Civil dockets across Missouri continue to face increasing pressure from rising caseloads, complex discovery demands, and protracted litigation timelines. While courts and litigants alike feel the strain, meaningful settlement engagement remains one of the most effective and underutilized tools for promoting efficient case resolution. Insurance defense attorneys occupy a unique position that allows them to influence whether settlement discussions serve as a genuine path toward resolution or merely a procedural waypoint.

Meaningful settlement engagement is not synonymous with premature compromise, nor does it require sacrificing zealous advocacy. Instead, it demands informed preparation, candid communication, and strategic judgment. When properly executed, it benefits courts, litigants, insurers, and the broader civil justice system.

Understanding “Meaningful” Settlement Engagement

Settlement discussions occur in nearly every civil case, but not all settlement efforts are created equally. Meaningful engagement requires more than attendance at mediation or the exchange of numbers. It involves a good-faith evaluation of the merits, risks, and costs of litigation followed by communication that is grounded in reality rather than posturing.

For defense counsel, meaningful settlement engagement means approaching negotiations with a thorough understanding of liability, damages, coverage, and procedural posture. It also requires recognizing when continued litigation no longer advances client interests and may instead increase exposure, expense, or delay without corresponding benefit.

Early Evaluation as the Foundation for Settlement

Effective settlement engagement begins long before formal negotiations. Early case assessment is critical. Defense counsel should promptly evaluate liability, causation, damages, and coverage issues, identifying strengths and vulnerabilities that will shape settlement posture.

In Missouri practice, early identification of medical causation issues, preexisting conditions, comparative fault, and statutory limitations can significantly influence valuation. Similarly, recognizing policy limits, potential offsets, and coverage defenses early allows counsel to manage expectations and avoid last-minute surprises that derail settlement efforts.

Early, candid communication with claims professionals and insureds is essential. Overly optimistic assessments may delay resolution and invite unnecessary litigation activity, while thoughtful risk analysis allows for informed decision-making at each stage of the case.

Preparing Clients and Carriers for Realistic Outcomes

One of the most important and sometimes most difficult roles of defense counsel is managing expectations. Insureds and carriers alike benefit from clear explanations of how juries evaluate cases, how medical evidence is perceived, and how venue considerations affect outcomes.

Meaningful settlement engagement requires defense counsel to explain not only best-case scenarios but also reasonable and worst-case outcomes. This preparation ensures that settlement authority, when extended, reflects a realistic assessment of risk rather than reactionary decision-making under time pressure.

In Missouri courts, where jury verdicts can vary widely by venue and fact pattern, this realism is especially important. Well-prepared clients are better equipped to engage in productive settlement discussions and less likely to reject reasonable opportunities for resolution.

Time-Limited Demands and Strategic Responsiveness

Time-limited settlement demands present particular challenges in insurance defense practice. While such demands can raise concerns regarding artificial deadlines and potential bad-faith exposure, they also underscore the importance of prompt, informed responses.

Defense counsel plays a critical role in ensuring that time-limited demands are evaluated efficiently and communicated appropriately. This includes confirming receipt, clarifying ambiguities, requesting necessary information when appropriate, and advising carriers on both legal obligations and practical considerations.

A thoughtful response, whether acceptance, rejection, or counteroffer demonstrates good-faith engagement and preserves credibility with opposing counsel and the court. Silence or delay, by contrast, often escalates disputes and increases the likelihood of protracted litigation.

Mediation as a Tool, Not a Formality

Mediation remains a cornerstone of civil case resolution, yet its effectiveness depends largely on preparation and participation. Defense counsel should approach mediation as an opportunity for resolution, not merely a procedural requirement.

Meaningful mediation preparation includes:

• Exchanging key records and information in advance;
• Preparing persuasive mediation statements tailored to the audience;
• Ensuring appropriate authority is available; and
• Entering discussions with a willingness to engage substantively.

Defense counsel can also help shape productive mediation by identifying creative resolution options, such as structured settlements, partial resolutions, or phased payments, when appropriate. These tools often facilitate agreement in cases where traditional settlement approaches stall.

Balancing Advocacy with Professional Judgment

Some view robust settlement engagement as inconsistent with zealous advocacy. In practice, the opposite is often true. Advocacy includes the exercise of professional judgment recognizing when litigation strategy should shift from escalation to resolution.

Defense counsel who understands when continued litigation adds diminishing returns serve their clients effectively. Prolonged discovery disputes, repetitive motion practice, and unnecessary depositions often increase costs without improving outcomes. Settlement engagement, when grounded in informed advocacy, can reduce these inefficiencies while protecting client interests.

Importantly, meaningful settlement engagement does not require abandoning defenses or conceding liability. Rather, it involves presenting positions clearly, listening carefully, and adjusting strategy based on evolving information.

Benefits to the Court and the Civil Justice System

Courts rely on counsel to help manage civil dockets efficiently. When settlement discussions are meaningful, cases resolve earlier, discovery disputes decrease, and trial calendars become more manageable. Judges are spared unnecessary motion practice, and court resources are preserved for cases that truly require adjudication.

Defense attorneys, by virtue of their repeat involvement in civil litigation, have an outsized impact on docket efficiency. Consistent, professional settlement practices enhance credibility with the bench and contribute to a more functional civil justice system.

Ultimately, meaningful settlement engagement is not a concession; it is a skill. For insurance defense attorneys, it represents an opportunity to align zealous advocacy with professional responsibility and judicial economy. By engaging in early evaluation, preparing clients realistically, responding thoughtfully to settlement demands, and approaching mediation with intention, defense counsel can promote efficient resolution without compromising their role as advocates.

In an era of crowded dockets and increasing litigation costs, meaningful settlement engagement is not merely advisable, it is essential. Defense attorneys who embrace this role serve not only their clients, but the integrity and efficiency of Missouri’s civil justice system as a whole.

Lauren C. Collins is an In-House Litigation Attorney for Automobile Club of Missouri (Bischoff & Collins). She is a 2013 graduate of Mizzou Law School with over 10 years of defense litigation experience. Lauren also serves as an adjunct professor at SLU Law School, where she teaches a course focused on negotiations.

