Curbing Law Student Depression: Removing the Curve by Paul Hannan

Curbing Law Student Depression: Removing the Curve
Paul Hannan
Sacred Heart University
October 19, 2016
Running head: CURBING LAW STUDENT DEPRESSION 1

Abstract
There is a plethora of extant research evidencing the existence of deleterious elements in this
nation’s legal pedagogy. Yet no studies have succeeded in articulating the precise deleterious
elements at play. Thus, failing to identify these causal elements, it remains unsurprising that few
remedies have been offered to ameliorate these deleterious effects. To fight an enemy we must
know him, elsewise we will find ourselves aiming at the wrong target altogether. This study
believes that the most significant deleterious pedagogical element in today’s legal academy is the
ubiquitous grading curve. We suspect the severe grading curve utilized by all but a few law
schools, where as many as 70% of students are forced to possess a GPA of C+ or less, constitutes
the proverbial straw breaking the law student’s back; the psychological tipping point
precipitating stress-induced clinical depression for nearly half of law students nationwide. As
such, we expect the data collected will support our hypothesis that both law students approaching
graduation and lawyers two years into practice graded without a curve will show statistically
significant reductions in rates of clinical depression in comparison to the curve graded control
group. We further believe that the hypothesis stating there will be a 10 percent reduction in rates
of clinical depression among non-curved graduating law students in comparison to the curved
control group will be significantly realized. Moreover, we expect the hypothesis stating there
will be a 20 percent reduction in instances of clinical depression among non-curved practicing
lawyers two years after graduation, in comparison with the curved control group, will be
statistically supported. These findings, if achieved, will suggest a causal link between the
grading curve used by most law schools and the astonishingly high rates of depression found
among this nation’s law students and young lawyers.
CURBING LAW STUDENT DEPRESSION 2

Curbing Law Student Depression: Removing the Curve
Ever since the release of The Paper Chase (Osborn, 1971), the heightened stress levels
associated with the law school experience have become widely known. Yet few would suspect
that this pedagogical preparation is more stressful than any other graduate school experience
(Benjamin, Kaszniak, & Sales, 1986; Schiltz, 1999; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004), even the stress of
medical school (Sheehy & Horan, 2004). Astonishing to most, however, is that this stress causes
significant psychological injury where psychological health once prevailed. Yet what are the
particular elements of legal pedagogy that prove most stressful? Researchers have yet to explore
this question, let alone ascertain the mischievous deleterious elements at play. The purpose of
this study is to pick up where other researchers have left off. Thus, we seek to explore the causes
of legal pedagogical stress and identify the elements within the legal academy’s approach to
training lawyers that prove most harmful to the human personality.
Literature Review
Much has been written about the consequences of law school student stress (Alfini & Van
Vooren, 1995; Benjamin et al., 1986; Krieger, 1999; McKinney, 2002; Peterson & Peterson,
2009; Seligman, Verkuil, & Kang, 2005; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004; Tani & Vines, 2009) and the
staggering rates of clinical depression, rising toward 50 percent by the time of graduation, which
flow from these heightened stress levels (Agatstein, Arnold, Dempsey, Sonnenfeldt, & Weiss,
2014; Benjamin et al., 1986; Clark, 2015; Mauney, 2012; Schiltz, 1999; Sheldon & Krieger,
2007). Even more astounding, rather than stemming from a student population predisposed to
psychopathology, these high rates of depression derive from a graduate school populace as or
more psychologically robust than any other (Agatstein et al., 2015; Peterson & Peterson, 2007;

Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). Nonetheless, while assertions of psychic harm stand buttressed by a
plethora of scientific literature, social scientists have yet to adequately assess, and thus identify,
elements within the legal academy’s pedagogical approach that prove so deleterious to the
human personality. And while many researchers cursorily presume that the Socratic method
constitutes the most harmful of these elements (Alfini & Van Vooren, 1995; Benjamin et al.,
1986; Krieger, 1999; McKinney, 2002; Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004,
2007; Tani & Vines, 2009), research evidencing an appreciable reduction in the use of that
pedagogical approach precludes this deduction (Kerr,1999). Nevertheless, the Socratic method,
where still in use, remains a considerable source of law student stress (Paul, 2012).
The vast majority of researchers choosing to assess the deleterious effects of the law
school experience have focused their analytical lenses on the question of whether law school is
harmful to the human personality (Agatstein et al., 2014; Alfini & Van Vooren, 1995; Benjamin
et al., 1986; Clark, 2015; Krieger, 1999; Mauney, 2012; McKinney, 2002; Peterson & Peterson,
2009; Schiltz, 1999; Seligman et al., 2005; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007; Tani & Vines, 2009).
Sheldon and Krieger (2004) discuss the many undermining psychological effects of a legal
education today. They do so, however, by assessing resultant student shifts in intrinsic
motivation as opposed to identifying the particular elements of this nation’s legal pedagogy that
prove so deleterious to the human personality (Sheldon & Krieger, 2004). Others have moved
slightly beyond this nascent stage. For instance, Agatstein et al. (2014) looked not only at the
psychopathology generated by law school pedagogy, but considered ways to ameliorate the
resulting psychological distress as well. Notably, Agatstein et al. (2014) recommended an
increase in the availability of mental health practitioners within law schools, while increasing the

