Going Home? Easier Said Than Done
Admittedly, I haven’t been a member of the D.C. Bar that long (since 2006), and so I haven’t compared too many columns from different Bar presidents. Still, I have been immensely pleased and impressed by all of President Robert J. Spagnoletti’s columns thus far, and now eagerly look forward to his page in Washington Lawyer. One of Spagnoletti’s recent messages (“Go Home,” which ran in the March 2009 issue) was again passionate, poignant, and meaningful, and it has stirred me to express my personal gratitude and appreciation.

His message on the ongoing need for and challenge of “finding the right balance among all the competing parts of life” must ring painfully true for so many of us. (A shame that we see the “parts” of life as not only separate but competing.) Spagnoletti touches a crucial point in noting that to be happy at work, you have to be happy in your whole life, implying that you must have a whole, and thus balanced, life.

I learned the hard way that lack of a whole, balanced life leads quickly to increasing job dissatisfaction, which in turn becomes a cancer eating away at the remains of one’s nonwork life. As an associate in a big law firm in the District of Columbia, I never did find that balance. When it became clear that I never would in that environment, I left the firm—and for a time now, the law.

It is only when the emphasis on balance comes from the top—in a credible way—that change will happen. Today, the emphasis from the top is, as everywhere else in our society, the bottom line. Perhaps this is simply a permanent change. Sure, big law partners might on occasion tell an associate to go home and find some kind of life outside of work. But such talk is not only cheap (in every sense of the word), it is disingenuous. Thus decreed, a “balanced life” becomes only one more assignment piled on top of the associate corps, like one more brief or memo.

The real message is delivered night after night (and on weekends and holidays) when both partners and associates are still in the office, still sending e-mails, and still billing. It is delivered when they are still working even when they are not in the office. It is delivered again and again when bonuses and choice assignments are handed out to top billing associates—associates who are expected to make themselves available night after night (and on weekends and holidays). And it is delivered when associates who don’t meet the firm’s unrealistic, unbalanced billable hours expectations are lectured and let go. The real message is very clear: Work must be your priority. It must come first—every time.

A lawyer cannot meet the simultaneous demands of 2000-plus billable hours, ongoing professional education, and a well-rounded personal and family life while still remaining honest. Something has to go. For those of us unwilling to pad hours or cut corners, it is family life, personal lives, hobbies, or relaxation—and ultimately our health. As Spagnoletti seems to allude, it is our whole (balanced) lives that we sacrifice.

In his words: “There will always be enough work to keep a government lawyer in the office 24 hours a day. But imagine the cost.” Indeed, a sentiment that applies equally to much of private practice. But this cost need not merely be imagined. Look around, inside the walls of so many of our firms and offices. This cost is being paid right here, every day—month after endless month, eating into years and careers. In modern times our profession has been consistently at the top of the charts for stress, substance abuse, job dissatisfaction, depression, divorce, and suicide, among other things. Is it any wonder why? The overbearing focus on work—measured by billable hours and ultimately money—signals a critical imbalance in our priorities. It erodes lives, erases families, and dissolves community. Now, what can we do about it?
—R. L. Lamborn
San Antonio, Texas

Language Access Rights Exist
Upon receiving my copy of the April edition of Washington Lawyer, I delved quickly into Kathryn Alfisi’s timely and compelling cover article, “Language Barriers to Justice.” For the past 14 years, I have headed the Coordination and Review Section (COR) under the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). COR spearheads federal efforts to ensure consistent and effective enforcement of numerous civil rights requirements, including that which requires federal agencies and any entity receiving federal assistance to provide meaningful access for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals.

Your article provided a wealth of information on the need for quality language access services, as well as the challenges, opportunities, and many of the local resources involved in overcoming language barriers. However, the article missed an opportunity to set forth the federal civil rights requirements and enforcement efforts. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance on the basis of national origin. It also requires that reasonable steps be taken to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals. This law applies to DOJ recipients (which include many law enforcement agencies, courts, legal services providers, prosecutors, juvenile justice programs, victims’ services agencies, offender programs, corrections departments, and jails) and all other entities such as hospitals, parks, and housing programs if they receive assistance from the federal government.

In 2002 DOJ issued its “Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons.” This guidance, along with regulations and an array of tools promising practices, publications, plans, LEP settlement agreements, and outreach materials from other federal agencies, can be found on the Web site of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited English Proficiency at www.lep.gov.

COR investigates allegations of failure of DOJ recipients to provide language access consistent with civil rights laws. Individuals or their representatives wishing to obtain technical assistance or training or to file a complaint with our office can obtain information by calling our offices at 202-307-2222 or by visiting our Web site at www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor.
—Merrily A. Friedlander
U.S. Department of Justice

Let Us Hear From You
Washington Lawyer welcomes your letters. Submissions should be directed to Washington Lawyer, District of Columbia Bar, 1101 K Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005-4210. Submissions are also accepted by fax at 202-626-3471 or by e-mail at communications@dcbar.org. Letters may be edited for clarity and space.