The marketplace for lawyers’ professional liability insurance (LPL) is competitive, and price is often the easiest point of comparison. Policies may appear similar at first glance, particularly when limits and deductibles match. But legal malpractice insurance is not a standardized product. Policies differ materially in structure, scope, and protective features, and those differences determine whether coverage will respond when a claim arises.

Premium reflects the price you pay. Coverage terms determine the protection you actually receive.

Below are several areas where coverage varies significantly among carriers and where those variations can have real-world consequences.

Prior Acts Coverage: Protecting Your Professional History

Malpractice claims are frequently based on work performed years earlier. Prior acts coverage determines whether legal services performed before the current policy period remain insured.

Some policies provide broad prior acts coverage that extends back to the beginning of an attorney’s career, assuming continuous insurance. Other policies limit prior acts coverage to work performed on behalf of the attorney’s current firm.

This distinction is critical. Policy language stating that coverage applies only to services rendered “on behalf of the Named Insured” or “for clients of the Named Insured” can effectively operate as a hidden retroactive date. Although a policy may appear to offer prior acts coverage, it may not extend to work performed at prior firms.

A policy that limits coverage in this manner leaves portions of an attorney’s work history vulnerable to future claims. Coverage that follows the lawyer’s career, rather than only the current firm, represents a meaningful difference in the level of protection provided.

Defense Cost Structure: Deductibles and Limits Matter

Defense costs in malpractice matters can be substantial, even when claims ultimately resolve with no indemnity payment.

Some policies provide what is commonly referred to as “first dollar defense,” meaning the insured’s deductible applies only if an indemnity payment is made. If a claim is defended and closed without payment to the claimant, the insured may never be required to satisfy the deductible.

Other policies apply the deductible to both defense costs and indemnity payments, requiring the insured to fund the initial portion of defense expenses as well as any settlement or judgment.

Separately, most LPL policies provide defense costs within the limits of liability, meaning defense expenses reduce the amount of limits available to pay damages. Some carriers offer defense costs outside the limits by endorsement and for an additional premium, typically subject to a separate stated cap. Once that cap is exhausted, additional defense costs generally begin to erode the limits available for indemnity.

Two policies may share identical limits and deductibles yet operate very differently based on how deductibles are triggered and how defense costs affect limits. These structural differences directly affect out-of-pocket exposure and available protection.

Statutory Claims: FDCPA as an Example

Lawyers in many practice areas face exposure under statutes that impose statutory fines, penalties, and fee-shifting remedies. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is a common example.

Lawyers’ professional liability policies generally exclude statutory fines and penalties from the definition of “damages.” Because coverage is triggered only for claims seeking covered damages, claims that seek solely statutory fines or penalties typically fall outside the insuring agreement altogether. In that circumstance, there is not only no indemnity coverage, but also no duty to defend.

Some policies create a narrow exception to this general exclusion by carving back coverage for damages arising under specific statutes, such as 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a) of the FDCPA. Where such an exception exists, FDCPA claims can qualify as claims seeking covered damages, thereby triggering both defense and indemnity coverage.

Most LPL policies do not include this carve-back. Whether a policy treats FDCPA statutory damages as covered damages can therefore determine whether an entire category of claims is insured or uninsured.

Tail Coverage, Portability, and Protection for Prior Work

Extended Reporting Period (ERP), commonly referred to as “tail” coverage, allows claims to be reported after a policy expires for acts, errors, or omissions occurring during the policy period.

Many carriers allow only the firm—not the individual attorney—to purchase tail coverage. If an attorney leaves a firm, that attorney may have no independent right to purchase an individual tail. If the former firm is acquired, merges with another firm, fails to maintain continuous coverage, or ceases operations altogether, coverage for the attorney’s prior work may be lost.

Compounding this risk, many firm policies limit prior acts coverage to work performed on behalf of the policyholder firm. If an attorney later joins a firm with this type of policy, that policy may not provide coverage for work the attorney performed at prior firms.

The result can be a coverage gap that is invisible until a claim arises.

Policies that allow individual attorneys to purchase tail coverage and that provide full career prior acts coverage materially reduce this risk by giving attorneys direct control over protection for their prior work history.

Consent to Settle

Some carriers grant the insurer sole discretion to settle claims without the insured’s consent. Other policies provide the insured with the right to consent to settlement but include a “hammer” clause.

A hammer clause generally provides that if the insured refuses to consent to a settlement recommended by the insurer, the insurer’s financial obligation is limited to the amount for which the claim could have been settled, plus defense costs incurred up to that point. Depending on policy language, the insurer may continue to defend the claim, but the insured may become responsible for additional defense costs and any portion of a judgment or settlement exceeding the recommended settlement amount.

Policies that provide the insured with the right to consent to settlement without automatically capping the insurer’s financial obligation offer stronger protection against unintended financial exposure.

Early Resolution Benefits

Some policies provide a financial incentive when a claim is voluntarily resolved early in the life of the claim. Many policies offer no such benefit, or restrict it to claims resolved only through prescribed mechanisms.

Policies that reduce the insured’s deductible when a claim is resolved early can materially affect out-of-pocket exposure. The availability and structure of such benefits vary among carriers and represent another area where coverage terms differ in practical impact.

Definitions and Exclusions  Drive Coverage

Seemingly small differences in definitions and exclusions can have significant consequences, including:

Who qualifies as an “insured”

How “legal services” or “professional services” are defined

Whether coverage extends to predecessor firms

Practice-area exclusions or client-based exclusions

Two policies with similar limits and premiums can perform very differently when these provisions are applied to real claims.

A Practical Framework for Evaluating Coverage

Questions lawyers should consider when evaluating malpractice coverage include:

Does the policy allow me, as an individual lawyer, to control protection for my own professional history?

Does the coverage follow me throughout my career, or is it limited to work performed for my current firm?

Does the policy provide a broad grant of coverage, with definitions and exclusions that meaningfully encompass my practice?