quality of these counselors’ care as well. Moreover, after conducting research on the nexus
between clinical depression and the law school experience Peterson and Peterson (2009),
drawing from the wealth of knowledge that positive psychology affords, posited that an
intervention highlighting student strengths would prove efficacious. Further, research conducted
by Sheldon and Krieger (2007) evidenced that a specific type of self-efficacy intervention holds
great promise. Moving one step further, researchers Sheehy and Horan (2004) provided an
intervention designed to inoculate law students from the inevitable stress to come. And while
their sample size was minuscule, the intervention itself, which utilized improved teaching
methods, proved effectual (Sheehy & Horan, 2004).
While most of the aforementioned researchers readily confirm the existence of
deleterious elements in the legal academy’s pedagogical approach, and two studies (Peterson &
Peterson, 2009; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007) make recommendations for interventions, only one
study has, amidst all the extant research, taken the further step of providing an intervention
(Sheehy & Horan, 2004). Thus, the most profound gap in the scientific literature stems from the
reticence of researchers to point to any one particular causal element, or combination thereof.
Hence, contemporary researchers have merely confirmed what is widely known; law school has
a deleterious effect on the psychological well-being of those subjecting themselves to its rigors.
If we wish, however, to curtail the psychological casualties left in its pedagogical wake,
researchers must necessarily take their analysis of legal pedagogy one step further; the
deleterious elements within the legal academy’s approach to training this nation’s lawyers must
be identified. Once ascertained, scientifically informed pedagogical remedies must be

implemented. This is the task undertaken herein, as the specific elements of today’s legal
pedagogy that prove most deleterious are explored.
While researchers of the past (Agatstein et al., 2014; Alfini & Van Vooren, 1995;
Benjamin et al., 1986; Clark, 2015; Krieger, 1999; Mauney, 2012; McKinney, 2002; Peterson &
Peterson, 2009; Schiltz, 1999; Seligman et al., 2005; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004, 2007; Suvor &
Gibson, 2008; Tani & Vines, 2009) confirmed their suspicions that the legal academy’s
pedagogical approach is harmful to the human personality, their research falls short of
identifying which particular methodologies are likely to cause, or even contribute to the
significant psychological distress to follow. Thus, there remains this need for researchers to
identify the causal elements within the legal academy’s pedagogy that are most deleterious.
The Law School Grading Curve
Extant literature incontrovertibly supports the assertion that stress levels within the legal
academy lead to significant levels of psychopathology both during law school and in the many
years to come (Alfini & Van Vooren, 1995; Benjamin et al., 1986; Krieger, 1999; McKinney,
2002; Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Seligman et al., 2005; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004, 2007; Tani &
Vines, 2009). And there are, undoubtedly, elements of the legal academy’s pedagogical approach
that exacerbate the already off the chart stress levels inherent to the traditional law school
experience. Apart from any, arguably superfluous, stress-inducing teaching and grading
methodologies implemented, there stands the invariably crushing workload, where twelve hours
of devoted study per day, each day of the week, may prove insufficient for many. Thus,
whatever free time exists proves scant, if at all.

Amidst this seemingly insurmountable workload stands two stress-inducing pedagogical
elements that are most pronounced. The first of these, the Socratic method, is a pedagogical
approach made infamous by The Paper Chase (Osborn, 1971). The heightened and never ending
stress associated with the fear of being called upon, a consequence of the intellectual and
emotional berating to invariably follow, is enough to create PTSD-like symptoms in most
(Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Sheehy & Horan, 2004; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004). And the
subsequent humiliation suffered when a student mishandles this Socratic encounter adds further
insult to injury. In the hands of the wrong professor, an unconscionable few taking sadistic
pleasure in observing their markedly inferior plebes buckle under their relentless interrogations,
this pedagogical tool turns into a psychological weapon, leaving shattered personalities in its
wake (Benjamin et al., 1986; Osborn, 1971).
There is, however, evidence that this most infamous form of Socratic pedagogy is being
watered down appreciably, with law professors seeking to distill its virtues while discarding its
dross (Kerr, 1999). Further, the application of the Socratic method is experiencing diminished
use among law schools nationwide (Kerr, 1999). Yet the shockingly high rates of clinical
depression among this country’s law students have in no way diminished (Alfini & Van Vooren,
1995; Benjamin et al., 1986; Krieger, 1999; McKinney, 2002; Peterson & Peterson, 2009;
Sheldon & Krieger, 2004, 2007; Tani & Vines, 2009). And instances of clinical depression
among practicing lawyers is on the rise (Beck, Sales, & Benjamin, 1995; Flores & Arce, 2014;
Krill, Johnson, & Albert, 2016; Lukasik, 2016; Mauney, 2012; Weiss, 2009, 2013). Thus,
causality between the Socratic method and the stupefying rates of clinical depression discovered
within the law student population (Alfini & Van Vooren, 1995; Benjamin et al., 1986; Gibson,

