CLIA WELLNESS DOCKET
Article submissions by Alanna Carlson of Alanna Carlson Consulting
What does it mean to trust your gut? How knowing your core values can guide strategic decision-making
What do you do when you need to make an important decision? Do you evaluate the options, create pro/con lists, and talk it out? Though that might be a common go-to process, we might not have any more clarity after trying it. It’s not that you aren’t doing the process right, it’s that it’s not a great process to begin with.
Someone might give you well-intentioned advice to trust your gut. But how do you do that? Especially if you are accustomed to outsourcing your authority to external influences, such as your boss or societal norms, this might feel nearly impossible.
The reason "trusting your gut" feels so elusive is that it is not really a feeling. It is a recognition. It is a skill. Your gut response to a decision is shaped by something underneath it, and that something is your core values. Before you can trust an instinct, you need to know what that instinct is measuring your options against. This is something we can practice.
Start by identifying your core values
The first step is to get clear on what actually matters to you, not what you have been told should matter. Many of us have not spent any time thinking about our values, unless perhaps it was an exercise in our sports teams, faith communities, or first families. Researcher Brené Brown has written extensively about the importance of identifying a small set of core personal values rather than a long, diffuse list.
In her book Dare to Lead, Brown argues that narrowing your values down to two or three is what allows them to function as a genuine decision-making filter, rather than an aspirational list that sits untouched (Brown, Dare to Lead, Random House, 2018). A list of core values can be accessed on her website: https://brenebrown.com/resources/dare-to-lead-list-of-values/
If you have never done this practice, you can start by circling the values that resonate with you, then eliminate. Alternatively, you can start with crossing out ones that definitely do not resonate with you. Slowly work your way to a shorter list. Some values might be related and one might act as a more accurate descriptor for you. Ask yourself, of these two, which would I protect if I could only keep one? Repeat that process until you are left with a short list of 2-4 values you can actually hold in your mind during a decision. This process can be something you work at in one sitting, or something that you revisit multiple times.
The next step is to describe those values for yourself. How do you want to live them out? Resist the urge to simply define the word and instead reach for an actionable description. For example: “Curiosity means that I seek knowledge and meaning in my work and relationships.”
Using your values as a test for alignment
Once you know your values, decision-making becomes less about weighing options against each other and more about weighing each option against yourself. Instead of asking, "Which choice is best?" you can ask, "Which choice is more aligned with my values?"
This is a different question, and it produces a different kind of clarity. A pro/con list treats every decision as if it exists in a vacuum, separate from who you are. It is hard to give weight to any of the individual considerations. Values-based decision-making asks to prove that it fits you, not the other way around. This process is actually rather similar to how judges evaluate evidence based on factors in a legal test. The result is determined by evaluating the evidence against several questions or values.
Visualize each scenario before you choose
Once you have a shortlist of choices that pass the alignment test, visualization becomes a useful next step in decision making. Take each scenario in turn and imagine yourself living inside it, like a film. Notice where you feel ease, and where you feel resistance to what you see. If you don’t have a visual imagination, you can try writing out the scenario with descriptive narration, like a screenplay. Determine whether the scenario asks you to set aside a value you have already identified as non-negotiable.
This process gives your gut a chance to respond to something concrete, rather than something abstract. A decision that looks reasonable on paper can still feel wrong once you picture yourself inside it, and this process can help you see and feel it. When you practice this exercise regularly, you can eventually develop the skill to the point of making a strategic and aligned decision in seconds, not hours or days.
Trusting your gut, then, is not a leap of faith. It is the natural result of doing the groundwork first. Once you know your values, your gut is no longer a mystery. It is simply telling you whether the choice in front of you matches who you already are.
Alanna Carlson is a lawyer, consultant and professional coach who runs her own solo legal practice and consultancy, where she helps organizations create workplaces where people feel safe, valued, and able to do their best work. She conducts workplace trainings, investigations, creates practice handbooks, does freelance litigation support and editing, and coaches busy professionals to identify their values, blocks, and find practical solutions. Discover how she can help you: https://alannacarlson.ca/
This article reflects the author's personal experience and opinion and does not constitute legal or medical advice.
