by Kristin L. Yokomoto and Kenneth T. Little
“To be a good lawyer, one has to be a healthy lawyer.” Nat’l Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being, the Path to Lawyer Well-Being: Practical Recommendations for Positive Change, Introduction 2 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2017) (the “2017 Report”). The 2017 Report defines “well-being” as “a continuous process whereby lawyers seek to thrive in each of the following areas: emotional health, occupational pursuits, creative or intellectual endeavors, sense of spirituality or greater purpose in life, physical health, and social connections with others.” Id. at 9. The 2017 Report emphasizes that the concept of well-being is not limited to the absence of illness or feeling happy all the time, but rather is multi-dimensional and includes engaging in interesting activities, having close relationships, developing confidence through mastery, achieving goals, self-acceptance, and personal growth. The 2017 Report makes the point that “lawyer well-being influences ethics and professionalism.” Id. at 8.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS A 2016 study funded by the American Bar Association and the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation found that of the 12,825 nationwide attorneys who participated, between 21 and 36% qualified as problem drinkers and approximately 28% were struggling with depression, 19% with anxiety, and 23% with stress. Patrick R. Krill, Ryan Johnson & Linda Albert, The Prevalence of Substance Use and Other Mental Health Concerns Among American Attorneys, 7(1) J. Addict. Med. 5, 8 (2016) (the “2016 Study”). The 2017 Report found that potentially 40 to 70% of the nationwide disciplinary proceedings and malpractice claims against attorneys involve substance abuse, depression, or both. 2017 Report, supra at 8 (citing D.B. Marlowe, Alcoholism, Symptoms, Causes & Treatments, Stress Management for Lawyers 104-130 (Amiram Elwork ed., 2d ed., 1997)), which suggests a correlation between substance abuse and mental health issues, on the one hand, and ethical violations and mistakes, on the other hand.
In a 2021 study of 2,863 attorneys licensed in California and Washington, D.C., over 80% reported being current drinkers (10% higher than general population), 30% screened positive for high-risk hazardous drinking, and 2% reported being diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder. Additionally, 5.2% of women and 4.2% of men had symptoms indicating moderately severe depression; 8.4% of the women and 4.5% of the men reported severe anxiety; and 37.5% of the women and 30.1% of the men reported high effort-reward imbalances (meaning the reward did not match the attorney’s expended effort). Justin Anker & Patrick R. Krill, Stress, Drink, Leave: An Examination of Gender-Specific Risk Factors for Mental Health Problems and Attrition Among Licensed Attorneys, Plos One (May 12, 2021), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250563. The State Bar of California sent an email to licensed attorneys on July 11, 2025, announcing that it will be participating in a new nationwide project to, among other things, assess current substance abuse and mental health problems and identify what can be done to improve attorney well-being.
Other mental health conditions, such as compulsive gambling, can lead to an attorney unlawfully using client funds in violation of the ethical rules. Peter Bora, Attorney Mental Health and Wellbeing: Navigating Professional and Ethical Issues Caused by Alcohol, Substance Abuse and Gambling, at 18:10 (Apex CLE), https://www.apexcle.com/courses/656. Sex addiction, defined as a chronic brain disorder and usually well-hidden, can be especially problematic if an attorney has an intimate relationship with a client. Anne Chambers & Anne McDonald, Substance and Other Addictions in the Legal Profession, The Missouri Bar, https://mobar.org/site/content/Articles/Addiction/Addictions.aspx (last visited July 13, 2025). While in California there is an absolute prohibition on sex with a client who is not the attorney’s spouse or registered domestic partner, unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the attorney-client relationship commenced, Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.8.10, some sexual abuse disciplinary cases in other states have resulted in perceived light consequences. However, there is a developing attitude toward imposing harsher consequences. See Gillian R. Chadwick, Time’s Up for Attorney-Client Sexual Violence, 22 U. Md. L.J. Race Relig. Gender & Class 76 (2022). Lastly, while eating disorders may rarely cause disciplinary issues, they can cause significant impairment in social, occupational, and other areas of functioning. Inside Out Inst. for Eating Disorders, DSM- 5 Diagnostic Criteria for Eating Disorders, https://insideoutinstitute.org.au/assets/dsm-5%20criteria.pdf (last visited July 12, 2025).