2010; Krieger, 1999; McKinney, 2002; Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Sheldon & Krieger, 2004,
2007; Tani & Vines, 2009) and legal profession (Krill et al., 2016; Lukasik, 2016; Mauney, 2012;
Weiss, 2009, 2013) can hardly be established. Thus, while the noxious aftereffects of the
Socratic method may, in its purest forms, be adding fuel to the psychopathological fire that
exists, it cannot plausibly be accused of setting the blaze. Yet if the infamously stressful Socratic
method does not constitute the primary cause of these astonishingly high rates of clinical
depression, psychological injuries making future lawyers twice as likely to succumb to
reoccurrences of this same psychopathology in the future (Shank, 2006), then what is? The
present study believes that it is another markedly stressful element within the legal academy’s
pedagogy that constitutes that foremost cause. We believe that the grading curve, which forces
as many as 70 percent of a law school’s student body to possess a GPA of C+ or less, may prove
to be that causal element (Hannan, 2015).
Undergraduate grade inflation exacerbates curve generated stress. Juxtaposed with
forcing the vast majority of law students to reside in these lower echelon GPA tiers, stands the
unyielding tide of grade inflation among this nation’s undergraduate institutions (Grant, 2016).
Recent evidence suggests that nearly half of all college students are receiving grades within the
A range (Grant, 2016). Surely, students accustomed to garnering all A’s in college who
subsequently find themselves unable to exceed a GPA of C in law school, where these students’
personal identities are invariably intertwined with their intellectual selves, will suffer
psychological injury.
Laid upon this injury is the considerable financial stress accorded to an all but certain loss
of merit scholarships when a student’s GPA falls below a B (Segal, 2011). Nonetheless, what

may constitute the greatest source of curve related stress has yet to be addressed. It stems from
the likelihood that these students will face expulsion whenever their GPA falls, however
temporarily, below a C. And it is, perhaps, the act of being forced to hover so close, and for so
long, to that dreaded mark that constitutes the lion’s share of curve generated stress.
After all the elements of curve related stress are tallied, this patently superfluous grading
methodology may prove to be the psychological tipping point for many, precipitating their slide
into a stress-induced clinical depression from which few will be fully extricated (Lukasik, 2016;
Shenk, 2006). Indeed, this psychopathological event is no triteful matter, for even one incident
of clinical depression irreparably harms a student’s person, making that student twice as likely to
suffer episodes of clinical depression as a practicing attorney in the many years to come (Shenk,
2006). And for lawyers, these depressive reoccurrences are too often expressed through
alcoholism or suicide.
While numerous extant studies assess the dependent variable of clinical depression
among law students and new lawyers (Alfini & Van Vooren, 1995; Benjamin et al., 1986;
Krieger, 1999; McKinney, 2002; Peterson & Peterson, 2009; Seligman et al., 2005; Sheldon &
Krieger, 2004, 2007; Tani & Vines, 2009), researchers have yet to investigate the independent
variable of the law school grading curve. Thus, researchers have failed to assess the probable
deleterious effects of grading curve generated stress on the psychological well-being of law
students, let alone ascertain whether that stress constitutes the primary causal element to the
extraordinarily high clinical depression rates discovered.
The research question is whether the stress generated by the ubiquitous law school
grading curve constitutes the primal causal element for the staggering instances of clinical

depression found in today’s law students and new lawyers. Hence, this study seeks to examine
whether removing the grading curve will produce statistically significant reductions in rates of
clinical depression among law students and young lawyers.
Hypothesis 1: Law students approaching graduation and lawyers two years into practice who
were graded without a curve will, based on the administration of the Beck Depression Inventory-
II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck, Steer & Brown, 1996), show a statistically significant reduction in rates
of clinical depression when compared to the curve graded control group.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a 10 percent reduction in rates of clinical depression, as measured
by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck, Steer & Brown, 1996), among non-
curved graduating law students in comparison to the curved control group.
Hypothesis 3: There will be a 20 percent reduction in instances of clinical depression, as
measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck, Steer & Brown, 1996),
among non-curved practicing lawyers two years after graduation in comparison with the curved
control group.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study will be law school students attending a small private law school
in Montgomery, Alabama. Approximately 35 percent of the students in attendance will be from
Alabama, while the remaining student body will come from as many as 20 different states. The
ages of these students will range from 21 to 49. Participation will be voluntary.
Students in the first year’s entering class will be graded without the curve used by the law
school since its ABA accreditation 10 years ago. The intervention group will be comprised of