The Lawyer Brain 2.0: Redrafting our Thoughts for Greater Success
The thinking habits that make lawyers effective advocates can quietly become a source of personal suffering if left unchecked. Here are some ideas of what to do about it.
Lawyers are trained to think in worst-case scenarios. This is our risk management training, and what we get paid to do. Our clients rely on us to identify every possible consequence of a decision, to anticipate the argument on the other side, and not be caught off guard. That kind of rigorous, risk-oriented thinking is the basis of our profession, and we can take pride in doing it well.
However, the brain does not clock out when we do. The same cognitive habits that protect our clients at work can follow us home, into our relationships, our sense of self-worth, and our ability to recover from the ordinary setbacks of a demanding career.
When catastrophizing, all-or-nothing thinking, and perfectionism become the default settings of our daily life rather than deliberate professional tools to use at the office, it can stop being helpful overall. Psychologists actually classify these ways of thinking as “cognitive distortions”, a term that sounds clinical but describes something many lawyers will recognize immediately.
When Professional Vigilance Becomes Personal Exhaustion
Consider how all-or-nothing thinking operates in legal practice. A lawyer who reviews an agreement is determining whether each clause is enforceable or not. That binary precision is appropriate and necessary. But when the same lawyer applies that standard to her own work ethic, concluding that her performance is either perfect or a failure, or that one loss at court or critical performance review means she is no good at her job, the binary thinking has migrated somewhere it does not belong.
Catastrophizing, the habit of assuming the worst outcome is not only possible but probable, keeps lawyers perpetually braced for disaster in their personal lives as much as in their professional ones. Jumping to conclusions, selective memory, and saying I “should” have done this or that, the relentless internal audit of everything one ought to have done differently, completes the picture.
These are not character flaws or some kind of personal failing. They are learned patterns, often reinforced across years of legal training, and have served us well in many ways.
Most distorted thinking patterns have a functional origin. They emerge in environments to keep us safe, where anticipating the worst meant we were never caught unprepared, where perfectionism earned us belonging, approval, and awards. Being hard on ourselves worked.
But over time as these patterns creep into our personal lives, it can become a source of stress for ourselves and those around us. Incessant vigilant thinking creates a lot of internal pressure. It affects our well-being. That in turn can affect our performance at work, and our desire to stay in this profession.
While it may seem unlikely now, it is possible to learn different ways of thinking, by using techniques to change our brain pathways - a concept known as neuroplasticity. This is worth exploring, as our brains and bodies are often begging for different treatment and a new way forward.
The First Move: Noticing Without Judgment
If we catch ourselves engaging in distorted thoughts in a place they do not belong, the lawyer brain instinct is to argue against it immediately, to produce the evidence that it is wrong and replace it with something else. Lawyers are particularly prone to this approach. We are trained to rebut. But cognitive behavioral therapy (“CBT”), the evidence-based framework most commonly used to address these patterns, recommends something different as a first step.
Before rebutting the thought, pause and get curious. Where does this thought come from? What part of you is it trying to protect? The part of us generating the thought is not the enemy; it is doing a job it was trained to do. Acknowledging that, even briefly, creates space for something to shift. “Okay, this is a normal thought for me to have. But where did it come from? Is it still helpful to me?”
Perhaps while reading this article you are thinking this thought management process is “soft” and not worth your time. Where does that thought come from? Who or what benefits from you thinking that way? What effect does it have on your long-term health and performance?
This is not a passive or undemanding exercise. We can think of it as due diligence on our own cognitive processes. You are not being asked to accept the distorted thought or ignore it. You are being asked to examine it before deciding what to do with it.
Why Affirmations Fail, and What to Do Instead
Many lawyers who have tried replacing negative thoughts with positive affirmations report the same experience: a flash of skepticism, followed by a return to the original thought. This is not a failure of willpower or self-belief. It is the brain doing exactly what a well-trained legal mind does when confronted with an unsubstantiated assertion. It demands evidence. It looks for inconsistencies. The lawyer's brain is not easily persuaded.