LEGAL ETHICS An attorney’s substance abuse or mental health condition can greatly impact an attorney’s ability, wherewithal, and care to comply with the California Rules of Professional Conduct (CRPC). Additionally, one attorney’s impairment can create ethical responsibilities for colleagues working in the same law firm, thereby also subjecting them to potential discipline.
CRPC 1.1(a) requires an attorney to perform legal services with competence. CRPC 1.1(b) thoughtfully provides that to perform competently, attorneys not only need to possess the learning and skill required, but also the mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the representation. This is not the case for other states’ competence rule. As such, there are advocates in other states who recommend that their competence rule be expanded to mirror California’s. If an attorney’s mental or emotional state renders the attorney unable to evaluate legal positions or provide sound advice, then CRPC 1.16(a)(3) may require such attorney to decline representing the prospective client or withdraw from an active client representation.
CRPC 1.3(a) and (b) obligate an attorney to perform with reasonable diligence, meaning an attorney must act with commitment and dedication and not neglect or delay. CRPC 1.4(a)(1) requires attorneys to promptly communicate with clients of any decision or circumstance for which disclosure or consent is required. CRPC 1.4(b) requires an attorney to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary for a client to make informed decisions. CRPC 1.4(a)(3) and Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(m) require an attorney to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments. If an attorney fails to promptly communicate with a client, misunderstandings and mistakes may happen. Jean Cha, Lawyer Wellness and Ethics Go Hand in Hand, American Bar Assoc. (Nov. 16, 2023), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/ethics-professionalism/lawyer-wellness-ethics-go-hand-hand/. In addition, truthfulness in client communications is pivotal, and attorneys must disclose all facts and circumstances that enable a client to make intelligent decisions.
The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has opined that attorneys have an ethical obligation under the duties of competence, diligence, and communication to engage in succession planning if an attorney will not be able to continue to provide continuous services to clients due to impairment or otherwise. See Cal. Bar Formal Op. 2024-209 (2024).
CRPC 1.6 requires an attorney to protect client information and prohibits an attorney from revealing information protected by Bus. & Prof. Code §6068(e)(1) without the client’s consent. CRPC 1.7 provides that an attorney shall not represent a client if there is a significant risk the representation could be materially limited by the attorney’s own interest, unless the client provides informed written consent. An attorney’s mental health can create a conflict with a client if the attorney is under financial pressure or has a gambling issue.
CRPC 3.3 prohibits an attorney from (i) knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a court, (ii) failing to disclose to the court adverse legal authority to the position of the client not disclosed by opposing counsel, and (iii) offering evidence that the attorney knows to be false. CRPC 3.4 provides that an attorney shall not (i) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence including a witness or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value, (ii) suppress any evidence that the attorney or the attorney’s client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce, (iii) falsify evidence, counsel, or assist a witness to testify falsely, or (iv) assert personal knowledge of facts at trial (except when testifying as a witness).
CRPC 5.1 requires attorneys in a firm to make reasonable efforts to ensure all attorneys in a law firm comply with the CRPC and the State Bar Act. An attorney with direct authority over another is responsible to ensure the other attorney also complies. An attorney will be responsible for another attorney’s violation if the attorney is involved in the conduct or has managerial authority over the attorney and knows of the conduct and fails take reasonable remedial action. CRPC 5.2 provides that a subordinate attorney who acts at the direction of another attorney shall nonetheless comply with the CRPC and the State Bar Act and is not deemed to have violated the CRPC if that attorney acts in accordance with a supervisory attorney’s reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty. However, if the subordinate attorney believes that a supervisor’s proposed resolution would violate the CRPC or the State Bar Act, the subordinate is obligated to communicate his or her professional judgment regarding the matter to the supervisory attorney. See Cal. Bar Formal Op. 2021-206 (2021) (updated Nov. 14, 2024).
Effective as of August 1, 2023, CRPC 8.3(a)(c) and (d) require an attorney to report another attorney to The State Bar of California or an appropriate tribunal if the attorney knows of credible evidence that other attorney committed a criminal act or engaged in conduct that raises a substantial question as to that attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney. CRPC 8.4 provides that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to (i) knowingly violate the CRPC or the State Bar Act, (ii) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney, (iii) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation, (iv) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, (v) state or imply an ability to improperly influence a government agency or official, and (vi) knowingly assist, solicit, or induce a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of an applicable code of judicial ethics, code of judicial conduct, or other law.
