Columns

I have been mesmerized by space travel since its beginning and copies of the famous photo, Earthrise, taken by Astronaut William (Bill) Anders on December 24, 1968, has been hanging on the walls of my office and home since it was distributed.

I have been mesmerized by space travel since its beginning and copies of the famous photo, Earthrise, taken by Astronaut William (Bill) Anders on December 24, 1968, has been hanging on the walls of my office and home since it was distributed.

I have never tired looking at it. It continually leaves me in awe.  The beauty!

Thus, I could feel my heart beat increase as I watched Artemis II take off for its 10-mission around the Moon. And I wished the four astronauts on board Godspeed.

But, at the same time, I have been distressed by a contradiction and irony.

Here we are working to make the unhabitable (the Moon, Mars) habitable for humans while we making the habitable (Earth) uninhabitable.

While the first objective is decades away, the latter is approaching quickly; it is a fait accompli; there is no avoiding the disaster for the planet.  

The actor, William Shatner, who, at age 90, was on a sub-orbital space flight -- Blue Origin NS-18 -- in 2021, was interviewed as Artemis took off, and he explained how much he was moved by the beauty of the Earth.

Then, he added quickly, how depressed and dismayed he was at the speed with which are destroying it.

Here is a short list of what we face:

--First, population growth. You don’t have to be a scientist to recognize that, given the problems we are experiencing at eight billion on the planet, any growth will be devastating.

--It is too late to cool the Earth. The present temperature increases are caked-in.  Even passionate environmentalists have accepted an increase of temperatures to 1.5° Celsius which is about 0.4 tenths more than we have experienced since the beginning of the pre-industrial revolution (around the mid-1800s).

--We can’t stop the melting of glaciers and the subsequent rising of the oceans that are drowning populated islands as I write this.

--Rainforests, the “lungs of the Earth,” so vital to our survival because they absorb CO2 are being destroyed daily. Haiti alone has lost 98 percent of its rainforests.

--Then we have water, soil, air pollution not to mention water shortages in much of the world. Eight hundred million people – 1 in 10 -- do not have access to clean water.

--More than a million animals and plants are threatened with extinction, according to scientific studies.

---Plastics are suffocating us. In 1950, we manufactured two million tons of plastic. We are approaching the manufacture of 500 million tons -- that’s 500 million tons. Microplastics have been found in human brains and blood. We are a Great Lakes state and 22 million tons of plastic are dumped in these lakes annually. Seventeen billion pounds go into the oceans each year.

--We cannot, it’s impossible, to cleanup our oceans, lakes, streams and other waterways. One scientist, testing a new submarine, found plastic trash bags at 36,000 feet below the surface, the deepest anyone has ever gone.

If you drive an SUV, consider it contains about 400 pounds of plastic.

--We are experiencing rage fires and wind storms around the world, the likes of which we have never seen before.

And, I might stress, these are just a few highlights -- more accurately, lowlights.

(Incidentally, we are polluting space as well. NASA itself has stated that there are 6,000 tons of materials in Low Earth Orbit, making it the “world’s largest garbage dump.” The International Space Station has had to initiate evasive maneuvers on many occasions to avoid crashing into this “junk.”)

Anyone who believes we can solve all the problems makes Pollyanna look like a pessimist.

It is not in the cards. The political will does not exist to tackle these issues nor do the economics.

There have been 30 annual international environmental summits called the Conference of Partners (COP) since 1995 and each year the environmental situation was worse than the previous meeting.

Lots of passionate speeches, promises and pledges.  Never any follow up.

In 1994, Carl Edward Sagan, astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, and science communicator, wrote a book, “Pale Blue Dot:  A Vision of the Human Future in Space” (Random House).  In it, he included a photo of the Earth taken, in 1990, from some 3.75 billion miles from Earth by the space probe, Voyager 1. The Earth appears the size of a pinhead. Sagan concludes his description of the photo with the following:

“There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.  To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

Sadly, Sagan’s hope and wish have fallen on deaf ears.