What is the carrier’s reputation for claim handling and coverage interpretation?

How accessible and responsive are the carrier’s underwriters, claims professionals, and leadership team when questions arise?

Conclusion

Legal malpractice insurance is not a commodity. Policies are not uniform. Differences in prior acts coverage, defense cost structure, statutory carve-backs, tail availability, consent rights, and definitions determine whether coverage will function as expected.

Price is an important factor. But coverage quality determines protection and ultimate out-of-pocket costs.

Understanding these differences allows lawyers to make informed decisions that protect not only their firms, but their careers.

American Bar Association President Michelle A. Behnke issued a statement on January 26, 2025, mourning the loss of two lives at the hands of immigration agents in Minneapolis. She noted that while there is confusion and fear as to the legalities at hand, it was clear that this level of violence is not normal.

Focusing on the Rule of Law, she urged the need for a fair and open investigation into the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens. 

She underscored that important constitutional rights—freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the freedom of the press—are at stake and urged that they be protected.

She described these as inalienable rights that ensure that all people and all government entities are accountable to laws that are clear, just, and fair.

The Rule of Law is not only under attack across the country, but also right here in Jefferson City.

Two days after the ABA’s press release, the annual State of the Judiciary address to a joint legislative session scheduled for January 28 was cancelled when it became clear Senate Republicans were going to boycott.

Why were they going to boycott? Lack of respect for the Rule of Law. 

In a recent case, the Missouri Supreme Court had unanimously held that Senate Bill 22 was unconstitutional, as it included changes to who writes ballot summaries and gave the attorney general new appeal power. Chief Justice Brent Powell wrote the decision, determining that the bill enacting the ballot summary law changed too much during its passage through the General Assembly. The changes violated the Missouri Constitution’s requirement that amendments cannot change the original purpose of the legislation.

The judges on the Missouri Supreme Court are not exactly liberal firebrands. Most of them were appointed by Republican governors. They are sworn to uphold the law.

It was a bright spot in a dark time to know that the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan is working, and the Rule of Law still is alive and well.

When people ask me why I am not discouraged by all the terrible news, I respond: the courts. 

I always love going to court. It is an opportunity to see long-term friends, to make new ones, and to stop and express appreciation, in person, to all the people that make the courthouse a safe and just place.

Sometimes, when I am waiting for my case to be called, I also get to observe judges, other counsel, and social service agency case managers. I learn from their best comments, advocacy and reporting. 

Recently a newer judge commented on family reunification. A parent was seeking increased supervised visitation with her infant child who has been in the Children’s Division’s physical custody for over six months.

Counsel for the Deputy Juvenile Officer and the Children’s Division opposed this request, as the case had just been adjudicated and disposition was still pending. 

Everyone had been informed that Mother had actively and appropriately visited with the child, providing the foster parents with food and supplies, had done individual counseling and parenting classes, and was not the target of any criminal investigation.

The judge suggested, that in her experience, the permanency goal for the child would soon be family unification. “Doesn’t it make sense that the mother be able to exercise increased bonding time to bond with her baby?” queried the judge?

I am always impressed when a judge questions the wisdom of the juvenile system. 

She asked the guardian ad litem what he recommended to serve the best interests of the child. More time, for sure, he agreed.

Everyone who works in the field of child protection believes that safety is the primary concern. Is anyone thinking about how the developmental needs of a child should be addressed?

It is a fine balance, but protecting children requires a more careful, individualized analysis than the one we see frequently from  the Children’s Division. Yes, they have big caseloads and are underpaid, but those impediments cannot dictate their lack of attention to do “no harm” to the child who is the focus of their work.

Most of my practice is in the Family Court. Two decades ago, in my judicial position, we were very driven by time standards. We believed that the administration of justice required timelines for discovery and a swift trial setting. As I recall, the Supreme Court even required reports on the ages of our cases, making limited exceptions for not abiding by their standards.

It is not uncommon for judges to do pretrial conferences in the presence of the litigants. They are the same judges who will try the case.

I have written about this issue in a prior column, but I feel as if a refresher article is needed for the long-time judges and as a consideration for the newer ones.

Litigants must have confidence in our system of justice. This confidence is lessened when a judge indicates that they are predisposed on an issue in the case or when they suggest risks for each side that give the impression of a predisposition.

Litigants hear the judges’ words differently than lawyers. They hang on each word and look for meaning that the judges may not intend. Judges are not aware of how powerful they are in the clients’ perceptions and how powerless the litigants feel, even if they are represented by competent counsel.

Many lawyers appreciate the judges sharing their views on issues with the caveat of “if the evidence shows that.” Three days of evidence cannot be distilled into a short pretrial conversation with the court and counsel, some even in the presence of the litigants.

Lawyers can try to soften those words with, ”A judge is likely to do xyz, but of course, we will have an opportunity to present evidence to convince him otherwise.” 

Lawyers are not evil players in the system of justice. They are under pressure to resolve cases, and they truly recognize that settlement is a more predictable and comprehensive manner to resolve disputes than a trial would likely be. 

I have seen law life from both sides of the bench. In my best judicial moments, I was a good listener, did not give pronouncements of what my decision would likely be, and stayed in my judicial lane.

In my worst judicial moments, I strayed from my lane, with good intentions, and shared my thinking with the lawyers, sometimes in the presence of their clients. As the kids say, my bad.

Judges should do their best to stick to their appropriate role. A pretrial conference can be used to report to the court on the status of discovery, any alternative dispute resolution efforts, and scheduling of motion hearings and the trial. A judge can give counsel rules of the road; they should not micromanage the issues of a case or in casual conversation give their “expert” opinion.

We have a good group of judges—and lawyers. We can always do better.

Our courts, their independence, and their integrity are the cornerstone of what is going best in our country. We must remain vigilant to any erosion of the respect our courts deserve. We are all officers of the court and as such, let us be more cognizant of the appearance of impropriety.

Our courts should be welcoming, open, and neutral. Each person sitting in our courtrooms is a potential champion for justice. 