law students who volunteer to be participants in the study. All intervention group participants
will be required to sign an informed consent form.
Students in the subsequent year’s entering class will constitute the control group, who
will be graded with the same curve used prior to its removal. As with the intervention group, the
control group will be comprised of law students who volunteer to participate in the study. All
control group participants will be required to sign an informed consent form.
As participation in the study remains optional, a modest financial incentive will be
offered in an attempt to bolster student participation. Thus, eight $100 gift cards will be awarded
to randomly selected participants who complete all three phases of the study. Funding for the
gift cards will be provided by the law school.
Materials and Measures
The Beck Depression Inventory-II (see Appendix A) will be used as the study’s measure.
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II, 1996; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) is a pencil and
paper test comprised of 21 groups of assertions. Participants are asked to choose one of 4 answer
choices that best describes their moods, appetites, and levels of physical exhaustion.
An example of a test question includes the following: (0) I make decisions about as well
as I ever could; (1) I put off making decisions more than I used to; (2) I have greater difficulty in
making decisions more than I used to; or, (3) I can't make decisions at all anymore.
Once acquired, the depression-indicative scores allocated to each answer choice will be
added up using the BDI-II scale (see Appendix B). In accordance with the rubrics of that scale,
participants scoring in excess of 20 will be deemed to be suffering clinical levels of depression
(BDI-II, 1996). The Beck Depression Inventory-II is now the most widely used test in the world

for identifying clinical depression among individuals, as its reliability and validity has been
shown to be impressive in previous research (Kumar, Steer, Teitelman, & Villacis, 2002; Osman,
Kopper, Barrios, Gutierrez, & Bagge, 2004; Steer et al., 1999; Subica et al., 2014). After testing
for reliability, Steer et al., (1999) found a coefficient alpha of .91.
Procedure
All participants will receive an informed consent form (see Appendix C). For the
intervention group, which involves participants graded without a curve, an email inviting them to
participate in the study will be sent out five days prior to orientation week. For the subsequent
year’s class, constituting the control group that has the grading curve reinstated, an identical
invitation procedure will be utilized.
The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck et al., 1996) will be administered
to all volunteers during orientation week, when academic stress is scant. After baselines for the
intervention and control groups are established, the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996;
Beck et al., 1996) will be administered as a posttest one month prior to these law students’
graduation. Further, to assess the extent to which heightened levels of depression carry on into a
young lawyer’s life, the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck et al., 1996) will be
administered as a second posttest two years after graduation. Once the results from the second
posttest are assessed, participants will be debriefed. The debriefing session will provide
information about the purpose of the study and whether the original hypotheses were realized.
Proposed Data Analysis
The data analysis will focus on the relationship between the grading curve and depression
as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck et al., 1996). The first

hypothesis states that both law students approaching graduation and lawyers two years into
practice that were graded without a curve will, based on the administration of the Beck
Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck et al., 1996), show a statistically significant
reduction in rates of clinical depression in comparison to the curve graded control group.
Statistical significance will be measured by employing a dependent t test. Several researchers
(Seggar, Lambert, & Hansen, 2002; Tingey, Lambert, Burlingame, & Hansen, 2010) recommend
this test for assessing Beck Depression Inventory results. Because the study involves only one
independent variable, a one-way ANOVA will be employed to further assess the data, with alpha
set at 0.05, two-tailed.
It is anticipated that the next hypothesis, that there will be a 10 percent reduction in rates
of clinical depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck et
al., 1996) among non-curved graduating law students in comparison to the curved control group,
will be supported by statistically significant findings. We expect that rates of clinical depression
will appreciably decrease among the non-curved group of law students. Statistical significance
will be measured by employing a dependent t test. A one-way ANOVA will be used to further
assess the data, with alpha set at 0.05, two-tailed.
We expect our third hypothesis, that there will be a 20 percent reduction in rates of
clinical depression, as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck et al.,
1996), among non-curved practicing lawyers two years after graduation in comparison to the
curved control group, will be statistically bolstered. We expect that rates of clinical depression
will significantly decrease among the non-curved new lawyer group. Statistical significance will
be measured by employing a dependent t test. Because the study involves only one independent