In his essay, he also observed: “In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”

How right he was. There is a word for doing it to ourselves: Suicide.

 ————————

 Berl Falbaum has written extensively about climate change, and the environment.

Practicing law is demanding — long hours, unforgiving deadlines, and high stakes. Most lawyers expect those pressures as part of the calling. Conflict is also inherent to the work. 

Practicing law is demanding — long hours, unforgiving deadlines, and high stakes. Most lawyers expect those pressures as part of the calling. Conflict is also inherent to the work. 

However, incivility and unprofessionalism should not be. Such conduct adds a weight that should never be part of the job. We understand that disagreement and advocacy are part of the profession, but what should be professional disagreements too often become personal attacks, and what should be intentional advocacy can become performative. As professionals, we must reconsider what zeal in advocacy actually requires. 
It is easier to see incivility in someone else’s conduct, but the only behavior lawyers can control is their own. Culture shifts one lawyer at a time, through the thousands of choices we make and how we show up in our professional work each day. Have you ever walked out of a conversation wishing for a do-over? Perhaps it was a curt reply, an email sent too quickly, or a defensive explanation. These moments remind us that incivility and unprofessionalism can be subtle and unintentional, shaped by pressure more than malice. One of my favorite quotes is from psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl, who wrote, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Frankl reminds us that there will always be events that trigger us. Our power lies in pausing and considering our choice: Will we react impulsively or respond with reflection and intention? This practice, repeated one lawyer and one moment at a time, is how our profession grows in civility and professionalism.  

Reaction vs. Response  

A critical difference exists between reaction and response. A reaction is immediate and driven by the nervous system’s urge to reduce tension. Reaction narrows options and can escalate conflict. A response, on the other hand, includes a pause for reflection and consideration of objectives, tone, and long-term consequences. Response widens options and better serves the client’s interests. 

The “space” Frankl describes is what psychology calls “the window of tolerance,” a framework developed by psychiatrist Daniel Siegel that describes our capacity to pause, think clearly, regulate emotions, and act in alignment with our values. Outside of that window, we move into fight, flight, or shutdown, and our response yields to our survival reflex. Legal practice routinely pushes lawyers to the edges of that window with contentious hearings, demanding clients, and relentless deadlines. Without awareness, reaction can become our default. 

Correcting a Misconception 

The phrase “zealous advocacy” has taken on a life of its own in legal culture. Many lawyers have come to hear “zeal” as permission for aggression, hostility, or winning at any cost, often at the expense of civility and professionalism. However, the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct never use the term “zealous advocate.” The comment to Rule 1.3 on diligence states only that a lawyer should act “with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy on the client’s behalf.” 

Zeal, by ordinary definition, means eagerness and enthusiastic interest in pursuit of a cause. Advocacy is the act of supporting a cause. Considered together, zealous advocacy is simply the enthusiastic pursuit of a client’s cause. That pursuit exists within the framework of ethics and professionalism. Within that framework, civility is not a courtesy but a professional discipline, and ethics calls us to to choose intention over impulsiveness.  When zeal is misunderstood as aggression rather than enthusiasm, self-interest can replace client interest.  That posture is not advocacy. It is reaction misnamed as zeal. 

A pause does not betray diligence. It protects it by preventing errors, aligning action with client objectives, ensuring competent representation, and promoting thoughtful execution. As lawyers, our ethics are guided by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, which encompass core principles such as competence, diligence, candor, and fairness.  

These duties require professional judgment. A pause supports that judgment by creating space to consider obligations, options, and consequences and to notice whether we are serving the client’s interests or protecting our own comfort and image. The standard in our rules is reasonable promptness, not immediacy, and certainly not impulsive promptness. The canon implies deliberation. Incivility and unprofessional conduct often grow from reactivity rather than reflection. The pause helps us meet our ethical obligations. The challenge is learning how to widen the space when pressure narrows it. 