I can’t wait for my next visit to court to see the good things that are happening.

For many young lawyers, the early years of practice are defined by a narrow focus: hit your billable hours, meet your deadlines, and avoid mistakes. While all of these are important pillars for a practicing attorney, long-term career growth requires more grit and determination than doing the expected. Whether your goal is partnership, judgeship, or even branching out to establish your own firm, your success is not only measured by how well you practice, but also in how you practice. 

Practice development is often discussed in abstract terms or deferred until “later.” The truth is that the habits, relationships, and reputation you build in your first five to seven years of practice frequently determine your trajectory for decades to come. The importance of developing a practice early, while maintaining focus on your core responsibilities, can position you for advancement later. 

The initial goal is not to originate large matters or get as many clients in the door as possible, but to become someone people think of when legal issues arise. Building relationships begins with competence, reliability, and professionalism. Clients notice lawyers who return calls promptly, explain issues clearly, and demonstrate ownership over their work. These habits form the foundation of any future book of business. 

One of the most common regrets expressed by mid-career lawyers is not starting earlier. Building your reputation is not going to look the same for every person, but there are some best practices you can start now. 

First, your network is indispensable. Networking is far more effective when it is authentic and consistent, rather than urgent and transactional. Begin with people at your own career stage: law school classmates, former colleagues, and professionals in adjacent fields (accountants, consultants, investors). These peers will grow alongside you, and many will eventually be in positions to refer work. Get involved with your local bar association or other affinity groups – they are the perfect space to get to know other members of the profession who are committed to the practice and those in it. 

Effective networking does not require constant events or forced conversations. Simple practices can be powerful, such as periodically checking in with contacts (without asking for anything in return), sharing articles or insights relevant to their work, or attending industry or bar association events selectively and purposefully. Calendars fill up quickly, but intentionality with your time and energy can preserve your operational capacity while still building and maintaining professional relationships. 

Put yourself in spaces and opportunities that you enjoy. Networking does not need to happen between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at a firm-sponsored happy hour. Volunteer in the community, sign up for non-legal classes, or get involved in a sport or activity that brings you joy. Referrals and clients don’t have to be generated at a legal event. Sometimes it is the connections you make with others when you aren’t actively seeking business that can end up being the most beneficial. 

Over time, these relationships that you’ve built will compound. When an opportunity arises, people are more likely to refer work to someone they know and trust. 

Second, make yourself invaluable. In most firms, excellence is expected, not rewarded with advancement. Determining how you can make a difference outside of your day-to-day responsibilities and then executing on those initiatives is what may make the difference in your career advancement. Law school is designed to rigorously prepare students and ensure they meet the competency standards required to practice, but your value as a practitioner extends beyond your timely and competent completion of tasks. 

Partners are more likely to invest in lawyers who exhibit good judgment and a genuine interest in the firm’s success, not just their assigned responsibilities. Demonstrating your commitment can take many forms: volunteering to handle client-facing tasks such as calls or follow-up emails, offering to draft client alerts or blog posts on recent developments, or proactively identifying issues or risks before being asked. 

Value can come from originating clients, expanding existing relationships, mentoring others, or strengthening the firm’s reputation. Young lawyers who understand this early can align their efforts accordingly. You do not need to have a full book of business in your first few years, but you should demonstrate a credible path toward sustainability. Showing initiative, even in small ways, signals long-term potential. 

Finally, while future achievements may hinge on volume or quality business, it is the relationships that you build in your first years of practice that are going to impact your longevity in the legal field. Every interaction—with colleagues, opposing counsel, clients, and court staff—either strengthens or weakens your professional brand. 

Decision-makers consider whether a lawyer contributes to the firm’s culture, supports others, and has long-term potential. Make your interest in growth known-professionally and appropriately. This can include: expressing interest in business development opportunities, asking to attend client meetings, or seeking mentors who can provide guidance and advocacy.

Importantly, internal reputation travels quickly. Treat staff, junior lawyers, and colleagues with respect. Not only do firms notice who others enjoy working with and who they trust under pressure, but you will inevitably need help from court staff or firm personnel, and you’ll find that the relationships you’ve built are far more significant than how well you can recall a specific statute.

Practice development is cumulative. The emails you send, the relationships you nurture, and the reputation you build today will shape opportunities years from now. Focus on steady, intentional growth. Be patient, consistent, and genuine. Over time, those efforts become a competitive advantage. 

For young lawyers, the path to partnership, judgeship, or a thriving practice does not begin with a rainmaking moment—it begins with daily habits. 

I’m back! But this time, I’m talking about the constitution of your body.  Like our country’s Constitution, it functions best when understood – and ramifications may follow when it’s ignored.

In athletics, genetics do not dictate your destiny. But when you hear someone say, “I don’t have an athletic bone in my body,” they may be on to something.  Learning how my genetics aligned was a game-changer for me. You can test through consumer DNA tests like 23andMe, AncestryDNA, and FitnessGenes.

Most people fall somewhere on a spectrum between power-leaning, endurance-leaning, and neither of the two. Once you understand where you fall, you can start choosing workouts that work with your body rather than against it so you suffer less and align your diet with how your body burns calories.

Exercise

Power-leaning genetics

Scientists have identified a gene called ACTN3 that impacts how muscles function. Fast-twitch muscle fibers are responsible for strength, speed, and explosive movement. ACTN3 determines whether these fibers produce alpha-actinin-3, a protein that allows muscles to contract faster and more forcefully. Some people do not produce this protein at all.

Studies show that nearly all elite athletes in power-based sports (such as sprinting, gymnastics, and weightlifting) carry a version of ACTN3 that allows alpha-actinin-3 production. This gene provides a natural advantage for strength and power training by supporting faster force generation, quicker recovery, and greater tolerance for heavy loads.