To increase public confidence in the legal system, attorneys must comply with the CRPC; act with mental, emotional, and physical competence; keep clients’ information confidential; be diligent, timely and reliable; honor commitments; act with integrity and trustworthiness; treat others with respect; listen actively; and generally have a strong work ethic. Attorneys who miss deadlines, produce sub-par work, lack communication with clients, fail to advocate for client’s interests, falsify and leave out information, or make mistakes need to consider declining new matters and withdraw from existing matters. Janet Van Cuyk, The Intersection of Ethics, Competence, and Lawyers’ Well-Being, CLE Stress, Competence, and Wellness - 2022 Written Materials, https://www.vawb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CLE%20Stress,%20Competence,%20and%20Wellness%20-%202022%20Written%20Materials.pdf (last visited July 12, 2025).
CIVILITY Attorneys who are suffering from alcohol, substance abuse, or mental disorders may be more likely to act uncivil, rude, and impatient with other attorneys and clients. As Patrick Krill has explained, “Well-being can be seen as an antidote to incivility.” Christopher Nichols, Attorney Wellness as an Antidote to Incivility in the Legal Profession, Blawg 401 (May 22, 2024), https://blawg401.com/attorney-wellness-as-an-antidote-to-incivility-in-the-legal-profession/. Civility among attorneys has been transitioning from being encouraged to required. Since 2014, newly admitted attorneys are required to pledge: “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.” Cal. R. Court 9.7. Currently, there is a proposed amendment to Rule 9.7 to require all active licensees to take this civility pledge once a year, and a proposed new Rule 8.1.2, which, if adopted, will expressly prohibit attorneys from engaging in incivility, creating a path to disciplining incivility. See Kristin L. Yokomoto, Ethically Speaking: Will Attorneys Soon Be Subject to Discipline for Incivility?, Orange County Lawyer, Feb. 2023, at 56.
JUDGES Similar to attorneys, judges must comply with the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which consists of six canons that govern their conduct, on and off the bench. For illustration, Canon 1 requires a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and Canon 3 requires a judge to perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently. See Cal. Code of Jud. Ethics. As seen in a recent jury decision on April 22, 2025, former Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson was convicted of second-degree murder for killing his wife. During trial, the prosecutor took the position that he was drunk at the time he killed his wife. It was advanced that he drank alcohol at lunch and then returned to the bench. Accordingly, the Orange County District Attorney’s office will be conducting investigations into the former judge’s cases. Phil Helsel, Southern California Judge Found Guilty of Fatally Shooting Wife, U.S. News (Apr. 22, 2025,), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/southern-california-judge-found-guilty-fatally-shooting-wife-rcna202500.
AWARENESS AND PREVENTION Due to the increasing prevalence of substance abuse and incivility, as of 2025, California attorneys are required to fulfill new Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements, which includes one hour of Competence on Prevention and Detection, one hour of Competence on Wellness, and one hour on Civility. While failure to comply with the CRPC may result in discipline, discipline itself generally does not make an ill attorney well. Therefore, the 2017 Report recommends that regulators adopt alternative options that would provide paths for attorneys to rehabilitate. For helpful resources, visit the State Bar of California Legal Assistance Program at www.calbar.ca.gov/LAP. Striving for attorney well-being is essential to keeping attorneys safe, maintaining public confidence in the justice system, and fulfilling the legal profession’s values of professionalism and compassion.
Kristin L. Yokomotois a partner of Baker & Hostetler LLP in Costa Mesa, California. She is a member of the OCBA’s Professionalism & Ethics Committee and can be reached at kyokomoto@bakerlaw.com. Kenneth T. Little is an associate of Baker & Hostetler LLP in Costa Mesa, California. He is admitted to practice in Illinois and can be reached at klittle@bakerlaw.com. The authors thank Marlee K. Grant 2025 summer associate of Baker & Hostetler LLP, for providing The Bluebook citations. The views expressed herein are the authors’ own.