deemed significant if they were relevant to the research questions and/or observed across multiple participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, efforts were made to anchor theme interpretations in direct participant quotes (Nowell et al., 2017).

Results

Participants confirmed that the common risks identified by Safe Work Australia (‘The Code’) (2022) were all relevant for lawyers working in the legal assistance sector in Australia. There were 10 themes, which identified specific risks and their management, as outlined below.

Address risks associated with the nature of the work, including addressing the specific needs of isolated workers

Allocation of work

Twelve participants advocated for managers to be proactive in assessing the workload and capacity of each team member prior to the allocation of new work. This includes knowing the number and types of cases a lawyer has and has had recently, ‘because it can all become layer upon layer of vicarious trauma’ (Participant 8). One participant recommended managers triage or prioritise work before allocating it to reduce the pressure on lawyers who feel like they are constantly evaluating which tasks are more urgent. Participants noted that managers need to be conscious of the strengths/skills, vulnerabilities and triggers of each of their team before allocating new work. For example, a lawyer may have children of their own that are the same age as the client, or they are practising family law and going through a divorce. Participants noted that some lawyers may need to be supported to be able to express what they are comfortable with taking on, especially junior lawyers. Additionally, managers need to recognise the tendency of lawyers to say yes to helping clients even when they might be at capacity and that what is a realistic load will be different for different people at different times.

Participants emphasised that the allocation of work needed to be a collaborative process. This involved trusting and allowing lawyers to determine their own capacity. Several participants described situations where managers checked in with staff who said they were at capacity, but the manager forced them to take on more work anyway. Participants wanted to feel like their ‘manager was in their corner’ (Participant 1) so that even when workloads could not be adjusted, they still felt like their wellbeing was more important than their output.

Job control

Six participants spoke of the importance of job control. Five participants described experiences with bosses who were hierarchical, top down and had a tendency to micromanage their staff. This resulted in a feeling of no control of what, when or how work was done. These participants called for a more collaborative arrangement where they can use their skills and judgement and were trusted to manage their own cases. ‘It’s that strength-based empowerment model that we talked about with clients in a trauma-informed space. But just applying that to our staff’ (Participant 4). Participants noted that this was qualified by the years of experience the lawyer had; if they were more junior, they would need more support. Participant 11 shared, ‘It’s about having bumpers and frameworks, and then as people get more experience, you can take them away’.

Role clarity

Five participants highlighted that psychosocial risks arise when organisations do not have and/or communicate to staff, clear organisational structures and role descriptions. This role clarity for one participant included knowing what the organisational priorities were and how their work contributed to that. Clear reporting lines were seen as particularly important when staff are part of a national team. For this group, role clarity meant the organisation needed to manage the expectations of various stakeholders by stipulating the parameters of the service that can be provided. Participants described how difficult it could be to manage pressure from other service providers or disappointment from clients when this has not been the case.

Ability to change the type of work

Five participants noted that the opportunity to engage in a different type of work can mitigate the risk of vicarious trauma if the lawyer has significant and/or repeated exposure to traumatic material. It was noted that this can also help avoid the burnout that can come from ‘being on the front line’ (Participant 1), by giving them ‘a light at the end of the tunnel’ (Participant 12). Diversity in work gives staff an opportunity to practise or develop their skills such as going to court.

Participants noted that a change in role does not necessarily need to involve shifting divisions, it can help to ensure people have a mix in the type of work they are allocated. Participant 10 explained ‘so they’re not only doing complicated, high risk parenting matters, but also have some property negotiations that are able to be progressed and resolved at a point in time’. It was noted that being allocated work with ‘easy wins’ can help with motivation and morale (Participant 9), and work that involves big picture or systemic change can constitute more meaningful and rewarding work for employees (Participant 4). Other examples of change were job rotations, secondment to a different area or workplace, stakeholder engagement, attend a working group, policy work, participating in a parliamentary enquiry and restitution work.

Breaks from work

Four participants emphasised the importance of breaks during work, the ability to take mental health days on top of sick leave, or study leave to further skills. One manager said,

Being exposed to that much content (three hours straight – three clients intake) in such a small period of time without being able to sort of take a breath in between and go outside and walk around the block . . . I would find it very difficult (Participant 7).

