A client describes a situation that is steadily making life worse. Every attempt to improve it has failed. There are alternatives, but each carries a cost. The client rejects them all and returns to describing how intolerable the situation has become.

At some point, you would ask what the client is prepared to do differently.

Now imagine that you are the client. Would you accept from yourself the reasoning you would challenge in someone sitting across your desk?

After 56 years of practising law, I still enjoy helping clients work through difficult decisions. That process requires facts, an examination of alternatives and a willingness to confront consequences. Those same disciplines deserve a place in decisions about our own working lives.

In my previous article, I argued that lawyers experiencing harmful working conditions must examine their responsibility for implementing change. Here is a way to begin: put yourself across the desk and ask, “What would I advise this client?”

Consider the client’s circumstances

Take a hypothetical example. A lawyer earns a substantial salary at a firm whose demands regularly consume evenings and weekends. Requests for a more manageable workload have produced sympathetic words and no lasting adjustment. The lawyer is exhausted, has little time for family and increasingly dreads the working week.

The lawyer has a mortgage, children and other financial commitments. Leaving without another position would be imprudent. A different job might pay less and offer less prestige.

Asked about alternatives, the lawyer says, “I cannot afford to leave.”

Would you regard that statement as the conclusion of your inquiry? Or would you ask to see the figures?

You would want to know the household’s essential expenses, debts, savings and other income. You would distinguish commitments that must be honoured from spending that could be reduced. You would ask whether other positions had actually been investigated, what they paid and what their working conditions involved.

You would also ask how long the present arrangement could reasonably continue. Staying has consequences that belong in the assessment alongside the consequences of leaving.

Until those questions have been answered, “I cannot afford to leave” is an assertion to investigate. It is an inadequate foundation for deciding the next several years of a life.

Demand evidence for the assumptions

Suppose the lawyer says, “Another year will make all the difference. The firm will appreciate what I have contributed.”

What supports that expectation? Has management agreed to something specific? Is there a date, a measurable change or a credible commitment? Or is another year being offered in exchange for another hope?

You would not advise a client to rely indefinitely on assurances repeatedly contradicted by experience. Apply the same standard to yourself. A firm’s conduct is evidence. Your wish that it will behave differently is a reason to ask questions, not an answer to them.

Next comes, “My family would never accept a reduction in income.”

Has the family been consulted? Have they seen a realistic comparison of the alternatives? Do they understand what maintaining the present income requires? Have you listened to their concerns as carefully as you expect them to listen to yours?

If there is genuine disagreement, it must be addressed. If the conversation has never occurred, you are relying on an assumption about someone else’s decision to avoid making your own.

Then consider, “Leaving would mean that I had failed.”

Failed at what? Remaining indefinitely in a particular firm? Earning more each year? Meeting expectations you never consciously agreed should govern your life?

Would you tell a client that continuing an arrangement that no longer serves its purpose is necessary to preserve the appearance of success? Professional standing matters, but so does the life that standing is supposed to support.

Make a recommendation you could defend

Good advice takes real constraints seriously. A lawyer supporting dependants and carrying debt may need months to make a responsible transition. The advice may be to remain employed while reducing expenses, investigating opportunities and arranging support.

But specify what those months are for. What must be accomplished? By when? What evidence would justify staying longer? What would make an earlier departure necessary?

There is a substantial difference between staying to carry out a plan and staying because you will not make one.

Nor should you assume that changing firms will resolve every difficulty. If the hypothetical lawyer accepts every assignment, refuses to delegate and treats every request as urgent, those habits also need attention. Your recommendation should address the whole problem, including the part the client brings to it.

You may need outside judgment yourself. A trusted colleague can challenge your assumptions; an appropriate adviser can help with financial questions; a clinician or lawyer assistance program can help where health or substance use is involved. Taking responsibility includes recognizing when your own assessment needs assistance.

Put the advice into instructions

Before leaving this exercise, write down the advice you would give. Keep it specific enough that someone could tell whether it had been followed.

For our hypothetical lawyer, that might mean preparing a household budget this week, investigating two realistic employment alternatives within a month and setting a date to review the results. A further request to the firm should identify the adjustment needed and when an answer is required. If departure becomes the decision, plan the transition and explain the reasons professionally, with judgment about timing and circumstances.

Your own instructions will depend on your facts. The essential requirement is that they lead to observable action. “I will think about my options” leaves ample room for another year to pass. Arranging a conversation, collecting figures or submitting an application produces something you can assess.

Now read your written advice as the client. Which instruction are you resisting, and why? Is there a relevant fact you omitted from the analysis? Correct it. Is the proposed step impractical? Find a workable one. Does it simply require a sacrifice you dislike? Acknowledge that honestly and weigh it against the sacrifice involved in continuing.

You remain entitled to choose to stay. You should be able to explain what that choice serves, what it costs and when you will reconsider it.

The exercise will not make a difficult decision painless. It can make evasions harder to sustain. You have already identified what you would advise someone whose interests you were engaged to protect.

Why do your own interests deserve less careful attention?

What would you advise the client? What will you do with that advice, and when?