Widening Our Window 

Creating space is a practical skill. We widen our window of tolerance through ongoing awareness, reflection, and practice. We can practice in small, ordinary ways: delaying an email rather than pressing send in the heat of the moment, pausing to ask whether our conduct serves the client’s interests, using a brief recess to allow emotions to settle before proceeding, and, when all else fails, pausing to breathe. Slow, steady breathing signals safety to the nervous system, calming the stress response and allowing the thinking parts of the brain to come back online. One effective breathing technique to try is box breathing: inhale for four counts, hold for four, exhale for four, and hold again for four, like tracing the four sides of a box. Even 30 seconds of intentional breathing can change the course of an interaction. 

Practicing True Zeal 

Leadership in law is rarely dramatic. More often, it looks like steadiness in ordinary moments. It is the discipline to remain calm when provoked, the resolve to do what is right rather than what is easy, and the wisdom to know when to speak and when to remain silent. 

Lawyers shape the tone of litigation, courtrooms, and negotiations through their conduct. That influence calls us to be pillars of the profession, leaders who bring enthusiasm to their work while meeting pressure with professionalism, fortitude, and response over reaction. 
This form of leadership models true zeal in advocacy. 

Harper Lee’s character Atticus Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird exemplifies zealous advocacy in action. When he sits outside the jail to protect his client, he is calm, collected, and unwavering in the face of threats. His courage is not theatrical; it is regulated and principled. The jail scene is only one of many moments in which Atticus demonstrates zealous advocacy — from his careful preparation to his respectful engagement — and unwavering fidelity to the rule of law. His conduct demonstrates what zeal in advocacy rightly means: advocacy anchored in enthusiasm, civility, and professionalism. 

When we choose response over reaction, we show colleagues, clients, and young lawyers that zealous advocacy is not loud, hostile, or aggressive. We model that strength can be calm, that professionalism can be firm without being harsh, and that passion for a client’s cause can coexist with respect for everyone involved. Our profession needs more people like Atticus Finch, advocates who prove day after day that true zeal is deliberate, principled, and humane.

 ———————————

Sarah E. Kuchon, of Hohauser Kuchon, is the 93rd president of the Oakland County Bar Association.

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

By Rabih Hamawi

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO)? 

An EUO is a formal proceeding where the insurance company questions you about your claim while you are under oath. 

Think of it as similar to a deposition—but it happens during the claim's process, not a lawsuit.

What to Expect:

You are placed under oath (sworn to tell the truth).

The insurer’s attorney asks detailed questions.

A court reporter records everything.

Your answers can be used to approve or deny your claim.
 
Why do insurance companies request an EUO? 

Insurance companies request an EUO as part of their investigation process, particularly when a claim involves complex facts or raises questions that require clarification. The primary goal is to verify the details of the loss, assess the accuracy and consistency of the policyholder’s statements, obtain information about damages sought, and evaluate overall credibility. In many cases, insurers also use the EUO to gather information that could justify limiting or denying coverage under the policy.

An EUO is more likely to be requested in situations involving large or high-value claims, where the financial exposure is significant.

 It may also be triggered by inconsistencies in prior statements, gaps or missing documentation, or circumstances that the insurer believes warrant closer scrutiny. In some cases, even without clear evidence, insurers may suspect potential fraud and use the EUO to explore that possibility. Claims involving business interruption or loss of income are also commonly subject to EUOs, as they often require detailed financial review and supporting documentation.
 
What to do if an EUO is requested after a property insurance claim

Take these steps immediately:

Do not ignore the request.

Timely submit a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss.

Ask what documents are required.

Request clarification on topics to be covered.

Prepare thoroughly before attending.

Consider legal guidance early.

 What happens during an EUO?