variable, a one-way ANOVA will be used to further assess the data, with alpha set at 0.05, two-
tailed.
Discussion
It is anticipated that the study will show a significant difference in levels of depression
between the control and intervention groups, both at graduation and two years post-graduation.
Specifically, we anticipate that depression levels in the non-curved intervention group will be
significantly lower in comparison to the control group. Researchers have, over the last few
years, discovered that high levels of chronic stress often precipitate clinical depression
(Hildebrandt, 2012; Hsu, 2012; Seo et al., 2016). Thus, we expect that by reducing stress levels
rates of clinical depression will decrease and our hypotheses will be supported.
Strengths of the Research Study
Strengths of the study include a relatively large sample size, volunteers derived from a
class size of 130. The benefit of using a large sample size is that it produces results that are more
statistically sound; with more variety to sample from, the deductions hold more weight. Small
sample sizes, conversely, often produce questionable results, even where the deductions show
statistical significance. Moreover, as both the control and intervention groups will come from
the same law school, and thus nearly identical sample pools, opportunities for data conflation
will be minimized. Because of the similarities involved, countervailing explanations for
statistically significant results will be lessened. For instance, a concern regarding disparate IQ
range effects on the data will be minimized where the sample is derived from individuals
inhabiting quite similar intelligence ranges. Further, because findings from the intervention
group will be compared with data obtained from a control group, the validity of these data will

be increased. By contrasting control group data with data obtained from an intervention group
the null hypothesis is more readily disproved.
A further strength of the study is that measurements will be assessed by administering the
Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II, 1996; Beck et al., 1996), now the most widely used test in
the world for identifying clinical depression among individuals, as its reliability and validity has
been shown to be impressive in previous research (Kumar et al., 2002; Osman et al., 2004; Steer
et al., 1999; Subica et al., 2014).
Weaknesses of the Study
One potential weaknesses of the study is the possibility that the intervention and control
groups will appreciably differ in their academic credentials upon matriculation. Over the last
four years law schools have been lowering their admissions standards to fill seats that would
otherwise be left empty (Hansen, 2016; Rivard, 2015). And while there is evidence this trend is
reversing (O’Connor, 2015), there is no assurance that any rebound in academic credentials will
continue, or whether the law school that is the subject of this study will experience similar
resiliency in the credentials of students deciding to matriculate there.
A further weakness of the study is that it is limited to a small, lower-ranking private law
school in the South. Factors such as lower average intelligence ranges in comparison to most
other law schools, low teacher-student ratios that provide a more personal academic atmosphere,
and more efforts by law school administrators to curb the effects of law school stress, may
produce results that are atypical in comparison to most other law schools.

Future Research Directions
While data in this present study will be drawn from a sample of students attending a
small private law school that is ranked in the bottom quartile of the 205 law schools in existence
(Startclass, 2016), future data should be drawn from a panoply of law schools (ABA, 2016).
For instance, research gleaned from state law schools should be juxtaposed with data from
private schools. Moreover, greater geographic diversity should be achieved. And studies of high
ranking law schools should be conjoined to data derived from schools residing in the more
humble ranking echelons. Outcomes from moderately ranked law schools should be assessed as
well.
While opportunities for improving the present study undoubtedly exist, a different
approach to this research would be helpful as well. For instance, Harvard Law School--where
the prevalence of Socrates-like existential depression likely has an exacerbating effect on rates of
student depression (Troia, 2013)--grades its students on an Honors, Pass, Low Pass, or Fail basis
during all three years of law school (HLS, 2016). Moreover, Harvard utilizes neither curve nor
rankings in its grading pedagogy (HLS, 2016). And, impressively, Harvard, takes great pains to
ensure their law students receive high quality mental health care; treatment and availability on
par with or superior to the many law schools studied (Agatstein et al., 2014). Thus, Harvard
Law’s decision to grade its students on a more relaxed grading scheme, during what is,
incontrovertibly, the most stressful period of any American student’s life (HLS, 2016), begs the
question of whether this pedagogical approach significantly reduces instances of stress-induced
depression among its law students. Regrettably, studies assessing what effect, if any, Harvard
Law’s more comfortable pedagogy has on ameliorating the depressive link discussed herein have

yet to be initiated. Surely, research evaluating the ameliorative effect of this grading
methodology on instances of law student depression would be helpful in moving this body of
research one step further. And if the results of the aforementioned research prove consistent with
our own beliefs, Harvard Law School’s grading pedagogy, with its quality mental health services
to match, should likely be employed elsewhere, perhaps even at all law schools in general
(Agatstein et al., 2014).
To fight an enemy one must know him, and to know that enemy is to identify him. This
study believes that the most significant deleterious pedagogical element, and thus enemious
source, in today’s legal academy is the ubiquitous grading curve. As such, we expect the data
collected will support our hypotheses that reductions in law student stress will reduce instances
of stress-induced clinical depression among law students. These findings, if realized, will
suggest a causal link between the grading curve used in law school and the astonishingly high
rates of depression found in this nation’s law students and young lawyers.