Participants were clear that it was not helpful if this was imposed and there was not choice or flexibility in when or how this could be taken: ‘I think it’s patronising. Yeah, I hate it when people tell me to take a break . . . I know some people, for example, really don’t appreciate being forced to take leave in one block, if that doesn’t align with their personal lives. Maybe it’s better. You know, just let them take a day here or there’ (Participant 1). One of the participants said it was problematic that so many lawyers in the sector built up ‘flex time’ when they did overtime, but changes were not made to make it possible to take the leave so it was being written off (Participant 11).

Supporting isolated workers

The COVID pandemic forced organisations to make arrangement for staff to work from home. Two participants reported that some managers were struggling to transition back, whilst still being open to having staff work remotely for other reasons and managing hybrid teams. Participant 11 emphasised that there needed to be ‘buy in from managers and staff, effective technology, good communication and opportunities for connection with others for it work’ (Participant 11). Managers need strategies to ensure remote staff remain connected with the main office, manager and colleagues in terms of legal supervision and debriefing, but also for a general office chat. If staff are doing outreach or working on different sites, consistency is important, so they have a chance to develop personal relationships.

It was said that managers needed greater oversight of isolated workers because they can struggle to showcase the work they are doing, maintain a work/life balance (when they constantly have access to teams and email), they may find it harder to access you when needed and to express when things are tough. One participant described a time when she had a miscarriage and was still working on her computer from her hospital bed, she didn’t feel like she could explain her situation to her colleague: ‘it’s very different from when you’re in the office, and they can see you’re not well, or they can see you’re stressed’ (Participant 5). Participants called on managers to check in with their staff about what they need (and not to make assumptions) and to understand that working remotely is not a good fit for everyone.

Ensure teams are connected

Six participants emphasised the importance of the social aspect of work, the need for human connection. For example: ‘Moments to stop and not focus on the fact that there is an overwhelming workload and focus on the fact that these people are people, it is really nice . . . it’s about shifting gears and focusing on something else with a bit of human connection and you don’t have to play that role’ (Participant 12). This was reported to create a sense of belonging and made team members more approachable. As noted by Participant 9, ‘team members work better together when they understand what is going on for each other’.

Participants recommended managers or an allocated staff member create opportunities for connection such as chats over coffee, lunches, doing a quiz together over lunch, time set aside for a friendly check in and celebrating people’s birthdays if they are willing. Two participants commented on how well their managers had been able to use these activities to build a strong national team located in different parts of Australia.

Provide effective training in areas of need

Eleven participants highlighted the importance of providing staff with effective training to help them manage the psychosocial hazards present in their work. The most frequently mentioned need (seven participants) was for training in trauma-informed practice. Participant 1 shared ‘A trauma-informed lawyer gets better instructions from their client, the client trusts them, the client is more likely to absorb the advice and take the steps that they need’ (Participant 1). This was followed by a need for training in responding to challenging behaviours, such as de-escalation techniques or responding to occupational violence. Other training preferences noted by participants included training that helps lawyers remain focused on the human being, such as frameworks for being client centred or human centred. This was viewed as particularly important due to the potential to become desensitised to clients and material, which can lead to detachment and the dehumanising of clients.

Mental health first aid training that is applied to lawyers included ‘lunch time sessions on why mental health is important, how lawyers can be vulnerable to mental illness, how work can cause and exacerbate mental illness, and the benefits of getting supervision’ (Participant 3). This awareness was viewed as particularly important considering the profession tends to prize stoicism and can perceive feelings as weakness, with Participant 14 sharing ‘there is a misconception that if we feel nothing, we perform better’. Lastly, participants desired training on how to notice and respond to mental health difficulties in colleagues, clients and themselves.

Lastly, participants emphasised that training has limits, and it is important for organisations to provide individualised support to apply and consolidate what has been learnt in practice. Additionally, as noted by Participant 4, you ‘cannot just provide trauma training and self-care without changing organisational structures’.