Understanding the EUO process can help reduce stress and ensure proper preparation. During an EUO, you are placed under oath and questioned by the insurance company’s attorney about your claim, while a court reporter records everything in a transcript.

The questions typically cover the cause of the loss, the specific property that was damaged, your financial situation, and any prior claims history. You may also be asked to provide supporting documents, such as receipts, repair estimates, or photos of the damaged property. Preparing in advance and knowing what to expect can help you answer clearly and consistently, protecting your claim from unnecessary challenges or delays.

 Practical mistakes to avoid during an EUO 

Even small missteps during an Examination Under Oath can put your claim at risk. Common mistakes include:

Guessing answers instead of saying “I don’t know.”

Volunteering extra information not asked by the insurer.

Appearing unprepared or without supporting documents.

Being defensive or argumentative during questioning.

Failing to review prior statements before attending.

Attending an EUO without an experienced insurance attorney by your side.

 Avoiding these mistakes helps ensure your testimony is accurate, consistent, and protects your claim from unnecessary challenges.
 
Why you need an attorney for your insurance claim

An EUO can be complicated, and small mistakes can lead to reduced or denied claims. An experienced insurance attorney helps you understand your policy, prepare documents, and answer questions accurately to protect your rights.

Attorney Rabih Hamawi is an experienced insurance-coverage attorney who has successfully handled hundreds of claims and recovered millions for policyholders. The Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133. 

Early in my newspaper career, I was involved in covering a story about a man who bought a car wash at a local gas station. 

Early in my newspaper career, I was involved in covering a story about a man who bought a car wash at a local gas station. 

It proved to be anything but a run-of-the-mill writing assignment, even for a somewhat seasoned newspaperman who had covered virtually everything that a small-town community could offer, including a murder, a kidnapping, a gang rape involving players from the high school football team, a half-dozen teen deaths in separate car crashes, a massive blaze at the local Ford plant that police suspected was caused by arson, and the ouster of a school superintendent after he was involved in a drunken public episode. 

In this instance, the seemingly routine trip to the car wash cost the longtime resident “$5,000,” blared the opening to the story. 

There was no point in burying the lead, I figured.

His misfortune began shortly after he entered the car wash when one of the spraying attachments broke free and began wildly pummeling his relatively new four-door sedan, cracking the windshield, several windows, and dinging and damaging virtually every other section of his car.

The story, of course, didn’t stop there, as it eventually evolved into a lawsuit against the gas station establishment for causing the car wash trauma the customer experienced while suffering various minor injuries. After some legal jousting, the parties reached an undisclosed settlement that several local attorneys theorized might have been as high as $20,000.

In other words, that was some kind of car wash.

Years later, in 1992, there was another mishap that grabbed national headlines when a 79-year-old New Mexico woman sued McDonald’s for burns she suffered after spilling a cup of coffee she purchased through the convenience of the drive-thru window.

The story, in the bite-size form that was told by late-night comedians and some legal commentators, amounted to this: woman buys $1 cup of coffee, promptly spills it, sues fast-food giant, and gets $3 million.

End of story? Not quite,

The case, which one major television network labeled “the poster child of excessive lawsuits,” was widely portrayed as a woman suing a corporation for a quick buck over her own careless actions.

In reality, the lawsuit proved to be something far different, particularly after it was revealed that McDonald’s was guilty of “callous” and “reckless” behavior in serving its coffee at a scalding hot temperature that ranged from 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit – roughly 40 degrees higher than that served by other fast-food companies. 

The woman was a passenger in a car driven by her grandson when they stopped to place an order for some coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. In the process of trying to remove the lid, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee over her lap, causing her to sustain third-degree burns to 6 percent of her body and lesser burns to 16 percent of her body. In a matter of seconds, the skins on her thighs and genital area melted away.

She was then rushed to hospital, where she spent the next eight days undergoing a series of skin grafts and other procedures that left her disfigured and disabled.