If you are power-leaning, workouts that tend to feel better include:

• Short, high-intensity sessions
• Strength training with moderate to heavy weights
• Sprint intervals instead of long runs
• HIIT workouts using compound movements

Endurance-leaning genetics

Scientists have also found that a combination of genes can influence a person’s endurance. PPARGC1 shapes how readily muscles build mitochondria during aerobic training.  Mitochondria help muscles produce energy, and so people whose muscles build mitochondria more efficiently are more likely to build stamina, fatigue less, and adapt more quickly to endurance-focused training.

EPAS1 helps the body sense and adjust to low oxygen levels.  Researchers have found that certain versions of EPAS1 appear more often in elite endurance athletes and are associated with more efficient levels of oxygen during prolonged exercise, improving tolerance for steady cardio and recovery from endurance training.

If you are endurance-leaning, workouts that tend to feel better include:

• Longer, steady efforts (running, cycling, rowing)
• Moderate intensity 
• More frequent training
• Strength training as support rather than focus (bodyweight, resistance bands, or lighter weights with higher repetitions)

Neither 

Many people don’t have genetic variants that give a natural advantage for power or endurance.  This does not mean they cannot be fit or athletic, but it can mean that some workouts will feel more demanding and may require more effort to achieve the same results.  Think of being in the “neither” group as normal, not a disadvantage.  In fact, people in this category may be more likely to stick with it and avoid burnout.

If you fall into the “neither” category, training that feels better includes:

• Balanced routines rather than extremes
• Longer workouts at low intensity (you can talk, but not sing)
• Light to moderate weights with higher repetitions
• Low-impact cardio such as walking, swimming, or the elliptical

Metabolism

Genetics can affect how easily you burn calories. People with power-leaning genetics experience higher post-exercise calorie burn, have better insulin sensitivity, and can get away with more calories.

People who are endurance-leaning burn a lot of calories during long workouts, but fewer calories at rest. Long cardio sessions can create a misleading sense that they have “earned” extra food leading to weight gain if intake isn’t monitored.

People in the “neither” category must pay the closest attention to diet. Weight loss is often driven more by cleaning up diet than by exercise alone. They don’t burn as many calories during workouts. This experience is real and is not a failure of effort.

Finally, if you are trying to lose weight, you cannot lose weight while drinking alcohol- and it’s not just about calories. While alcohol is being metabolized by the liver, the body stores fat instead of burning it, regardless of genetics, exercise, or calorie intake.  

I don’t have the word count to include sources. If you would like them, email me at abrockland@stronglaw.com. Be well!

When I first became involved with the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis and the Women in the Legal Profession Section, I was not searching for a platform or a cause. Like many attorneys, I was busy—balancing client demands, business responsibilities, and life outside the office. What I was looking for, even if I did not fully appreciate it at the time, was connection: to my profession, to peers who understood its pressures, and to a community that felt both supportive and realistic.

Over the past four years, my involvement with BAMSL and WILP has consistently delivered that. Serving as Chair has reinforced for me that leadership does not have to be loud or performative to be impactful. Instead, it can be grounded, practical, and built around shared experience.

Women in the legal profession often manage overlapping roles. We are attorneys, business owners, parents, partners, caregivers, and mentors, sometimes all at once. While those experiences are not universal, there is often an unspoken understanding among women who practice law: the demands are real, the expectations are high, and the margin for error can feel small. WILP has been a space where those realities are acknowledged without becoming the sole focus.

What I appreciate most about being part of WILP is the proximity to other professionals who understand the pressures of the work and the realities of life outside it. There is value in being in the room with people who do not require explanations for why balance matters, why flexibility is important, or why efficiency is essential. That shared understanding allows conversations to move quickly into substance.

As Chair, my approach has been guided by the belief that bar involvement should add value, not stress. That means programming that is relevant and practical, leadership opportunities that are flexible, and events that foster genuine connection rather than surface-level networking. Leadership, in my view, is about creating space—space for dialogue, for mentorship, and for different ways of engaging. As attorneys, our schedules are demanding, and professional involvement can sometimes feel like just another obligation. BAMSL, and WILP in particular, offers meaningful opportunities to network, learn, and contribute without being overly time-consuming. That balance makes sustained involvement possible—and enjoyable.

One of the most rewarding aspects of serving in this role has been listening. Members at different stages of their careers face different challenges, but many themes overlap: how to grow a practice sustainably, how to avoid burnout, and how to define success in ways that align with personal priorities. WILP creates opportunities for those conversations to happen naturally and constructively. From those conversations, I have gained an incredible amount of knowledge simply by listening. Through conversations within WILP, I have learned practical tips for making my practice more efficient, gained insight into issue-spotting in areas of law outside my primary focus, and, perhaps most importantly, been reminded that many of the challenges and doubts I experience are not unique—they are normal for attorneys at all stages of their careers. These conversations have reinforced something I deeply value: people—especially other attorneys who are often extraordinarily generous with their knowledge and experience if you are willing to ask—and truly listen.

For those considering getting more involved in BAMSL or a section like WILP, my advice is straightforward: start where it feels manageable. You do not have to commit to everything or take on leadership immediately. Attend an event, join a discussion, or simply show up. Meaningful engagement often begins with small, consistent steps.

Looking back on my time with BAMSL and WILP, I am grateful for the professional development, the relationships, and the sense of community. In a profession that often requires us to move quickly and juggle competing demands, WILP has offered a reminder that connection, proximity, and balance are not distractions from the practice of law—they are essential to sustaining it.

Although men have historically comprised the majority of the legal profession, that balance is shifting. According to the American Bar Association, the legal profession started to noticeably change from a male majority to a female majority. This shift is reflected in several key milestones.

• In 2016, women became a majority of law school students.
• In 2020, women became a majority of general lawyers in the federal government.
• In 2023, women became a majority of law firm associates.

As with the legal profession in general, over time, women have played a larger role at BAMSL.

The first female BAMSL member was Bonita Schramm, who joined in 1928. The first female president of BAMSL was Mary-Louise Moran for the 1991-92 bar year. The next female president was Deirdre O. Smith in the 1994-95 bar year. In 2024, Judge Kendra Howard became the first female African American BAMSL president. Irene L. Dulin was BAMSL’s first female vice president in 1956 and first female board member in 1960.  Today, women make up approximately half of BAMSL’s board of governors (17 of 35 members). 

