Problems abound in the legal profession today. Lawyers and the legal system are under attack, both from within and without the profession. Professionalism has declined, public opinion of lawyers is alarmingly low, and lawyer dissatisfaction and mental distress are rampant. In response to these problems, many have suggested that lawyers should change to become more caring, more values-oriented, more collaborative and less focused on logic, rationality, and rights.

A review of forty years of empirical research on the psychology of lawyers reveals that, indeed, there is a distinct "lawyer personality" which distinguishes lawyers from the general population. Some of the traits comprising the lawyer personality appear long before law school, suggesting that those who are suited to practice law self-select into the profession. For the most part, the practice of law as it is currently configured is entirely appropriate for individuals with the lawyer personality. In turn, the lawyer personality is adaptive to the practice of law. It allows lawyers to do their work with a minimum of emotional conflict or angst and allows them to provide clear-headed, emotionally detached representation to a variety of clients and causes.

The problem is that society as a whole is not satisfied with its lawyers or with law as it is practiced today. Clients complain that lawyers are too cold, inhuman, greedy, and expensive. Litigation as a method of dispute resolution is lengthy, inefficient, expensive, painful, and polarizing. While these problems might respond to various interventions aimed at redefining professionalism and reeducating the public, the well-documented problems of lawyer dissatisfaction and psychological distress may remain. Evidence exists that the dissatisfaction and distress are related to certain atypical, humanistically-oriented personality traits among lawyers. Because of the high levels of this distress in the profession, something must change.

Happily, change has already begun. In a scattering of disparate developments, a new way of practicing law has already begun to emerge, which is more humanistic, caring, collaborative, and healing to all involved. These developments are known by various labels: preventive law, alternative dispute resolution, mediation, restorative justice, procedural justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, holistic lawyering, collaborative law, and creative problem solving. Each of these developments claims to be different than traditional law and unique, discrete, and complete in itself. Yet each of these developments is a tangible outgrowth of a larger movement—towards law as a healing or humanistic profession, in which human relations plays a significant part alongside legal rights and entitlements.

The similarities of these developments to date have not been noted, nor have the developments been explicitly synthesized. The larger "movement" of "human relations law," although strong, to date has remained unnamed and invisible.

Two points are relevant: First, the legal profession must grow and change; it cannot remain as it is. Despite the good fit between the lawyer personality and the traditional practice of law, client satisfaction and lawyer mental health are too low to simply accept the profession as it is and make no changes. Second, these forms of "human relations" law are a needed addition to the status quo, not a substitute for it. Traditional lawyers can and should continue to practice traditional, litigation-oriented law. Clients who wish to fight battles must be able to do so and traditional lawyers’ personalities are suited to this kind of practice. Lawyers with less traditional personalities and strengths should be able to practice human relations law in the forms described above. It fits their personalities and skills. Finally, perhaps clients need alternatives to full-bore litigation that are sensitive to their own emotional health and their personal relationships. Or, the practice of law can become more eclectic in approach, utilizing the traditional approach as well as these newer approaches, depending on the demands of the client or matter.