References
ABA (2016). ABA-approved law schools. American Bar Association. Retrieved from http://
www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools.html
Agatstein, J., Arnold, Z., Dempsey, R., Sonnenfeldt, J., & Weiss, J. (2014). Falling through the
cracks: A report on mental health at Yale Law School. Yale Law School Mental Health
Alliance.
Alfini, J. J. A., & Van Vooren, J. N. (1995). Is there a solution to the problem of lawyer stress:
The law school perspective. Journal of Law and Health, 10, 61-67. Cleveland-Marshall
College of Law.
BDI-II (1996). Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Beck, C. J. A., Sales, B. D., & Benjamin, G. A. H. (1995). Lawyer distress: Alcohol-related
problems and other psychological concerns among a sample of practicing lawyers.
Journal of Law and Health, 10, 1-60. Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for Beck Depression Inventory-II. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Benjamin, G. A. H., Kaszniak, A., & Sales, B. (1986). The role of legal education in producing
psychological distress among law students and lawyers. American Bar Foundation
Research Journal, 2.
Clark, B. S. (2015). Coming out in the classroom: Law professors, law students and depression.
Journal of Legal Education, 64(3).
Flores, R., & Arce, R. M. (2014, January 19). Why are lawyers killing themselves? CNN.
Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/19/us/lawyer-suicides/

Gibson, B. (2010). How law students can cope: A student’s view. Journal of Legal Education,
60, 140-146.
Grant, A. (2016, September 11). Why we should stop grading students on a curve. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/opinion/sunday/why-we-
should-stop-grading-students-on-a-curve.html?smid=fb-share
Hannan, P. (2015). Official law school transcript (evidencing how students ranked in the top one-
third of the class can have a GPA as low as C+). Thomas Goode Jones School of Law.
Montgomery, AL.
Hansen, M. (2016). Bar fight. ABA Journal, September, 48-55.
Hildebrandt, S. (2012, February 6). How stress can cause depression. Science Nordic. Retrieved
from http://sciencenordic.com/how-stress-can-cause-depression
HLS (2016). Harvard Law School grading policy. Retrieved from http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/ocs/
employers/hls-grading-policy/
Hsu, C. (2012, June 26). Stress-induced depression confirmed in breakthrough that may lead to
new treatments. Medical Daily. Retrieved from http://www.medicaldaily.com/stress-
induced-depression-confirmed-breakthrough-may-lead-new-treatments-240984
Kerr, S. O. (1999). The decline of the Socratic method at Harvard. Nebraska Law Review, 78(1),
113-34.
Krieger, L. S. (1999). Institutional denial about the dark side of law school, and fresh empirical
guidance for constructive breaking the silence. Journal of Legal Education, 52, 112-129.
Krill, P. R., Johnson, R., & Albert, L. (2016). The Prevalence of substance use and other mental
health concerns among American attorneys. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 10(1), 46-52.

Kumar, G., Steer, R. A., Teitelman, K. B., & Villacis, L. (2002). Effectiveness of Beck
Depression Inventory-II subscales in screening for major depressive disorders in
adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Assessment, 9(2), 164-70.
Lukasik, D. (2016). Lawyers with depression. Retrieved from http://
www.lawyerswithdepression.com/articles/blog-suicide/
Mauney, C. S. (2012). The lawyers’ epidemic: Depression, suicide and substance abuse. South
Carolina Bar HELP Task Force. South Carolina Bar Association.
McKinney, R. A. (2002). Depression and anxiety in law students: Are we part of the problem and
can we be part of the solution? The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute, 8, 229-255.
Michigan Tech (2016). Research: Consent form templates and samples. Michigan Tech
University. Retrieved from http://www.mtu.edu/research/administration/integrity-
compliance/review-boards/human-subjects/consent_forms.html
O’Connor, S. P. (2015, February 9). Law admissions trends 2015 applicants should know about.
U. S. News & World Report: Education. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/
education/blogs/law-admissions-lowdown/2015/02/09/law-admissions-trends-2015-
applicants-should-know-about
Osborn, J. J. (1971). The Paper Chase. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Osman, A., Kopper, B. A., Barrios, F., Gutierrez, P. M., & Bagge, C. L. (2004). Reliability and
validity of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with adolescent psychiatric inpatients.
Psychological Assessment, 16(2), 120-132.