Provide professional support (mentoring and supervision from a suitable mental health professional)

The following psychosocial risks were identified that required professional support:

1. Nature of work. Ten participants expressed a need to be able to debrief, process and respond to the risks inherent in their work. Without this, workplace risks can lead to desensitisation and dehumanisation of clients, becoming cold, detached, burnout, vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue and other mental health difficulties.

2. Workplace issues (identified by nine participants)

3. Personal matters impacting upon work such as family responsibilities (identified by two participants)

4. Personal factors. Five participants mentioned the need for additional support for early career lawyers and those who are more vulnerable to psychosocial risks e.g. those with disabilities, prior personal trauma or mental health difficulties.

5. Insufficient knowledge and skills, advice about complex cases, laws and procedures, professional boundaries and others (identified by six participants).

Qualities of supervision

All participants identified the need for clinical supervision. Participants emphasised the importance of having regular access to the supervisor. Whether this was fortnightly, monthly or quarterly, it was accessible when needed, such as on the same day (emphasised by eight participants). One participant said their organisation had access to a team of supervisors so if their supervisor was not available on the day, they could speak to an alternative supervisor who was familiar with their workplace. Four participants proposed that the professional support needed to be provided outside the line of reporting. Three participants liked the idea of also having someone imbedded in the organisation, like a ‘school counsellor’ set-up. External psychosocial support was seen to best protect the confidentiality of participants and was more likely to be independent and objective.

Ten participants emphasised that any support person needs to be competent to work with lawyers; they need to understand the lawyer and their work/workplace/sector and be appropriately qualified. Four participants expressed that the ideal support person would be a qualified psychologist; six identified the importance of specific training in trauma.

Participants also recognised that many lawyers in the sector would struggle to recognise the value of supervision for themselves and may find excuses to avoid accessing the support. Participant 11 noted: ‘You need something that is going to be done for people . . . it has to be very directed and very controlled . . . you need a structure for it to work’. Five participants mounted a persuasive case for why time needed to be set aside and scheduled for supervision, with five participants noting that it should be mandatory and part of the employment contract. It was noted that a simple process for access is required, with the requirement to ‘fill in forms’ seen as a barrier (Participant 9).

Group reflective practice

Peer supervision or group reflective practice was experienced as a useful form of support identified by four participants. Peer supervision can provide an additional opportunity for developing skills and peer learning in niche areas and can destigmatise conversations about struggling. For example: ‘I have seen some legal teams have like a monthly session, for example, where someone can bring up a particularly challenging matter or interaction, and everybody can work through ideas. I think that only works if you have a healthy team dynamic, a culture of psychological safety, people trust their colleagues and don’t think those conversations are a sign of weakness or professional failure’ (Participant 1).

Participant 4, who was part of a reflective practice group led by a psychologist, noted that ‘it is not just reliving it for the sake of sharing, but to have a genuine conversation about how we manage it, how we understand it, what processes we have in our team and within our organisation to manage that exposure to risk’. Two participants further acknowledged that not everyone would be comfortable speaking in a group or find the material relevant.

Mentoring

Seven participants raised the value of having mentors in the sector. Participants reported that mentors should be a more experienced legal practitioner, especially for early career lawyers; they needed to be empathic, be working or remember what it was like, and be able to meet regularly. Participant 4 had experienced a mentor programme that had not worked because ‘mentees were just rehashing and not resolving what they had experienced.’ The importance of training as a mentor was identified, to ensure debriefing had a purpose. You ‘need a clear path of how to support or minimise impact, debriefing without a purpose can be destructive and counterproductive’ (Participant 4). According to the description of a mentor offered by the participants, it may help with risks (cited by participants) such as complex cases, boundary issues and career development.

EAP counselling

Perspective of EAP differed across participants. Whilst three participants said it can be helpful, five participants raised criticisms. These included perspectives that EAP is a cheap option often promoted after a critical incident, has a reputation for being poor quality, was usually time limited and is not always a sustained approach where you can develop a relationship with the support person, and there was often no follow-up by the support person or organisation. Participant 2 emphasised that EAP does not suffice on its own in response to a critical incident, at dealing with the underlying issue, ‘we had an incident, some weeks ago now where another staff member was subjected to some racial abuse, verbal abuse, and that was relayed back to the senior people. They were quite good at acknowledging it, saying that that’s not something that you should have to put up with, but very quickly it went to, if you have any further problems ring the EAP.’