Despite the extensive injuries she suffered and the cost of the medical treatment she incurred, the woman initially sought just $20,000 from McDonald’s, an amount that would cover her past and projected medical expenses. She also wanted the company to make policy changes to serve its coffee at safer temperatures in the event of a spill. 

McDonald’s refused to change its policy, offering instead to cover just $800 worth of her medical expenses.

When the case went to trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s outrageous conduct. The amounts were later reduced by the judge, who ruled that the plaintiff was partially to blame for her injuries from the way she removed the lid from the cup. 

During the trial, company officials testified that McDonald’s required coffee to be served at the excessive temperature to ensure that it stayed hot for commuters, even though the temperature can cause third-degree burns in a matter of 3 to 7 seconds. 

Officials also acknowledged that it had known about the risk of severe burns from its coffee for more than 10 years after facing nearly 700 other claims and lawsuits from 1982-92.

The day after the verdict, news media reports indicated that the coffee at McDonald’s outlets was being sold at a temperature of 158 degrees, some 30 degrees cooler than that spilled on the plaintiff and other burn victims. Coffee spilled at the reduced temperature was determined to cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, thereby increasing the margin of safety significantly and making McDonald’s earlier policy look even more reprehensible. 

Now, as the late radio personality Paul Harvey often said in his broadcasts, “you know the rest of the story,” which is about as sad and sickening a case of corporate greed can be.

The life of a sole practitioner and a small firm attorney is not easy. Resources are often scarce. The pressure is great. Clients are demanding. They want their problems solved on timelines that are often unreasonable, or have unrealistic expectations of what the law can do for them. Billing amplifies the problem because the more that an attorney bills, the more a client believes they should have access to the attorney’s time and availability.

As if that was not enough, there are the additional pressures of deadlines, potentially having to be in more than one court at the same time, and maintaining all of the business administration of the firm.

If the work is not done timely or correctly, the lawyer is faced with the specter of malpractice and/or grievances. There is little allowance for error, requiring attorneys to essentially be perfect all the time. Of course, perfection, while it is a worthy goal, is an unrealistic expectation.

The pressure does not end there. To grow their businesses, sole practitioners and small firm attorneys should be attending bar association and other networking events. To stay on top of our craft, we should take continuing education (which is mandatory in over 40 states). Beyond that, the ethical rules encourage attorneys to do pro bono work, which is required in at least 10 states.

Beyond the law, lawyers should have normal lives. Normal lives have the additional potential pressures of dating, spousal obligations, parental obligations, extracurricular activities, or other stressors. All the while, those work deadlines and work pressures often remain in the attorney’s mind. After all, if the sole or small practitioner is not working, then there is no money coming into the office.

Given these pressures, it is little wonder that 52 percent of attorneys have experienced burnout at some point in their career. Family law attorneys likely will not be surprised to know that 47 percent of attorneys have experienced burnout during the final quarter of the year and 46 percent of attorneys had their mental health worsen in that same quarter. Furthermore, according to an American Lawyer’s 2025 survey, more than 68 percent of attorneys suffer from anxiety and 33 percent suffer from depression. More than 65 percent of these attorneys also stated that the billable hour pressures were negatively affecting their mental wellbeing. Worse, 8.5 percent of attorneys have contemplated suicide compared to 4.3 percent of American adults overall. 

So, what can an attorney do to improve their mental health and wellbeing? First, an attorney can take a break. While this is easier said than done for many attorneys, my partners and staff have made taking a break a priority. They force me to take at least one of my vacation days each month. I am allowed to move the date, but cannot omit taking one business day off a month. Every month, it gives me something to look forward to and work towards. I also encourage my team to use their vacation time to recharge as well.

Second, exercise is important for maintaining mental health. During the summer, one of the things I enjoy most on these days off is golf. According to the American Psychological Association, a mere 75 minutes a week of physical activity will reduce a person’s depression risk by 18 percent. This percentage increases to 25 percent for 150 minutes a week of physical activity. 