Paul, A. M. (2012, January 15). Arguing against the Socratic method: A recent study throws the
efficacy of this ancient practice into doubt. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-be-brilliant/201206/arguing-against-the-socratic-
method
Peterson, T. D., & Peterson, E. W. (2009). Stemming the tide of law student depression: What
law schools need to learn from the science of positive psychology. Yale Journal of
Health, Policy, Law and Ethics, 9(2).
Rivard, R. (2015). Lowering the bar. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://
www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/16/law-schools-compete-students-many-may-
not-have-admitted-past
Schiltz, P. J. (1999). On being a happy, healthy, and ethical member of an unhappy, unhealthy,
and unethical profession. Vanderbilt Law Review, 52, 871-951.
Segal, D. (2011, April 30). Law students lose the grant game as schools win. The New York
Times. April 30. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/business/law-
school-grants.html
Seggar, L. B., Lambert, M. J., & Hansen, N. B. (2002). Assessing clinical significance:
application to the Beck Depression Inventory. Behavior Therapy, 33, 253-269.
Seligman, M. E. P., Verkuil, P. R., & Kang, T. H. (2005). Why lawyers are unhappy. Deakin Law
Review, 10(1).
Seo, J-S., Wei, J., Qin, L., Kim,Y., Yan, Z., & Greengard, P. (2016). Cellular and molecular basis
for stress-induced depression. Molecular Psychiatry, 00, 1–8. doi: 10.1038/mp.2016.118

Sheehy, R., & Horan, J. J. (2004). Effects of stress inoculation training for 1st-year law students.
International Journal of Stress Management, 11(1), 41-55.
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2004). Does legal education have undermining effects on law
students? Evaluating changes in motivation, values, and well-being. Behavioral Science
& The Law, 22, 261–286.
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. S. (2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal education
on law students: A longitudinal test of self-determination theory. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 33(6) 883-897.
Shenk, J. W. (2006). Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled
His Greatness. New York, NY: Mariner Books.
Startclass (2016). Law school rankings. Retrieved from http://law-schools.startclass.com/l/194/
Faulkner-University
Steer, R. A., Ball, R., Ranieri, W. F., & Beck, A. T. (1999). Dimensions of the Beck Depression
Inventory-II in clinically depressed outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(1),
117-128.
Subica, A. M., Elhai, J. D., Sharp, C., Fowler, C. J., Frueh, B. C., Kelly, E. L. (2014). Factor
structure and diagnostic validity of the Beck Depression Inventory–II with adult clinical
inpatients: Comparison to a gold-standard diagnostic interview. Psychological
Assessment, 26(4), 1106-1115.
Suvor, D., & Gibson, B. (2008). Mental health initiative tool kit for student bar associations and
administrators. ABA Law School Division.

Tani, M., & Vines, P. (2009). Law students attitudes to education: Pointers to depression in the
legal academy and the profession. Legal Education Review, 19, 3-39.
Tingey, R. C., Lambert, M. J., Burlingame, G. M., & Hansen, N. B. (1996). Assessing clinical
significance: Proposed extensions to method. Psychotherapy Research, 6(2), 109-123.
Troia, W. N. (2013, February 22). The sad Socrates effect: Harvard students’ intelligence may
explain higher-than-average rates of depression and suicide. The Harvard Crimson.
Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/column/who-what-and-wyatt/article/
2013/2/22/Wyatt-depression/
Weiss, D. C. (2009, April 30). Lawyer personalities may contribute to increased suicide risk.
ABA Journal. Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/
lawyer_personalities_may_contribute_to_increased_suicide_risk/
Weiss, D. C. (2013, June 4). State bar president calls recent lawyer suicides disproportionate and
disconcerting. ABA Journal. Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/
kentucky_bar_president_calls_recent_lawyer_suicides_disproportionate/Sheehy

Appendix A
The Beck Depression Inventory-II
This depression inventory can be self-scored. The scoring scale is at the end of the questionnaire.
1.
0 I do not feel sad.
1 I feel sad
2 I am sad all the time and I can't snap out of it.
3 I am so sad and unhappy that I can't stand it.
2.
0 I am not particularly discouraged about the future.
1 I feel discouraged about the future.
2 I feel I have nothing to look forward to.
3 I feel the future is hopeless and that things cannot improve.
3.
0 I do not feel like a failure.
1 I feel I have failed more than the average person.
2 As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of failures.
3 I feel I am a complete failure as a person.
4.
0 I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to.
1 I don't enjoy things the way I used to.
2 I don't get real satisfaction out of anything anymore.
3 I am dissatisfied or bored with everything.

5.
0 I don't feel particularly guilty
1 I feel guilty a good part of the time.
2 I feel quite guilty most of the time.
3 I feel guilty all of the time.
6.
0 I don't feel I am being punished.
1 I feel I may be punished.
2 I expect to be punished.
3 I feel I am being punished.
7.
0 I don't feel disappointed in myself.
1 I am disappointed in myself.
2 I am disgusted with myself.
3 I hate myself.
8.
0 I don't feel I am any worse than anybody else.
1 I am critical of myself for my weaknesses or mistakes.
2 I blame myself all the time for my faults.
3 I blame myself for everything bad that happens.