Ensure managers are effective and supported

Four participants identified a historical over-reliance on ill-equipped managers to mitigate psychosocial risks in legal workplaces. Whilst managers could be considered a type of professional support, and some managers are able to respond to some of the risks identified by participants, participants identified limits to what managers could do. For example: ‘Managers cannot be expected to fulfil that therapeutic role, it is not what their skills are, and it can cause issues for them as well’ (Participant 14). Seven participants noted that managers are not always approachable, the lawyer’s problem may relate to the manager, and the lawyer is likely to be concerned about the impact disclosure of issues will have upon their career and relationship with their manager. Four participants who held managerial roles called for more training and guidelines to be able to respond to the psychosocial difficulties their staff were facing.

Appropriate skills

All of the participants in this study emphasised that management of lawyers in the legal assistance sector requires a certain skill set, with ‘adequate selection, recruitment and training of managers’ needed (Participant 12). Whilst moving into management may be seen as the only way to advance your career in law, participants expressed concern that ‘sometimes the people who are really most motivated to go into management roles may not be the most suited to them, they may have ambition, but not the right interpersonal skills’ (Participant 3). Participants reported that managers need to have a strong ‘understanding of the nature and extent of the work’ (Participant 3). Noting that some managers are not lawyers, participants remarked that experience practising the law gives the manager ‘credibility and standing in the organisation . . . (without it, it’s) very difficult for the people underneath that manager to take them seriously however well-meaning they are’ (Participant 2).

Four participants emphasised the importance of managers having the skills and willingness to provide positive feedback. It was suggested that celebrating wins is part of a manager’s responsibility, and it can be a protective factor against vicarious trauma. Participants recommended structure around how staff are acknowledged, such as regularly sharing successes in the team and receiving a weekly email from senior management.

Staying connected to the work

Four participants emphasised the need for managers to stay involved in the groundwork, ‘otherwise you become almost unapproachable’ (Participant 6). It was also noted that managers who have a small caseload can better empathise with the stress involved, the ‘weight of . . . all those stories, sitting with you’ (Participant 7). However, participants also noted that this needs to be within reasonable limits. If managers suffer ‘burnout from the casework, they have no psychological capacity to help people they are meant to be supervising’ (Participant 3).

Willingness to be vulnerable

Four participants expressed a desire for managers to be open about their own struggles, which they expressed would help destigmatise the psychosocial hazards in the field. This was noted to be particularly important for setting the culture for junior staff. For example, Participant 9 shared ‘if the opportunity does arise for you to be vulnerable in your one-on-one time with a junior member of staff . . . if we can get them [junior staff] to be more open to be more vulnerable, to be more acknowledging that mistakes, then like it’s only going to affect the profession into the future in a profound way.’

Participants reported that through leading by example, managers can create a culture of openness about psychosocial hazards. Participants shared ideas including incorporating a mental health first aid win of the week at staff meetings, sharing of difficult clinical encounters (‘war stories’) and strategies for managing these, and open discussions of mental health difficulties.

Responding to mental health concerns

Eleven participants noted the need for managers to have an awareness of mental health and provide a psychologically safe relationship that allows for discussions of psychosocial hazards. Participants noted that staff need to feel like they can disclose what reasonable adjustments they need without repercussions, or just be able to say, ‘I’m not okay today, knowing that it’s not going to have an adverse impact on my work’ (Participant 9).

Participants wanted to feel confident that their manager could respond well if one of the team were struggling with their mental health. If a staff member experiences ‘a significant mental health episode, the manager needs to be able to respond to the person and speak to the team who is impacted’ (Participant 9). Given the barriers to communicating psychological hazards, participants emphasised that managers need to be strategic in raising the discussion, and to be able to notice that a lawyer is not coping based on changes in behaviour. Participants suggested managers would benefit from receiving specific training and guidelines in this area, such as ‘attending mental health first aid training courses, to be aware of how to have appropriate conversations’ and the development of training to be a ‘trauma-informed supervisor for lawyers’ (Participant 1).

