This year’s summer solstice has passed, and the Fourth of July weekend has come and gone. Have you taken – or at least planned – a vacation yet this year? For many lawyers, the answer appears to be “no.” An American Lawyer 2025 survey of 3,000 lawyers revealed that while about 36% said they use all their vacation time, 10% of lawyers said they take no time off at all. A 2024 survey conducted by Law360 Pulse found that more than 20% of lawyers planned to take one week or less vacation that year. Associates were even less likely to take time off: almost one-third reported they planned to take a week or less vacation time.
Why does this matter? Because the aforementioned studies also assessed lawyer mental health generally, and confirmed what we have known officially since 2017 when the ABA National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being issued its report: lawyers suffer from high amounts of stress that take a big toll on our physical and mental health, potentially leading to cardiac disorders, burnout, depression, anxiety disorders, or substance abuse. Chronic stress was reported by 38% of lawyers overall (and 47% of women lawyers) in the Law360 Pulse survey. Fifty-six percent of lawyers working more than 50 hours per week reported chronic stress. Although our awareness of the impact of stress on lawyer mental health has improved in the eight years since the ABA report, implementation of helpful policies to moderate stress has been slow.
So why don’t lawyers take more time off? Sadly, the culture at many firms tends to discourage or even penalize time off. Forty-seven percent of those surveyed by the American Lawyer said that their manager discouraged taking time off. One attorney reported that they didn’t want to go on vacation and have the firm see them as replaceable. Many lawyers cited pressure to make billable hours goals, client demands, not wanting to have work piling up while they’re gone, or a firm culture of being online 24/7 as preventing them from taking vacation time. Although associates may believe they can take some time off when they make partner, the extra demands of partnership may make taking time off an even bigger challenge.
While it is tempting to say that it is good for clients and for the legal profession to have lawyers available 24/7 for their clients, it is only a good thing if those lawyers are consistently at the top of their game. Probably this is not the case. Chronic stress has been shown to impair working memory, concentration, problem-solving ability, efficiency, social skills, and creativity – all skills necessary for good lawyering. Our brains need rest and relaxation to function properly over time, and vacations are a good way to interrupt chronic stress, relieve monotony, and let our brains reset, according to Susan Albers, PsyD, of the Cleveland Clinic. Vacations can decrease stress hormones like cortisol, and trigger release of hormones like serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins, all of which contribute to a better mood, a sense of well-being, and improved cognitive function. Although a week or more off is ideal, even a day or two of leisure time can make a positive difference.
It will be difficult to shift the culture of the legal profession in a way that normalizes taking time off to rest and rejuvenate. But lawyers are logical people, and for the most part we have our clients’ best interests at heart. As the evidence accumulates that leisure time is essential to mental health and optimum brain function, we need to spread the word, take some time off, and encourage our colleagues to rest as well. It’s in everyone’s best interests.
Nothing is more important to us at Marquette University Law School than preparing students for the practice of law. Legal education is our mission, and we work every day to serve it. Whether through teaching in fundamental subject areas, responding to new developments in the law, connecting students with the profession, or all of the myriad ways that we encourage the growth of the whole person, student development is our North Star. This is no small project: As all Marquette law students and Marquette lawyers know, the law is ever increasing in its scope and complexity, and the knowledge, skills, and values required for practice are substantial. We would like to do more; the three years we have with students are chock-full.
One way that Marquette Law School contributes to students’ practice readiness is through our program of experiential education, including our workshops, field placements, and clinics. We work hard at these curricular offerings and are proud of our program, including the fact that Marquette law students frequently exceed the current requirement that they take 6 credits of experiential classes.
So I would like to outline why I have submitted comments to our accreditor, at the American Bar Association, vigorously objecting to the proposal to mandate a doubling of the number of experiential-learning credits that each law student would be required to earn. The accreditor has not provided a sufficient reason for mandating such a substantial and costly revision of the upper-level curriculum of law schools—especially considering that the impact on other parts of law schools’ missions could be significant.
. . . . The proposed revisions to the Standards, doubling to 12 the number of experiential-learning credits that each law student must earn and therefore that every law school must provide to every student, should be withdrawn. The basis for this conclusion should not be mistaken. Marquette University Law School shares the widespread view that simulations, clinics, and field placements are valuable in legal education. Indeed, many of our law students routinely exceed the requirements of the current Standards. Marquette Law School works hard at and takes great pride in its experiential program, whose contours and features serve our communities impressively.
