CBA Record May-June 2026

THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION

case, or you arbitrarily predict that negative events will occur because you’re involved in them. 6. Magnification or Minimization: You either blow things out of proportion or shrink their importance. 7. Emotional Reasoning: You reason based on how you feel, e.g., “I feel stupid, so I must really be stupid.” 8. “Should” Statements: You criticize yourself or others with “shoulds,” “oughts,” “musts,” and “have-tos.” 9. Labeling: You tell yourself, “I am a mistake,” “an idiot,” or “a loser,” instead of saying, “I am mistaken.” 10. Personalization and Blame: You blame yourself for some thing you weren’t entirely responsible for, or you blame other people and deny your role in the problem. A Hypothetical Do any of these cognitive distortions feel familiar? Consider a hypothetical and see if you can spot whether this young attorney engages in any from the above list: Earnestine recently started out as a first-year associate attor ney with a nationally recognized insurance defense firm. Her first major assignment is to draft a motion for summary judg ment on a three-count claim. “The court is sure to grant it!” exclaims the lead partner, to whom the case was assigned several months ago after the original partner handling the case unex pectedly left the firm. Earnestine checks the firm’s calendar and notes the dispositive motion deadline—just one week away. One week feels like a short time for drafting a motion for summary judgment on an unfamiliar case, but Earnestine is worried that the partner will think that she is slow and stupid if she suggests that they request an extension from the court. To compound her anxiety, the partner hasn't told her how much time he will need to review her draft. Later that day she goes to his office to ask, but the door’s closed, and his legal assistant doesn’t know the best time to reach him. Earnestine sends a follow-up email. No response. Well, she is sure that a day is enough for him. Earnes tine has plenty of other billable work for the next six days. Four days have passed, and the partner asks to review Earnes tine’s draft. Panicked by her slow progress, Earnestine lets him know she will have a draft for him in the morning. She promptly cancels dinner plans with an old law school friend that evening, telling herself she’ll reschedule it as soon as she finds time. After an all-nighter, she submits the draft motion and spends the next day finalizing it with rounds of edits from the partner. They file right before the deadline. A few months later, the court issues its opinion granting sum mary judgment on only one of the three counts. Another discon certing outcome is a footnote stating the motion was filed a day late: Someone in the firm mis-calendared the deadline, and they were lucky the court did not strike the motion. Earnestine recalls the partner’s earlier words predicting success and feels extremely disappointed. Not only did she not make the deadline, but she could not write a successful motion. Later that day, she stops by

the partner’s office to talk. As soon as he sees her, he closes the door while talking on the phone. How awful, she thinks, sure that she’ll never get work from him again! Earnestine takes the rest of the day off to mope with a glass of red wine and some pasta. She can’t believe she has ruined her career so quickly. Can you spot Earnestine’s cognitive distortions? Quite a few are evident. First, she is quick to blame herself for not winning the motion. The partner was new to the case, too, and may have overestimated how likely a grant of summary judgment would be. Second, she discounts her positive accomplishment of obtaining summary judgment on one count of the complaint— one-third of the plaintiff’s case. Third, she blames herself for the late filing and for the partner’s mood, even though she was not responsible for maintaining the firm calendar, and the partner may have closed his door because he was taking a confidential client call. Finally, she is magnifying: If every partially unsuc cessful summary judgment motion was a career-ender, not many practicing litigators would be left. Can you spot any other poten tially negative coping strategies Earnestine may have used? Dealing with Distortions Now that you can spot cognitive distortions, how can you deal with them? Kaplan outlines some ways that attorneys can dial down negative emotional internal monologues with practice. First, when a negative event occurs, try to frame it as a learning opportunity. Pause and bring your primary attention to a physi cal sensation, such as deep breathing or feeling the sensation in each finger. Then, take a step back to put the negative event in perspective. In five years, what will appear important? With these points in mind, Kaplan recommends that an attorney brainstorm how they could have anticipated, prevented, or mitigated the negative situation. In the hypothetical exam ple, Earnestine could have asked the partner if it was possible to request an extension of the dispositive motion deadline, since they were both new to the case. She also could have checked the court docket to confirm the date of the deadline on the firm’s calendar. Kaplan also recommends that attorneys view a negative event from other people’s perspectives. For example, is this a new client or a client that the firm may be at risk of losing? Does the part ner have an independent book of business? How many partners’ calendars does the legal assistant manage: just this partner, or are there many others? Engaging in this sort of mindfulness practice will help build resilience throughout your legal career. After all, you can’t stop all negative events from occurring, but you can learn to handle them with more ease and flow as they happen—possibly mitigating or preventing them from occurring as your resilience grows.

J. Kopczyk is an attorney with experience in commercial and con struction litigation and serves as Co-Editor of the YLS Journal.

CBA RECORD 37