Recruit well and improve retention strategies

Six participants referred to the sustainability crisis that the profession and sector were facing, in terms of both the difficulty of recruiting good staff and then holding on to them. Citing some of the reasons for the problem, Participant 11 explained that lawyers from the sector are ‘super employable, they’ve got all these skills, they are usually “tough as” and they’re broad, and so they can just go slot into anywhere else for twice the money in half the work’. Participants emphasised the need to create workplaces that are psychological safe and enjoyable, to replace the ‘burn and churn’ approach (Participant 4).

Several participants described how the sector filters out those not perceived to be ‘resilient’ or ‘tough enough’. Participant 11 noted that the ‘sector is self-selecting in the type of people that are considered capable of doing the work, which I think is a bad thing, because it involves survivorship bias’. Participant 14 provided an example of a promising new recruit, who was a sensitive young man with high emotional intelligence, who was told he ‘wasn’t able to cut it’, and in response left the sector to become a commercial lawyer. Participant 14 remarked that we need to ‘promote a different sort of model for being a lawyer, one that is empathetic, and trauma informed’. Participants noted that recruitment needs to value emphatic dispositions and trauma-informed practice.

Provide a safe physical environment

Four participants noted that the physical environment of their workplaces was not always conducive to best practice work habits. Participant 3 explained ‘There is a lack of resources in community legal centres obviously. Poor office lay out, low quality equipment, open plan, very noisy, always very cold. People sharing confidential and traumatic content across desks, you know, it’s not a safe environment’. Whilst there was some acknowledgement across participants that open plan offices help with informal debriefing, other participants were critical of the noise, distractions and smells, and expressed a need for a quiet place for mentally demanding work. Participants also noted a feeling of vulnerability in their physical workspaces, due to often working with clients with mental health and/or substance abuse difficulties.

Ensure the organisation has risk identification and management processes in place

Eleven participants emphasised the importance of ensuring the organisation has risk identification and management processes in place. There was agreement from two participants that psychosocial risks needed to be acknowledged by management, but that the sector was not good at conducting formal risk assessments, and this needed to change. Workplace-initiated surveys were cited by a few participants as examples of communicating hazards that had no meaningful response, with survey fatigue identified. As noted by Participant 6, ‘We had a staff survey, culture survey 12 months ago, there was a high level of dissatisfaction, but it was glossed over and then put aside and ignored by top level management, everyone was mad because nothing changed’.

Ensure the organisation has reporting mechanisms

Alarmingly, none of the participants said their organisation had a reporting mechanism in place to communicate risks to the employer. No participant in this study reported feeling like they had a safe person they could communicate psychological hazards to. Managers were identified as a common solution; however, two participants noted that staff were not always comfortable approaching them, due to perceived power imbalance, stigma in the profession, fear of consequences for relationships and threat to their reputation or career progression. Five participants noted preferences to have options to raise issues through individuals who were not their reporting line.

It was identified that there needs to be a confidential, trustworthy, authentic, trauma-informed complaint person, and choice in who is approached and consultation and involvement in how the complaint is handled. Some participants, such as Participant 7, believed that ‘the best way would be if an employee is able to speak confidentially to HR’, but other participants perceived that HR is often biased towards executive management, and confidentiality is limited. Others suggested having a person at a high level who can ‘advocate for staff and make decisions from a wellbeing and safety perspective’ such as a mental health champion. Other participants noted there needs to be a clearly articulated grievance policy and procedures, which you can consult before going on the record.

Participants noted the importance of implementation and feedback following the communication of hazards. Participants discussed incidents of communicating hazards within their workplace that did not result in action, for example Participant 11 noted ‘it wasn’t listened to and then that fed into a culture of “they don’t give a shit anyways”’. As described by Participant 4, ‘If you share, you want to know that you will learn to manage the situation or changes in the organisation will be made’.