BAMSL’s Women in the Legal Profession Section was established in 1980 as a committee and has grown over the years. The mission of WILP is to promote and enhance women in the legal field professionally, personally, and within their community. WILP provides members with the opportunity to connect and interact with other female legal professionals, offering growth opportunities and support to reach more milestones.  

As BAMSL looks to the future, it remains dedicated to advancing women in the legal profession through leadership, mentorship, and meaningful engagement. WILP will continue to be a cornerstone of that commitment. 

 

For a list of other attorneys who broke barriers, visit BAMSL’s Gallery of Legal Pioneers

In recognition of the women serving on the BAMSL Board, the St. Louis Law Journal invited board members to share their perspectives, experiences, and advice with fellow members.

Amy Rebecca Johnson Attorney, Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C. Question 1: What boundaries or practices have helped you avoid burnout? Boundaries are crucial to avoiding burnout in this profession, which often rewards overextension. I have boundaries for my relationships with co-workers/staff, my clients, and also myself. All are important – for example, I manage client expectations by clearly defining communication methods and response times to prevent communication from being in constant crisis mode. I am intentional, protect personal time, say no without guilt, and prioritize my health and support systems. This sustains my resilience, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability. Question 2: How do you recharge outside of work? I love time outdoors—the fresh air recharges me and restores my perspective and calm. My outside time most often includes walking in Tower Grove Park (my favorite STL park), hiking (whether in STL metro area or while traveling), and spending time in our country property (laying in my hammock, resting in the creek, walking the grounds, or tending to my bees). I also make it a priority to engage in movement (yoga, Pilates, walking, figure skating, weightlifting), creativity (cooking, reading), and traveling. All of these things are essential to replenish my energy, clarity, and resilience to help me stay grounded.

 

Lauren Collins Litigation Attorney, Bischoff & Collins Question 1: What boundaries or practices have helped you avoid burnout? I avoid burnout by maintaining clear boundaries and consistent self-care practices. I prioritize a regular gym routine to manage stress and stay disciplined, and I intentionally schedule restorative time such as massages and facials to recharge. Just as importantly, I protect personal time, set realistic expectations, and remain mindful about balance. These practices allow me to show up focused, resilient, and fully present in my professional and service-oriented commitments. Question 2: How has serving on the BAMSL Board of Governors board influenced your professional growth? Serving on the BAMSL Board of Governors has sharpened my leadership skills and broadened my perspective beyond individual cases to the health of our legal community as a whole. Working alongside judges, practitioners, and bar leaders strengthened my ability to collaborate across viewpoints, evaluate policy impacts, and make principled decisions. The experience reinforced the importance of service-oriented leadership, thoughtful governance, and advancing initiatives that promote professionalism, equity, and public trust in the legal system.

 

Katie Doherty Senior Associate, Armstrong Teasdale LLP Question 1: What boundaries or practices have helped you avoid burnout? Unless there is a looming deadline or there is already an understanding that I need to be available after hours, I will wait until the morning to return an email after 7 p.m. COVID remote work really gave us a precedent that you can always be “in the office” because of how easy it is to work from home/phone, but I no longer regularly work after work. It can wait. Question 2: What strategies have helped you advocate for yourself and your career advancement? Working on things outside my “wheelhouse.” Taking on a variety of pro bono cases has helped me hone my craft, learn new skills and information, and made me a better lawyer and advocate. It can also translate into paid work because it helps keep you from being pigeon-holed and stuck in one type of practice.

 

Cynthia Garnholz Owner, The Garnholz Law Firm LLC Question 1: Do you have any family members who were attorneys or judges? My father, Edward W. Garnholz, was a lawyer and a great inspiration. He had two sons and one daughter, and while I think he initially hoped that one or both sons would follow him into the law, his daughter was the one who did so. My father was a state legislator, St. Louis County prosecutor in the 1950s, and a longtime general practitioner. Now my son is a lawyer, so the legacy continues! Question 2: What brings you satisfaction or gives you pride in your work? The great honor and pleasure of the practice of law is helping people. Clients often feel both fearful and mystified when they are caught up in court proceedings. Helping them understand the process and leading them to a (hopefully) satisfying conclusion is both fulfilling and gratifying. Earning that heartfelt “thank you” from the client at the end of the representation is frosting on the cake and fortifies me for tackling another day in court.

 

Andrea McNairy Partner, Brown & Crouppen, P.C Question 1: Do you have any family members who were attorneys or judges? Growing up, I did not know any attorneys or judges, and my initial interest in becoming a lawyer was shaped largely by what I saw on television. While practicing law is not like it is portrayed on TV, it has nonetheless proven to be a deeply fulfilling role and career. Question 2: What brings you satisfaction or gives you pride in your work? Being able to bring meaningful change to someone’s life gives me both pride and deep satisfaction. I often meet clients at some of the lowest points in their lives. Knowing, at the end of a case, that my client will have the means to care for themselves and access the necessities they need makes the hardest parts of being a lawyer worthwhile.

 

Erica B. Slater Founding Partner, Gunn | Slater Question 1: What strategies have helped you advocate for yourself and your career advancement? I used to be the first voice telling myself I couldn’t do something, or that opportunities were meant for other people, not me. Once I recognized that pattern, I began to change my narrative. Even if my first reaction still isn’t, “Yes, of course I can do that,” I now try to ask, “Why not me?” With time and practice, I’ve learned to see any opportunity as possible, giving myself the space to grow into the idea until it becomes a confident “yes.” Question 2: Please describe a role model who was influential to your career. I tried my first plaintiff case as a third-year lawyer before Judge Barb Wallace, who treated me with the same respect and professionalism as my more experienced opposing counsel. After trial, she invited me to lunch and brought my voir dire transcript, walking me through what worked and where I could improve with stronger follow-up. Her thoughtful mentorship encouraged me to keep growing and showed me that the legal community is willing to support and invest in young trial lawyers.