Yet the Council’s proposal would mandate a startling redirection of resources. Given the integrated nature of a program of legal education, the proposal would constitute an unprecedented invasion into the upper-level curricula of law schools, diminish substantially the schools’ appropriate autonomy, and impair their ability to innovate and to adapt their programs to local needs and institutional missions—all at a time of other extraordinary pressures on legal education. More succinctly and concretely: The proposal ignores the curricular tradeoffs that will necessarily result for schools and students and dismisses the likely financial costs of the new requirements.
The proposal’s apparent general animating philosophy—which has scant regard for the precept that accreditation standards are intended to establish minimum requirements for “adequate” education while protecting each school’s leading role in defining its own educational program—is regrettable enough. More specifically objectionable is that the proposal to double the current minimum requirement of experiential-learning credits lacks adequate evidentiary support. Valuable though experiential education is, a “more is better” approach to its requirement is not adequately supported in the proposal—notwithstanding the observation that other, very different professions, with different educational pathways, have more experiential education. Given the weak evidentiary basis for increasing the number of mandatory experiential-learning credits, the absence of a rigorous (or really any) cost-benefit analysis should prompt the proposal’s withdrawal..
The Marquette Law School poll has conducted multiple national polls of opinion on cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in the October 2024 term. This post shows this results for cases that have been decided or are still pending. Additional polling will be conducted in July following the end of the term.
Links to SCOTUSBlog page for each case provide more details of the cases.
Classified documents
A federal judge in Florida has dismissed the case charging Trump with illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government efforts to recover the documents. The judge ruled that the appointment of the special counsel violated the Constitution. Do you favor or oppose this ruling?
In January the Supreme Court upheld a law requiring the social media app TikTok, which is owned by a Chinese company, to be sold or banned in the U.S. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
In January the Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump’s request to halt his criminal sentencing in New York where he was convicted in May on 34 felony counts, allowing sentencing to proceed. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
In January the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a Texas law meant to prevent minors from accessing sexual materials on the internet, through a requirement that adults prove they are 18 or over by submitting government-issued IDs in order to access sexually oriented websites. Do you think the court should uphold this law or strike it down for infringing on the rights of adults?
[In March, the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s request to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, sending the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.] How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
[In March, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was entitled to impose specific requirements on permit holders to prevent pollution but not to make the permit holders responsible simply because water quality has fallen below the agency’s standards.] How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
[In April, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case asking whether a state that generally funds charter schools as alternatives to traditional public schools may refuse to fund a charter school simply because it is explicitly religious.] How do you think the Court should rule?
Poll dates
The state may refuse to fund the religious charter school
The state is required to fund a religious charter school
3/17-27/25
57
43
Party ID
Poll dates
The state may refuse to fund the religious charter school
The state is required to fund a religious charter school
[In December, the Supreme Court heard arguments challenging a Tennessee law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medication or performing gender transition surgery for youth under 18.] How do you think the Court should rule?
Poll dates
Uphold the Tennessee law
Overturn the law
3/17-27/25
72
27
5/5-15/25
70
30
Party ID
Poll dates
Uphold the Tennessee law
Overturn the law
Republican
3/17-27/25
90
10
Republican
5/5-15/25
92
8
Independent
3/17-27/25
79
21
Independent
5/5-15/25
73
27
Democrat
3/17-27/25
52
48
Democrat
5/5-15/25
44
56
Trump administration must facilitate return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
In April, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law requires the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a man erroneously deported to El Salvador. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
In April, the Supreme Court said that those the administration is seeking to deport under the Alien Enemies Act must receive notice that they are subject to deportation within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek court review before such deportation occurs. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?
In April, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case asking whether parents of elementary school students should be able to opt their children out of reading classes concerning stories about LGBTQ+ characters, if those stories conflict with the families’ religious beliefs. How do you think the Court should rule?
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule — which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim — cannot be squared with either the text of Title VII or the Supreme Court’s precedents.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Jackson on June 5, 2025. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
Holding: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars the lawsuit.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 5, 2025. Justices Thomas and Jackson filed concurring opinions.
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s moment-of-threat rule — a framework for evaluating police shootings which requires a court to look only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot — improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis of police use of force.
Judgment: Vacated and Remanded , 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on May 15, 2025. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett joined.
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in setting aside as arbitrary and capricious the FDA’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products pursuant to The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009; the 5th Circuit also relied on an incorrect standard to reject the FDA’s claim of harmless error regarding the agency’s failure to consider marketing plans submitted by respondents.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on April 2, 2025. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
Emergency application for stay is granted on Aug. 8, 2023. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would deny the application for stay.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas baring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from enforcing a 2022 rule regulating “ghost guns” as firearms.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts’ nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.
Issue: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature”s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.