Adequate policies and procedures

Six participants reported frustrations with workplace systems, policies and procedures, with one person reporting that this caused him more distress than the nature of the work. Those that contributed to this study identified that organisations in the sector needed to develop a suite of policies and procedures on topics such as conduct in the workplace, caseloads, matters with risk of vicarious trauma, work health and safety (WHS), discrimination, flexible work practices, access to professional support, responding to unacceptable client behaviour and serious incidents, wellbeing options, trauma-informed practice and a grievance policy. Recommendations from participants included having a one-page flow chart for procedures, applying policies in a fair and flexible way, putting in mechanisms to ensure compliance and accountability, and providing training on how to implement policies.

Discussion

This paper notes that the literature is sparse when it comes to identifying the specific psychosocial risks that lawyers in the legal assistance sector face. There is also limited scholarship on what organisations can do to manage these risks for lawyers. This study makes a significant contribution to the field because participants provided valuable insights that address this gap. Whilst their comments do not replace the need for a thorough risk assessment specific to each workplace, they are helpful in guiding the development of such a tool. They also highlight the need for more research in each of the areas raised in this study.

Results support the growing consensus that psychosocial risk management should focus on promoting overall wellbeing, not just mitigating risks that could lead to psychological injury. Participants in this study supported the literature that discusses how ensuring job satisfaction can mitigate the impact of psychosocial risks (Popa et al., 2024) such as improving job substance, responsibility, control, security, relationships, social value, remuneration and opportunities for advancement (Chan et al., 2014). In the USA, the National Task Force on Lawyer Wellbeing (2017) defined wellbeing as thriving in each dimension (occupational, intellectual, physical, spiritual, social and emotional) of one’s life (Popa et al., 2024). Using this definition as the collective goal in workplaces will move the profession beyond risk management strategies, to be more holistic and help to address the stigma in the profession. Similarly, frameworks like the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model could inform the legal sector on how to balance job demands with resources like supervision and mental health support (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). These approaches align with the National Task Force on Lawyer Wellbeing’s call for more holistic approaches to addressing psychosocial risks.

Participants made significant comments about professional support. James (2020) noted that there has traditionally been a lack of supervision in the legal profession, and he emphasised the dangers of weak supervision that doesn’t adequately respond to the impacts of trauma on the one hand or engaging too deeply on the other. Rose and Maylea (2023) raised the question of who was qualified to provide this supervision, noting that it needed to be outside of the line of management (p. 277). In this study, participants were very clear that suitably qualified mental health professionals, such as psychologists, were needed to provide adequate professional support for lawyers. This kind of supervision was referred to as the ‘gold standard’. This aligns with recommendations by Fleck and Francis (2021) for group and individual supervision with a mental health professional, and Nomchong (2017) for wellbeing checks by mental health professionals.

It seems that the cupboard door to the mental health of lawyers has only just been opened. Participants in this study mentioned conditions found in the literature such as burnout, compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma. But they also talked about experiences such as the desensitisation to traumatic material and dehumanisation of clients that can happen in the sector over time as a way of coping. As lawyers and organisations become more familiar with what is inside the cupboard (such as research on the impact of stress and trauma on the body/brain, cognitive/beliefs/value shifts, etc.) they will be better equipped to assess the psychosocial risks in their organisation, and hopefully more cognisant of the need to ensure their staff regularly attend supervision with supervisors that are competent and qualified mental health professionals.

Research in this paper has highlighted the barriers lawyers can face when engaging with wellbeing initiatives such as heavy workloads and working remotely. Consistent with prior literature (Fah, 2021; Maguire & Byrne, 2017; Tufvesson, 2021; Weir et al., 2022; Weiss, 2009), participants in this study also noted the stigma associated with mental health difficulties, and difficulties trusting others, being vulnerable, asking for help and accepting mistakes in the profession. Participants also noted other areas of vulnerability such as early career lawyers, those with disabilities and those with previous experience of mental health difficulties and trauma. This highlights the need for employers in the sector to ensure that measures to address risks are tailored to the specific lawyers in the organisation (and the work they do) and address any barriers to accessing those measures. When participants talked about their organisations becoming, trauma informed, rights based, strengths based and client centred, it was clear that it was not a matter of ticking off items on a checklist. What was needed was engagement with staff (and clients), ‘meeting them where they are at’, making sure they feel safe to share their needs and then learning to best respond to those needs. This is consistent with the increasing recognition in the literature that lawyers want to be heard (LawCare, 2021) and to be consulted in a purposeful and meaningful way regarding changes (Kozarov v The State of Victoria, 2022).

