Like others within the legal profession I was very sad to have read the tragic story of Catherine Bailey, a partner at a leading City law firm about whom an inquest recorded a verdict of suicide. Having practised as a divorce lawyer for 30 years I have seen many changes within the legal profession, with increasing pressure put on women, and I have suffered from it at times throughout my career — much more than my friends in other professions.

Like Bailey I too have children (now aged 29 and 27) and was faced, when they were younger, with a balancing act that would have floored a man at the first hurdle.

It is little wonder to me that the levels of alcoholism and addiction among lawyers has climbed steadily over the past few years with helplines jammed with distressed lawyers, particularly women. While women in other professions may face similar difficulties, what is unique to the legal profession is the intense costs targets that involve long working hours and competitive strategies. We have all seen films that emphasise those pressures such as The Firm. These targets are not just the stuff of fiction but are a reality — particularly during the recession in which some of the biggest legal firms in the world have collapsed and senior management have been ousted. It is little wonder that the buzzword around legal offices is “fear”.

The first overwhelming burden that faces a young legal mother is the question of when she goes back to work again and whether she will be downgraded according to the time she takes off. In a still predominantly men-orientated world, male lawyers seem to resent the time that women have off for maternity leave, many complaining of what they perceive as holding the fort after a woman’s decision to become pregnant. Many women complain that on their return to the legal profession, they are expected to work at twice the pace to make up for the time off, which puts inordinate pressure on them when they are trying to develop a sensible working pattern and balance.

Some complain that they are deliberately booked in to do long conferences with counsel when they do return, which begin late in the day, just to test how uncomfortable this can make them. So at a time when they are adjusting to balancing coming home to see the baby after a long day of absence, and take over from the au pair, nanny or family member, they are forced to work late and miss seeing their child before bedtime.

This is when the pattern of guilt sets in. Like nearly every legal mother I know, I spent my children’s entire childhood wrapped in remorse that I was neglecting their needs. My son still brings up the day I arrived too late to hear his tuba debut at the school concert because of a needy client who would not get off the telephone.

The feeling of sinking desperation on days such as these is all encompassing. What stopped me from quitting? I had worked too hard to get there. Women lawyers in particular have complained over the years that they have had to work far harder within the legal profession than their male counterparts to make their mark. Just at the point of success, they have to choose between career and family. It takes you a certain number of years to build up to success, which always coincides with child-bearing years.

The other reason for not quitting is that part of being a good lawyer is being a Type A personality, which involves competitiveness and obstinancy and, in turn, keeps you in a profession that can drive you insane. And we are perfectionists too. So we impose our own pressures — to be the best lawyer, best mother, best housekeeper, best wife, best friend and best colleague. It is precisely this quality that propels female lawyers up the ladder of success but pushes them off when they try to overachieve in every other part of their lives. Add postnatal depression to the mix and it can prove fatal.

It’s perhaps unsurprising that many colleagues have high-flying partners, who can then become childlike and aggressive when competing for their spouse’s affection. One friend recalls that when she had their first child and went back to work, her husband, a well-paid accountant, started behaving like a teenager. Every night, just at the moment she was about to breastfeed, he demanded dinner, or that she find some papers she had tidied away. “I feel that I have lost a husband and gained another infant,” she cried one night.

Added to that can be the demand by male partners that their own career needs must be met, such as a pressure to cook dinner or entertain. The stories of what women lawyers do to multitask are legion: I will never forget witnessing a colleague, the head of a matrimonial department, as she pushed the pram with her foot while dictating answers to a multimillion-pound questionnaire because her nanny had left without warning. Or a good friend, who was a partner in a mergers and acquisitions firm, who told me that she had spent the day dabbing calamine lotion on her three children’s chicken pox while taking instructions from her biggest client in Hong Kong. I have lost count of the amount of women lawyers I know who breastfed while dictating substantial legal documents.

Many women lawyers laugh in the Robing Room about how they deal with their husbands’ getting frisky after they have been on the go for some 18 hours. One recently told me that just as she forced herself to “get in the mood”, she received a BlackBerry message from her boss reminding her to complete the detailed document required for the 8am meeting the next day. “It sort of killed the moment,” she said.

During the recession, the pressures on female lawyers have been made even greater because of the increase in many of their husbands or partners being made redundant. Many friends and colleagues have become the sole breadwinner, and still have to try to encourage and commiserate with their partner. Furthermore, many of their partners have become depressed and have done nothing around the home to help, which has built resentment and rows have ensued. Accordingly, the mother who might have been considering working part-time to be with her new family, cannot now as she has to work to provide money for the family.

