For generations, the legal profession in the United States has drawn individuals who are driven not merely by intellectual rigor or financial success, but by a deeply rooted belief in the rule of law and the protection of individual rights against governmental overreach. Many attorneys have chosen law school and subsequent legal practice as a means to uphold constitutional values, advance civil liberties, and promote justice. These commitments have served as both professional motivators and moral anchors. Yet, in today’s rapidly evolving political climate—marked by a pronounced shift in power toward the executive branch and the increasing subordination of constitutional norms—many attorneys find themselves experiencing a profound and destabilizing psychological dissonance. The constitutional order they swore to defend appears to be fading into abstraction, replaced by authoritarian posturing, judicial retrenchment, and eroding institutional checks and balances.
This article explores the psychological toll of this transformation on the legal profession. It argues that what many attorneys are experiencing is not mere political disillusionment, but a form of collective grief. Understanding this grief—and creating supportive structures to process it—is essential not only for the mental health of individual practitioners but also for the continued viability of the legal profession as an agent of positive societal change.
The Attorney’s Identity and Constitutional Idealism
The legal identity of many attorneys—particularly those drawn to constitutional, civil rights, and public interest law—is deeply intertwined with the American legal system’s aspirational ideals. The Constitution has long been portrayed as a safeguard against tyranny, a bulwark for personal liberty, and a moral compass for the state. For such attorneys, the practice of law has represented an opportunity to align one’s daily work with the pursuit of justice. The promise of courts as neutral arbiters and of judicial review as a constraint on executive power has undergirded both legal theory and professional ethos.
Recent developments—ranging from Supreme Court retrenchments on voting and reproductive rights, to broad immunities granted to executive actors, to an increasingly emboldened use of federal power untethered from legislative accountability—have shattered the presumed permanence of these ideals. The legal system, once seen as a channel for social progress, now appears to many attorneys as a co-opted or impotent structure. This loss is not just intellectual; it is deeply emotional, existential, and psychological.
Grief as a Framework for Understanding Attorney Response
Grief is typically understood as a response to personal loss—of a loved one, a relationship, or a cherished ideal. But collective grief, especially in response to the erosion of democratic norms, is no less potent. Many attorneys today are moving through classic stages of grief as articulated by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. These stages do not necessarily occur linearly but serve as a heuristic to understand attorneys’ internal struggles.
A. Denial
Initially, many attorneys may respond with disbelief or minimization. Judicial rulings that dismantle decades of precedent may be seen as aberrations. Authoritarian executive conduct is rationalized as political theater. The legal mind, trained to cling to precedent and reason, may resist acknowledging a systemic and potentially irreversible change.
B. Anger
As denial erodes, it is often replaced by righteous anger. Attorneys may direct this at political actors, courts, clients, or even themselves for failing to anticipate or forestall constitutional degradation. This stage can manifest in burnout, cynicism, or adversarial rigidity that erodes collegial relationships and professional satisfaction.
C. Bargaining
Here, attorneys may cling to the belief that institutional checks will eventually reassert themselves—that if they just file the right lawsuit, lobby the right official, or win the next election, the balance of power will restore itself. While productive in some contexts, this mindset may obscure the depth of structural changes already underway.
D. Depression
When those efforts fall short or fail to yield tangible results, despair may set in. Attorneys may experience hopelessness, questioning the value of their work and the purpose of their careers. Depression in this context is not simply a chemical imbalance, but a spiritual injury: a sense of betrayal by the very system they have upheld.
E. Acceptance
Finally, with support and introspection, some attorneys may arrive at a state of sober acceptance. Acceptance does not mean resignation or moral relativism. Rather, it entails a clear-eyed recognition of the current reality, and a shift in focus from restoring a lost past to imagining and constructing new, viable strategies for the future.
Group Support as a Pathway to Acceptance
Attorneys, by training, are conditioned to privilege reason over emotion and to present as composed, competent, and controlled. This professional posture often leaves little room for emotional vulnerability or communal grieving. Yet, in this moment of constitutional crisis, it is precisely this vulnerability that needs honoring. Attorneys should be encouraged to seek out spaces to explore and express these complex emotions—particularly within communities of peers who understand the depth of the loss.
Group counseling tailored to attorneys, such as the offerings available at https://therapyforlawyers.com/therapy-group-for-attorneys/, can provide an invaluable forum for collective processing. Such groups allow attorneys to share experiences, normalize grief responses, and begin the work of constructing meaning from disruption. The presence of others who are struggling similarly can diminish the sense of isolation and shame that often accompany these emotions.
The Role of Law Firms: Creating Space for Collective Processing
Law firms and legal institutions have a critical role to play in supporting attorneys through this period of adjustment. Ignoring or minimizing the psychological impact of these societal shifts not only undermines attorney well-being but also threatens morale, retention, and professional engagement. Progressive firms can create dedicated spaces for attorneys to reflect on and discuss these changes—whether through in-house counseling initiatives, wellness programs, facilitated discussion circles, or partnerships with therapist groups focused on attorneys.
Such efforts are not ancillary to legal work; they are essential. When attorneys are afforded the space to grieve and recalibrate, they are more likely to rediscover purpose, remain resilient, and contribute meaningfully to evolving legal strategies that respond to authoritarian drift.
Conclusion: Toward a New Legal Imagination
The erosion of constitutional constraints on executive power marks a seismic shift in American legal culture. For attorneys who have built their professional identities on the promise of constitutional order, this shift is not merely political—it is personal and psychological. To navigate this era effectively, attorneys must be given the tools and support to grieve, to connect, and to reimagine their role in a transformed landscape.
Acceptance does not mean acquiescence. Rather, it is the foundation upon which attorneys can begin to construct new approaches to advocacy—ones that are rooted in present realities rather than nostalgic ideals. Through collective processing and emotional resilience, the legal profession can rise not simply in defense of a fading past, but in service of a more adaptive and enduring future.