Participants in this study also emphasised that any change needed to be led from the top and modelled by managers. Organisational change, particularly when driven by leadership, plays a pivotal role in shaping workplace culture and improving staff wellbeing. Research indicates that leadership commitment to mental health, particularly by modelling healthy behaviours, can significantly reduce psychosocial risks (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). Transformational leadership, in particular, has been shown to enhance employee resilience and job satisfaction, making it a key component of any strategy aimed at improving lawyer wellbeing (Arnold et al., 2007). As demonstrated by this study’s participants, the presence of flexible, adaptive leadership can foster environments where psychosocial risks are managed more effectively.

This study had the benefit of hearing from lawyers who worked in organisations making a concerted effort to address the psychosocial risks they face. Two of the organisations involved in this study were demonstrating flexibility and adaptability and had made many of the changes recommended in this paper. These participants reported that measures such as supervision from a mental health professional were tremendously helpful. It was clear that the staff noticed the difference from previous workplaces and were excited about the direction their organisation was moving in. One participant even talked about how the support had helped her resensitise in her work with clients and heal from previous experiences. These organisations are demonstrating change is possible in the sector despite the restrictions in funding and crisis in retention. These agents of change are beacons of light for the broader profession.

Limitations and future research directions

The qualitative design of this study means the results are limited in terms of whose voice is represented. This makes it difficult to generalise the results to a larger population. Future research could be complemented by mixed methods using surveys and so on and ensuring participants represent the breath and diversity of organisations in the sector. There were also limitations on the researcher’s ability to invite all lawyers working in the field to participate. Future research could use stratified sampling to capture equal number of participants from different states, experience levels, and so on. It would also be helpful for the sector to conduct its own survey of the psychosocial risks that exist across the sector. These data could then be used in funding applications to ensure organisations are able to fund supportive measures such as supervision by suitably qualified mental health professionals such as psychologists.

In terms of future research, the field needs an empirically validated trauma-informed model to provide practical guidance for managers. Related fields, such as correctional care, have demonstrated benefits of trauma-informed practice in bringing about a culture of safety (Miller & Najavits, 2012). It also needs to consider how good management in the sector goes beyond being trauma informed and managing risks, it is about doing what is possible to ensure the wellbeing of employees, not just to manage legal risk, but to be able to retain staff and ensure they can provide the best service possible to clients.

In the research compassion is identified as a protective factor (Gilbert, 2005; James, 2020, p. 282). Cooke (2022) discussed how shared values around social justice can facilitate a sense of collectivism when staff work through precarious conditions together. Participants in this study noted that having their good work acknowledged and being able to do work that was meaningful both had a mitigating effect of work stress. The field would benefit from an exploration of other factors that are protective for lawyers in the sector.

Conclusion

Participants in this study were clear that significant changes need to be made across the sector to ensure the wellbeing of lawyers. However, it seems from the literature, and this study, that the legal profession is only just starting to come to terms with what lawyers’ psychosocial needs might be, let alone be prepared to manage these risks. Whilst the literature and participants of this study noted the efficacy of various measures to address risks, this study identified the necessity for employers to conduct their own risk assessment, to have adequate policies and procedures and reporting mechanisms and other strategies such as training and professional support for employees and managers. There was also a need for accountability. It is no longer enough to recognise the profession’s mental health crisis and put in a few strategies; employers need to hold themselves accountable when lawyers continue to suffer in their workplace. Participants here highlight that employees already have great suggestions for what can be done. Organisations just need to start listening and working collaboratively to bring about the change needed to sustain the good work being done in the sector.

Funding Statement

Neither of the authors received funding for this project. The School of Psychological Sciences, School of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania provided $300 for participant incentives. This was randomly given to three participants in the form of $100 e-gift-cards.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Clare Pike has declared no conflicts of interest.

Elly Quinlan has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Tasmania Human Research Ethics Committee (4 August 2023, Project ID: 29309), and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.