9.
0 I don't have any thoughts of killing myself.
1 I have thoughts of killing myself, but I would not carry them out.
2 I would like to kill myself.
3 I would kill myself if I had the chance.
10.
0 I don't cry any more than usual.
1 I cry more now than I used to.
2 I cry all the time now.
3 I used to be able to cry, but now I can't cry even though I want to.
11.
0 I am no more irritated by things than I ever was.
1 I am slightly more irritated now than usual.
2 I am quite annoyed or irritated a good deal of the time.
3 I feel irritated all the time.
12.
0 I have not lost interest in other people.
1 I am less interested in other people than I used to be.
2 I have lost most of my interest in other people.
3 I have lost all of my interest in other people.

13.
0 I make decisions about as well as I ever could.
1 I put off making decisions more than I used to.
2 I have greater difficulty in making decisions more than I used to.
3 I can't make decisions at all anymore.
14.
0 I don't feel that I look any worse than I used to.
1 I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive.
2 I feel there are permanent changes in my appearance that make me look
unattractive
3 I believe that I look ugly.
15.
0 I can work about as well as before.
1 It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something.
2 I have to push myself very hard to do anything.
3 I can't do any work at all.
16.
0 I can sleep as well as usual.
1 I don't sleep as well as I used to.
2 I wake up 1-2 hours earlier than usual and find it hard to get back to sleep.
3 I wake up several hours earlier than I used to and cannot get back to sleep.

17.
0 I don't get more tired than usual.
1 I get tired more easily than I used to.
2 I get tired from doing almost anything.
3 I am too tired to do anything.
18.
0 My appetite is no worse than usual.
1 My appetite is not as good as it used to be.
2 My appetite is much worse now.
3 I have no appetite at all anymore.
19.
0 I haven't lost much weight, if any, lately.
1 I have lost more than five pounds.
2 I have lost more than ten pounds.
3 I have lost more than fifteen pounds.
20.
0 I am no more worried about my health than usual.
1 I am worried about physical problems like aches, pains, upset stomach, or
constipation.
2 I am very worried about physical problems and it's hard to think of much else.
3 I am so worried about my physical problems that I cannot think of anything else.

21.
0 I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex.
1 I am less interested in sex than I used to be.
2 I have almost no interest in sex.
3 I have lost interest in sex completely.

Appendix B
Interpreting The Beck Depression Inventory-II
To interpret the Beck Inventory Depression score, add up the scores for each of the
twenty-one questions by counting the number to the right of each question you marked. The
highest possible total for the whole test would be sixty-three. This would mean you circled
number three on all twenty-one questions. Since the lowest possible score for each question is
zero, the lowest possible score for the test would be zero. This would mean you circles zero on
each question. You can evaluate your depression according to the Table below.
Total Score____________________Levels of Depression
1-10____________________These ups and downs are considered normal
11-16___________________ Mild mood disturbance
17-20___________________Borderline clinical depression
21-30___________________Moderate depression
31-40___________________Severe depression
over 40__________________Extreme depression

Appendix C
Consent Form for Anonymous Study Participation
You are being invited to participate in a research study about law student and young
lawyer depression, and how proposed changes in pedagogical approaches to training lawyers
may ameliorate those conditions. This research project is being conducted by Paul Hannan, J.D.,
a candidate for an M.S. in Psychology. Participation in the study will give you an approximate
10% chance to win a $100 gift card. Funding for the gift cards is provided by your law school.
There are no known risks if you decide to participate in this research study, nor are there
any costs for participating in the study. As a new lawyer who sat in your shoes quite recently,
your anonymity is extremely important to me. Like the many law school exams to come, you
will be allocated a number to protect your anonymity. All connections between your personal
identity and your assigned number will be destroyed once the participation group is established.
Your anonymity will be further protected in that the tests administered will be online and
processed through an organization independent of the law school and our study.
The information you provide will help us understand how approaches to legal education
can be improved, making for a happier and healthier generation of lawyers in the years to come.
The information collected may not benefit you directly, but the information gleaned from the
study should provide a general benefit to future law students and lawyers alike.
This study is anonymous. If you choose to participate, you will not have the ability to
write your name, or otherwise indicate your identity, anywhere in the 21 prompt questionnaire.
As such, no one will be able to identity you, nor will anyone be able to determine whether you
participated in the study. Nothing you say on the questionnaire will in any way influence your

present standing as a law student, nor will it in any way effect your opportunities for future
employment in the legal profession or elsewhere. To be included in this study, you must check
the consent box on the first page of the questionnaire emailed to you.
If you have any questions about participating in the study you may email me at
hannan@mail.sacredheart.edu.
The format and some of the content is derived from Michigan Tech (2016) consent forms page.

Curbing Law Student Depression: Removing the Curve by Paul Hannan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Curbing Law Student Depression: Removing the Curve by Paul Hannan

Similar to Curbing Law Student Depression: Removing the Curve by Paul Hannan (20)

More from Paul Hannan

More from Paul Hannan (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Curbing Law Student Depression: Removing the Curve by Paul Hannan