The third thing an attorney can do to assist their mental health is to get enough quality sleep. Lack of sleep increases the possibility of developing anxiety and/or depression, and creates greater risk of health problems such as high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. While stress can negatively affect sleep, exercise can assist it.

Another way to improve mental health and wellbeing is to establish work-life boundaries. Technology has made this much more difficult. When I started practicing law in 1996, few attorneys had email, and some work was still completed on typewriters. Faxes were common. I had a pager and an answering service. Now, with the advent of e-filing, pleadings can be filed at any time. Clients, attorneys, and judges can contact you at any hour of the day or night by email. I have made the mistake of responding to emails on vacations from outside the country. 

If you respond outside normal business hours, clients and attorneys think that you are always available. However, this constant contact, the sense of always being on, leads to more stress. At least one study has shown that reducing email reduces stress and increases concentration. It also may be better to schedule an email response part of the day, rather than feeling the need to instantly respond.

If these suggestions do not suffice, the State Bar has set up the Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program (LJAP). The program is protected by HIPAA and all services are confidential. The LJAP offers free consultations for attorneys and their families. It also offers clinical assessments, support groups, and referrals to providers to assist with lawyers’ mental health and well-being.

Legal professionals shouldn’t struggle alone. If you need support, reach out to a colleague or LJAP to get the assistance you need. If you remain silent, no one knows you are suffering. No one in your life wants you to become one of the sobering statistics listed above.


_______________

This article is reprinted from the Res Ipsa Loquitur newsletter with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association. Stuart Collis is an attorney licensed in Michigan, New York, and Illinois. He has more than two decades of experience in civil litigation, family law, and criminal law.

Fault-finding is woven into the fabric of legal practice. As lawyers, we spend our days tracing responsibility lines, clarifying causal connections, and determining who must answer for the harm. 

Fault-finding is woven into the fabric of legal practice. As lawyers, we spend our days tracing responsibility lines, clarifying causal connections, and determining who must answer for the harm. 

In a personal injury case, we identify the person who caused the accident. In a criminal case, we focus on who is culpable for the crime. In a commercial dispute, we analyze who breached the agreement. And in family law, we identify who contributed to the breakdown, an inquiry far more complicated than any police report or contract.

While blame is necessary in the courtroom, it becomes corrosive when carried into our personal or professional lives outside of litigation. The skills that help us advocate for others can, if left unchecked, hinder our personal growth. That is where the shift from blame to accountability becomes transformative.

Blame Keeps Us Stuck

Brené Brown explains that blame is a tool we use to discharge discomfort and pain. It is a fast, reflexive way to avoid vulnerability. When we feel exposed, ashamed, or afraid, blame is a quick, defensive shield that gives us something to point at, offering the illusion of relief without the substance of resolution. But rather than moving us toward healing or clarity, blame keeps us circling the very emotions we are trying to escape.

Blame feels deceptively productive. It hands us a ready-made storyline: Here is the problem, and here is the person who caused it. This storyline creates a false sense of clarity and control. Blame rarely brings relief. Instead, it traps us in a victim mindset, replaying narratives about how others should have acted and how life should have been. In that space, we are not just looking for someone to hold responsible but for evidence that we are not to blame.

Morgan Wallen captures this impulse perfectly in his song “I’m the Problem.” His lyrics “If I’m the problem … you might be the reason” reflect the human reflex to quickly turn toward shared fault or justification to divert discomfort away from us. Wallen goes on to ask, “And if it’s the whiskey / Then why you keep pullin’ it off the shelf?” Blame becomes the smoke screen for the patterns we don’t want to confront. It’s easier to fault the whiskey or the one “pullin’ it off the shelf” than shine light on our own actions. Blame provides an external target and protects us from the pain of owning our part.

