“I can’t meet for supervision Monday. It’s my birthday. I don’t work on my birthday.”
“Can we move our weekly supervision time? My therapist changed my therapy slot.”
“I can’t wear a suit to court. Suits are colonialist and capitalist. My clothing is an expression of my identity that I won’t compromise on.”
“I’m happy to check e-mail and acknowledge receipt on weekends, but unless it’s an emergency, I’ll do clinic work during the week.”
“Please don’t assign me to that case. I survived sexual violence. I can’t represent that person.”
Which examples constitute appropriate self-care for building resiliency necessary for sustained advocacy? Which do not? How do we navigate these questions and promote self-care in settings where significant client interests are at stake?
Many students aspire to dismantle the criminal system. But representing indigent clients in an oppressive system—let alone dismantling it—takes effort and sacrifice, and exacts an emotional toll. Meanwhile, criminal clinics and defender offices champion client-centered lawyering, which students and new lawyers often interpret as an expectation that they prioritize client work above all else, including self-care. As more students aspire to dismantle systems, more also desire self-care. Self-care can mean less time devoted to cases, transfer strain to others, and create unrealistic expectations of legal work that yield career disappointments or set students up to be to be poor performers.
For some, clinic work is personal. They have suffered direct traumas—police contact, sexual assault, climate disaster, death of loved ones, food insecurity, or houselessness. For others, clinic is just another class. Some may describe as “traumatic” what we might call eye-opening exposure to racism and poverty. Students experience emotional burdens and seek self-care differently.
How do we teach “self-care” and client-centered advocacy to serve both students and clients? This session aims to unpack these tensions.