For the older woman lawyer, there is a fear in this climate that she will be “put out to graze” and made redundant. So the pressures on her when her husband is talking about his retirement are all the greater. For divorce lawyers and those who specialise in a high level of intense time limits, the feelings of panic and pressure are enormous. Divorce lawyers also have to take on board huge levels of emotional distress from their clients and if they do not find a suitable outlet in sport or hobbies, then the pressure can become too much.

So is there a solution? Yes there is. It took me a long while to understand the importance of finding “me” time, but without it there is no quality of life and everyone suffers. I have learnt to say no, to take time out and to prioritise my family. It’s a lesson that came not a moment too soon — and many learn too late.

As an Aggressive Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney, I have successfully defended hundreds of individuals who have been charged with assaulting police officers. The garden variety assault on a police officer case usually involves a defendant who is being arrested for another reason and the police officer claims that the defendant resisted that arrest and assaulted the officer in the process. These cases are usually relatively easy to deal with so long as the police officer was not seriously injured as most judges are aware of the tendency to exaggerate these incidents by the police.

I successfully defended a client who has charged in a not so typical assault on a police officer in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City this past week. The client was found not guilty in spite of the fact that my client had in fact punched a police officer who was sitting on a bar stool in a bar and the fact that the entire incident was caught on the establishment's security video system.http://www.mdattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.html Here are the facts:

My client and several of his friends went into a bar in Baltimore City at roughly 1:30AM one night last year to purchase beer to go. My client, who had admittedly been drinking that evening, got into a verbal dispute with two individuals who were sitting at the bar drinking beer. My client's friends pulled him away from the dispute and seemingly avoided an altercation. However, a few moments later my client went back over to these individuals and the argument resumed. Eventually my client punched one of the individuals in the face, knocking him from the bar stool to the ground. These individuals, who turned out to be Baltimore City Police Officers, pursued my client as he fled outside. Eventually my client ended up in the hospital with multiple abrasions, bruises and a concussion. Neither officer was injured in the incident.

The entire incident inside the bar was captured on video and appeared to be quite damning to my client. Unfortunately, the bar was not equipped with a camera outside so we have no video of what occurred there. The officer noted in his report that my client had resisted arrest. My client was charged with second degree assault and resisting arrest.

Now, in all honesty this is not the type of case that I would typically take to trial. The evidence in the case appeared overwhelming against my client. The State had the testimony of both police officers as well as the video that appeared to corroborate their testimony that they were simply minding their own business when my client initiated an argument and then struck one of the officers as he sat on a bar stool. The problem for my client was that he was on probation and was facing a long prison sentence on a violation of probation if he were to be convicted. We basically had no choice but to try to win the case at trial.

Fortunately, two things occurred which helped our case tremendously. The first was that the police officer who was assaulted was indicted on criminal charges and was therefore unavailable as a witness. The second was that we drew an excellent judge.

At trial the State produced the video which I unsuccessfully attempted to exclude from evidence by making a series of procedural objections. Then the other police officer testified. I was able to damage his credibility some because he claimed on direct examination by the State to have only consumed one beer. I cross examined him on the fact that he had been in the bar for an hour and a half and that the bartender had testified that he drank 3 or 4 beers. The officer, who was apparently worried because he had admitted that he was armed as he is required to be at all times in the City and was therefore not permitted to drink alcohol excessively, suddenly got a case of amnesia. All of a sudden he couldn't remember how many beers he had or if he had anything else to drink at the bar or before.

I then questioned the officer about what had transpired outside and he admitted that the other officer and my client had struggled for a good five minutes before he was taken into custody while he had stood by and watched. I asked him why he had not assisted his partner and he essentially admitted that what occurred outside was a one on one fight between my client and the partner and not an officer attempting to subdue a resisting arrestee. I then introduced the pictures of him and the other officer that were taken that night along with several pictures of my client that were taken in the hospital. It was abundantly clear from these photos who had won and who had lost fight.

I called no witnesses on behalf of my client because I knew they would not be helpful and would only bolster the State's case against my client. Instead I argued to the court that without producing the victim of the assault to testify that he had not consented to the assault, the State could not prevail as a matter of law. I argued that we could not hear what was said because there was no audio component and that we have no idea whether the officer had invited my client to resolve the dispute by way of a physical altercation. I also argued that the actions of the officer outside implied that he had in facts consented to fight my client. Otherwise, I argued, why had the other officer not helped his partner to subdue the defendant during their five minute scuffle in the alley outside of the bar. The court agreed with these arguments and acquitted my client of all charges. A very unusual result in a case where the crime was captured on tape.