Accountability Moves Us Forward

Accountability, on the other hand, is not concerned with who or what is to blame. Rather, it invites us to reflect on what part of the situation we can genuinely control. It moves us from victim to agent by forcing us to notice our participation in the cycle. 

Accountability shifts the focus from backward-looking rumination to forward- looking intention. It requires us to examine our choices; take responsibility for our thoughts, behaviors, and emotions; and ask ourselves how we want to show up. 
Accountability encourages us to look beneath our reactions and ask why something hit such a nerve, what fear was poked, or what boundary felt crossed. Curiosity becomes the foundation for deeper understanding. More importantly, it transfers power away from the person we’re blaming and back to us. That pivot is often the difference between staying stuck and moving toward meaningful change.

Reclaiming Our Power 

When we place blame, we give someone else the power. While other people’s behavior can affect us, allowing their actions to dictate our inner state leaves us powerless. 

Accountability counters this dynamic by inviting us to notice the story we are telling ourselves, to reflect on how we are interpreting events, and to choose responses that reflect our values rather than our reflexes.

Blame often fuels emotional dysregulation, anger, frustration, helplessness, and resentment.  These reactions are human, but they drain clarity and peace when they become habitual. Accountability turns “Why is this happening to me?” into “How do I want to meet this moment?” 

That shift reclaims our power. Even when we cannot control the circumstance, we can control how we respond. Accountability requires us to pause and choose a response that aligns with who we want to be.

Wallen taps into this tension between pointing outward and turning inward. In “I Had Some Help,” he sings with Post Malone, “It ain’t like I can make this kind of mess all by myself,” a familiar move toward shared fault that allows us to keep the spotlight off ourselves. But in his song “Superman,” the tone shifts. He admits, “Don’t always know my wrong from right / And sometimes I’m my own worst enemy,” a humble recognition that the struggle isn’t just outside of him; it lives within. 

This movement from “I had some help” to acknowledging our “kryptonite” — whether it’s substance use, emotional dysregulation, avoidance, or simply not having the right skills — marks the beginning of accountability. It asks us to pause and consider what part is ours, what part is not, and how we want to lead ourselves forward. Personal agency and power emerge in that reflection.

Rewriting the Narrative

Perhaps the greatest gift of accountability is that it frees us from old stories. Blame keeps us stuck in familiar roles and patterns. These narratives often come from real hurt, but they can become cages when we revisit them again and again. 
Accountability opens the door. It says, “this happened, but what happens next is up to me.” It reclaims authorship.

The shift from reenacting the past to authoring the present is where meaningful growth lies. It marks the moment when a new story can begin. As self-awareness expands, so does our capacity for connection. While blame narrows the lens to what someone else did wrong, accountability widens it to explore the dynamics unfolding between us. It invites dialogue instead of defensiveness. It transforms “you versus me” into “What is happening here, and how can we move forward?” In families, friendships, partnerships, and workplaces, this shift creates relational safety and strengthens trust.

Presence Over Perfection

Accountability is not an exercise in self-blame or perfectionism. Rather, it is an invitation to humble reflection, to look honestly at our patterns without collapsing into shame. Accountability is not about taking all the responsibility but rather about taking our responsibility. It does not minimize the impact of others’ behavior. Instead, it directs our focus back to the one place where growth happens, the choices we make, the insights we cultivate, and the values we decide to uphold.

In a profession built on identifying who is at fault, it is tempting to treat every interaction as if it requires a verdict. But our inner landscape works differently from a courtroom. Blame may help us advocate for clients, but accountability helps us advocate for ourselves. Ultimately, shifting from blame to accountability is a shift toward presence, toward living with clarity, intention, and resilience. It is the courage to ask what part is ours, what we can learn, and who we want to be moving forward. 

Accountability allows us to return to our center, where clarity meets compassion and meaningful change becomes possible.

––––––––––––––––––––

Sarah E. Kuchon, of Hohauser Kuchon, is the 93rd president of the Oakland County Bar Association.