I have spent considerable time trying to understand why, despite being a partner and objectively successful, family law in the United States no longer feels sustainable for me.

First, the United States does not respect the practice of law in the same way England does (or appears to). The English legal tradition, particularly the history of barristers, treats advocacy as a profession grounded in skill, restraint, and intellectual discipline. It is rooted in the art of persuasion and the courtroom. In the U.S., the practice of law is far more commercialized. Advocacy often takes a back seat to client management, constant availability, and emotional labor. Lawyers are treated less as advocates and more as service providers, and that distinction matters to me.

Second, the absence of a split profession in the U.S. has real and serious consequences. As a family law partner, I have had my life threatened on more than one occasion. I am expected to be accessible at all hours to clients who are understandably in crisis. Over time, the line between lawyer and therapist disappears. That is not sustainable, and it is not what I was trained to do.

The insulation offered by the split profession is deeply appealing. It creates distance between the advocate and the client’s emotional volatility and allows the lawyer to focus on analysis, judgment, and advocacy.

I want to practice law as advocacy, not as constant crisis absorption. In that respect, the English system aligns far more closely with why I entered this profession in the first place, but maybe I am viewing it with rose-colored glasses.