L
LilyM
Guest
The flip side is that an employer who is aware of drug, alcohol or other issues that are seriously effecting employees’ job performance, and does nothing about it, runs a risk of being sued for malpractice by a disgruntled client.LilyM:
In the United States, if you proposed this, you would immediately have a bazillion lawyers filing lawsuits and protesting it as an infringement of their rights.I have often thought that regular checks of mental as well as physical wellbeing should be compulsory in professions like law - maybe require them as part of obtaining professional insurance.
There is a very, very real probability that legal employers would use the results of these checks as reasons to “lay people off” or “tell people they don’t have a future at this firm” (you pretty much have to commit a felony to get outright fired from a lot of places as they do not want to give you ammo for a lawsuit) and it would deter those who need help from seeking it. Lawyers not seeking help for substance abuse, depression, etc. is a problem the bar has been trying to address for some years and encourage them to get help. Making them pass a compulsory mental check to get insurance is going to have the exact opposite effect.
It’s a matter of damned if they do and damned if they don’t, and a question of which is the more damning. Especially now litigation, at least in the US, appears to involve increasingly higher stakes for clients.