 

Karen M. Jordan Office Managing Partner, Dentons Question 1: How do you recharge outside of work? I recharge by spending time with my family and close friends and by traveling when I can. Being with the people who matter most helps me stay grounded and keeps things in perspective. Travel gives me a chance to step away from the day to day demands of the firm, clear my head, and come back refreshed. Both are important for maintaining balance and bringing energy and focus back to my role. Question 2: Please describe a role model who was influential to your career. A few months into my career, a wise and seasoned partner at another law firm shared a key piece of wisdom that struck the right balance of acknowledging the struggle, encouraging excellence, and recognizing progress. I won’t share his exact words, but his advice amounted to “the goal posts will often move, you just have to learn to keep moving with them.”  I try to strike that same balance when speaking to younger lawyers.

 

Courtney Green Attorney, The Center for Family Law Question 1: What is one piece of advice you wish you had received earlier in your career? No one really knows it all. We are all still learning as we go, which is why they call it the “practice” of law. Not only is the law always evolving, but so are we as practitioners. Mistakes are inevitable, but learning from experience and adversity is what makes a good attorney great. Embrace the moments that didn’t go as planned – that is where you can learn the most. Question 2: How do you recharge outside of work? Tennis! I started playing tennis right after taking the bar exam. I finally felt like I had time to start something new that got my body moving and let out my competitive nature. My grandma has been playing for years and got me into the sport. She is still my tennis partner to this day. I play in a couple of leagues and always feel better after getting in some court time (no pun intended).

 

Eliana J. Emery Managing Attorney, Heritage Law Partners Question 1: Do you have any family members who were attorneys or judges? My father was an attorney for a few short years before he died. I have fond memories of attending Torts with him when I was around seven, clutching my bag of butterscotch—a bribe—and a notepad to "take notes." I suppose those experiences left an imprint, as I went on to do the same thing with my own children, schlepping them with me to class on snow days. Question 2: What boundaries or practices have helped you avoid burnout? Managing expectations with clients at the beginning of every matter. When clients understand how and when communication happens, the overall process, and timeline, they're more confident and constructively engaged. That reduces unnecessary stress for everyone and allows me to focus on doing the work well. Clear expectations are essential to healthy, less stressful attorney-client relationships.

 

Kelly Spann Attorney, FortmanSpann Law Firm Question 1: What brings you satisfaction or gives you pride in your work? What brings me the most pride in my work is translating legal jargon into clear, everyday language. I enjoy empowering clients with knowledge they can truly understand, digest, and confidently use to make informed decisions. Helping people feel less overwhelmed and more in control of their legal matters is both satisfying and meaningful to me. Question 2: What is one piece of advice you wish you had received earlier in your career? I wouldn’t say I wish I’d received it earlier—I did receive it. The best advice I ever got was to leave a good impression wherever you go. You never know who you may work with, work against, or work for in the future, and reputations follow you throughout your career.

 

Thank You to All of the Women on BAMSL's Board of Governors

President-Elect: Amy Rebecca Johnson

Treasurer: Lauren Collins

ABA Delegate: Portia Britt

YLD Chair: Courtney Green

YLD Chair Elect: Tayler Finneran

Presidential Liaison: Karen Jordan

Member at Large: Andrea McNairy

Member at Large: Cardina Johnson

Member at Large: Katie Doherty

Member at Large: Tamar Gandaho

Member at Large: Cynthia Garnholz

Member at Large: Erica Slater

Family & Juvenile Law: Cara Lutterman

Minorities in the Legal Profession:

Eliana J. Emery

Patent, Trademark & Copyright:

Mary-Ann Wymore

Trial: Alexa Hillery

Women in the Legal Profession: Kelly Spann

The BAMSL Trial Section invites all members to join with us in celebrating the two retiring judges of the 22nd Circuit. They will be recognized at BAMSL’s Law Day ceremonies on May 1.

Hon. Barbara T. Peebles 22nd Judicial Circuit Court Hon. Barbara Peebles is a St. Louis native who dedicated her entire career to being a true public servant to the City of St. Louis. Judge Peebles graduated with a BA from Washington University in 1982. She was one of the first people in her family to receive a professional degree. But she did not stop there. She went to law school for her father, who had encouraged her to do something practical as a career. She received her JD from American University Washington College of Law in 1986 and has no regrets about becoming a lawyer. Judge Peebles moved back to St. Louis City and began her practice first as an Assistant City Counselor, then as an Assistant Circuit Attorney. She was selected by the judges to be the first Drug Court Commissioner in the 22nd Judicial Circuit, the second Drug Court established in the state of Missouri.   Judge Peebles was appointed by Governor Mel Carnahan in 2000 and spent the next 25 years on the bench. She found her last five years, which she spent in juvenile court, to be the most rewarding. Juvenile court was a natural fit for her as someone who was drawn to helping others.  Her advice for young lawyers and judges would be to put your head down and do the work. She says judges and lawyers need to be aware of change, but not be afraid of it. Judges may need to get involved in areas where they were not traditionally, like when different specialty courts were created during her practice. Young lawyers and judges will have to push for innovation, but the legal field can handle it. Judge Barbara Peebles shared, “I would you to thank BAMSL very much for the recognition of my service to the citizens, the City of St Louis, and the Missouri Bar. It was an honor and privilege to serve.”