The leap from "If they find out how disorganized I am, I am going to get disbarred" to "I am a strong, capable, and trusted lawyer" is simply too vast. The gap between those two positions is not bridged by repetition; our brains will not be fooled.
Changing our thoughts requires a slower and more methodical approach. The principle is straightforward. You identify the most neutral, honest statement you can actually accept, and you start there. Not a positive statement, not an aspirational one; just an objectively true one in the present tense. A provable statement.
Over days and weeks, you build upward, one step at a time, only moving up when the current statement has become genuinely comfortable for you to believe. Psychologists and coaches working in this area often describe this as building a thought ladder full of practice thoughts on the way to a goal.
A Personal Example, and Why It Changed How I Practice Law
I came to this technique not through professional development but through necessity. Several years ago, I became chronically ill with Long COVID, and the fear that accompanied that experience was unlike anything I had encountered in my legal career. I was terrified that I would not recover and that I would never work again. With all the symptoms I was experiencing, my body felt permanently unsafe. Those thoughts were not occasional; they were constant, and they were getting in the way of any meaningful recovery. I joined a group led by a former lawyer to learn more about the thought coaching process.
The thought I wanted to eventually believe was simply, "I am safe." I could not get there directly. It felt like arguing a position without a single piece of supporting evidence. So, I started with what I could actually accept, and I built from there. I made a thought ladder.
I have a body.
I am in my body.
My body is in a safe place.
My body is safe.
I am safe.
You’ll notice that each statement is simple and in the present tense. The first one was easily believable. The second one took some work, to be mindfully present in my body. The third one was usually easy to believe as I was often in bed, as I was bedbound for months.
However, the fourth and fifth thoughts were very challenging for me. It took a lot of mental gymnastics to work my way to believing that those statements were objectively true. I had to make sure I was not gaslighting myself, and found evidence that the statement was in fact true, and then was able to believe it.
The full progression through these five thoughts took about six months of daily practice. Each one had to be genuinely believable before I moved to the next rung of the thought ladder. I had support from a psychotherapist along the way.
This process gave me relief and space to heal. It also gave me a transferable technique. I now use the same approach in my professional life when unhelpful thinking takes hold, building from a basic neutral thought to a goal thought, one credible step at a time.
This personal story might sound extreme, and it is. However, in my coaching of others, I have noticed that many lawyers hold extreme thought patterns that can benefit from a methodical approach.
A Practical Starting Point
Working with a qualified trauma-informed therapist trained in cognitive behavioral therapy is an effective way to develop these skills with proper guidance and accountability. CBT is among the most rigorously researched psychological interventions available, with a substantial evidence base developed over decades. Be careful not to gaslight yourself, or to ignore any history or experiences of trauma.
Some people prefer dialectical behavioural therapy, which focuses more on mindfulness, acceptance, distress tolerance, and emotional flexibility.
In the meantime, the entry point is simply this: the next time you notice a thought that feels catastrophic, absolute, or unkind, do not argue with it immediately. Ask where it came from. Acknowledge it. Then ask what the most neutral, believable alternative might be. You do not have to get all the way to optimism. Just a second opinion.
Lawyers are exceptionally good at constructing a careful, well-supported argument. Applying that same discipline to the way we talk to ourselves is not a departure from our professional lawyer brain instincts. It is one of the most practical uses of them. Reducing the internal pressure and finding more mental flexibility and capacity can mean all the difference for our well-being and a successful career in law.
Alanna Carlson is a lawyer, consultant and professional coach who runs her own solo legal practice and consultancy, where she helps organizations create workplaces where people feel safe, valued, and able to do their best work. She conducts workplace trainings, investigations, creates handbooks, and helps busy lawyers identify their blocks and find practical solutions. She also does freelance litigation support for other lawyers. She developed and leads a Trauma-Responsive Law seminar at the College of Law. Discover how she can help your organization: https://alannacarlson.ca/
This article reflects the author's personal experience and opinion and does not constitute legal or medical advice.