 

Hon. David Mason 22nd Judicial Circuit Court When he was 9 years old, Hon. David Mason said he wanted to pursue a career in law. He never deviated from that goal, though he developed other interests such as journalism and classical vocal music. Judge Mason graduated from Austin Peay State University in 1980 and from Washington University School of Law in 1983. He participated in mock trial in law school and has coached the Washington University trial team ever since. Judge Mason was appointed to the bench when he was 35 years old and spent the next 35 years on the bench. He has presided over many cases the press or public deemed significant, but he finds every case significant because “it’s always significant to the litigants.” One of the things he is most proud of was his initiation of the Enlightened Sentencing Project, a rehabilitation program which used transcendental meditation as a rehabilitation tool to reduce stress and recidivism of probationers.  Outside of the courtroom, Judge Mason is proud of his involvement with the Freedom Suits Memorial, a monument in downtown St. Louis that commemorates lawsuits filed against slaveholders by enslaved persons asserting their freedom. Many of these suits were filed in St. Louis, most notably the Dred Scott case, which some consider to have triggered the Civil War. Judge Mason is proud of the memorial because he sees how much it means to black St. Louisans to have a monument downtown identifying the litigants of the freedom suits as strong individuals, not hapless victims. He is also proud of his successful efforts to rename the Civil Courts Building to the Clyde S. Cahill Courts Building. His resolution was passed unanimously by the judges of the 22nd Judicial Circuit. Judge Mason believes a successful judge leaves their bias off the bench. They listen, because everyone has something useful to say. A judge is most important when the law merely guides what they should do, but a judge should stay within a zone of reasonableness. “Citizens have the right to expect a reasoned judiciary that exercises discernment within the bounds of the Constitution.” His advice for young lawyers is simple: to thine own self be true. He says he would especially extend that advice to his recent replacement, Judge Catherine Dierker, and expressed his congratulations to her.  Judge Mason is grateful to the citizens of St. Louis for keeping him on the bench for 35 years and hopes he helped instill confidence in their judiciary.

 

As lawyers, we are trained to ask hard questions. We are trained to look past the surface. We are trained to look past slogans and acronyms and examine rationales, incentives, processes, and outcomes. Simply, we are trained to get to the heart of the matter. So, when we talk about diversity and those topics that impact diversity, we should do so not as a trend or to check the box, but as a professional obligation grounded in the very values we say we uphold. To get to the heart of the matter of issues that impact diversity, equity, and inclusion, we must talk about these topics at their core. We must talk about who is at the table, whether the table is level, and whether everyone at the table is being heard and taken seriously. These are not political concepts. These are fairness concepts, and fairness is the currency of our profession. Fairness is how trust is built within the legal community and how those outside the legal community view the justice system. 

However, the law does not function on trust alone. It also functions on legitimacy, and legitimacy depends on whether the people we serve believe the system sees them, understands them, and will treat them fairly. When you have large segments of the public who believe the justice system is distant, not accessible, and stacked against them, the rule of law begins to erode; not instantly but with a quiet, slow disengagement.

This is where diversity comes in. This is where equality comes in. This is where inclusion comes in. Not as a charity or a preference, but as a major component of the infrastructure. I believe it is undeniable that a diverse and inclusive profession strengthens decision making. It reduces blind spots. It improves client services and brings credibility to the courtrooms and communities alike. Frankly, I believe it makes us all better lawyers.

But we have to be honest. Progress has been uneven and slow. Though we have made strides in the recruitment of diverse law students and young lawyers, we have seen sharp drop-offs at mid-career and leadership levels. We talk about mentorship, but sponsorship, the kind that puts reputations on the line, remain scarce for many. While firms and institutions often say they value inclusion, the metrics that drive compensation, promotion, leadership, and equity don't always reflect that commitment. That gap between stated values and lived experience is where skepticism grows. 

When I stepped into the role of President of BAMSL, one goal was to create a platform to discuss the very important topics that impact diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal industry. That goal came to fruition. We kicked off our inaugural event that provided this platform to discuss many topics impacting diversity in the legal space entitled: Advancing Justice Through Inclusive Excellence - The Path Forward. The striking thing about planning the program was not selecting the topics and assembling the impressive moderators and panelists, but the thought and discussion it took to come up with a title for the program. “D.E.I.” has become politicized and polarizing, thus, the title we chose. This experience was not unique to our planning committee. Many institutions, too, have struggled with the naming and renaming of diversity initiatives and programs for many reasons.

Nonetheless, the attendance at this event was a powerful testament to the leadership and dedication that define our legal community. I was truly honored and grateful for those who attended “choosing” to be a part of this program. I use the word “choosing” intentionally as these are no longer easy topics to discuss. For some, they are uncomfortable topics. Certainly, they are no longer uncontroversial ones. This is why this program and others like it matter. 

I remember early in my career walking into the courtroom for the very first time. Technically, I belonged. I had earned my bar license. I was prepared and had worked hard. However, before I ever spoke a word, it was clear that not everyone in the courtroom saw me the same way they saw others. No one said anything out loud and no rule was broken, but the assumptions were there. The expectations were different. Those who have experienced this will understand what I mean. At that moment I learned very quickly that for some people the practice of law begins from a position of presumed competence while for others, competence must be proven again and again. That moment has stayed with me. Not because it was unique, but because it wasn’t.

The Advancing Justice CLE and similar programs are not about acronyms. It's about learning skills, developing systems, and having accountability. It's about understanding where barriers actually exist, how implicit assumptions operate in professional settings, and what concrete steps leaders and decision makers can take to build environments where talent truly has an equal opportunity to thrive.

Let’s be very clear about something else: Creating opportunity for some does not require taking dignity from others. Expanding access does not diminish excellence, it enhances it. The legal profession is not weakened by widening the door; it’s weakened when qualified and capable people never get through it.

In order to push forward in this space, if you are a partner, manager, or decision maker, diversity, equity, and inclusion asks you to examine not just the outcomes, but the processes to get to the heart of the matter. If you are a young lawyer, it asks you to claim your space and advocate for yourself and others. And if you are somewhere in between, it asks you to stay engaged, even when the conversation gets uncomfortable, because discomfort is often the price for growth.

Platforms that discuss these very important topics and issues surrounding diversity matter because they move us from abstraction to application, from good intentions to best practices, and from passive commitment to active leadership. My hope today is simple: That we get to the heart of the matter and not focus on acronyms; that we gain insight that challenges biased assumptions; that we develop tools we can actually use to move progress forward; and that we make one commitment, no matter how small, that we are willing to take back to our workplace that will help move the needle towards a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment on all fronts. It’s not about acronyms.