Antidote: Wanted - Lawyers who Think like a Mountain

“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realised then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”

These words were written by Aldo Leopold, the American writer and ecologist. He describes how the extirpation of the wolves allowed the deer to ravage the mountainside and the lesson that removing a predator to protect your cows or sheep may make sense to the farmer, but it can cause greater destruction to the ecosystem (s)he depends upon. It is not thinking like a mountain.

I heard another example of this recently involving a senior corporate executive taking a 24 hour solo retreat in the mountains. Afterwards, he recounted how for the first twenty hours he spent most of the time wondering had possessed him to go there. He then found himself staring at a small flower and understanding that the soil in which it stood and the insect alighting on it, were also part of the flower; part of the Life that existed through the flower.

We are in a moment in time where new thinking is essential. Thinking in this systemic way – that is, taking into account the wider consequences of our immediate decisions and actions – is not new of course (indigenous peoples have understood our relationships with the rest of the natural world for centuries and acted accordingly). However, reintroducing that thinking into how we perceive risks and opportunities; understanding what this might mean for our clients and their relationships with their stakeholders; and reflecting this in the advice we give them is a potentially fruitful means to break the cycle of insanity Einstein (purportedly) identified as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.

There are all manner of impediments to embracing this, which those uncomfortable with the idea will doubtless raise, such as ‘clients aren’t interested in this’ or ‘this conflicts with our professional duty’. The former can be addressed by making clients aware it is an option and what the benefits of it might be for them and if they are on board with this, and engaging you on that basis, it largely deals with the latter also.

The more challenging aspect is knowing how to translate the concept into practice. I am aware of some programmes being developed by networks of legal firms with external providers that are moving towards exploring this – under banners like system change for law, or adaptation and law. These sound more useful than picking through the likes of ESG which, though founded with good intentions, has become one more means of limiting efforts within the current system, rather than transitioning to a new one.

There are several initiatives already demonstrating examples of what might fall within the realms of systemic legal services. There are charitable foundations aligning behind the goal of supporting economies in service to life. These are not just using their financial resources to support projects looking to generate shifts in priorities and perceptions, they are looking to co-ordinate their activities more effectively and aiming to establish different relationships with their partners. This means engaging far more as peers, reducing restrictions on uses of the funding and on the levels of reporting they require to free up recipients to focus more on impact. It means adopting a different (longer term and more systemic) attitude to risk and placing more weight on building a robust infrastructure in which change may be delivered.

There are organisations like Lawyers for Nature and Dark Matter Labs, Civic Square and We Can Make, who are combining deeply innovative approaches to relationships within and between organisations to stimulate new ways of engaging with rights of nature, truly community centred place based initiatives and affordable housing provision delivering more than roofs over heads. All succeed in translating theory into practice, using governance, contracting and fresh interpretations of existing permissive laws.

There are also wider initiatives, such as the push for a regenerative economy. This focuses on businesses and finance prioritising circular economy rather than linear and extractive models and includes the likes of Interface, Elvis & Kresse and vivobarefoot all of whom are implementing the principles of biomimicry and seeking to ensure that the outcome of the engagement of their businesses with the natural world is net positive wherever possible.

Another principle relevant to the regenerative approach is to think in terms of a network of value, each bringing different assets and having different capacities and contributing in proportion of their ability to do so. This being in contrast to a hierarchical supply chain, with power dynamics pushing risks down to those often least able to manage them in practice. Like everything else touched on in this and the previous post, this is not altruistic, but an example of enlightened self-interest, as having robust partnerships as disruption multiplies will be increasingly valuable.

The challenge, going back to the infrastructure point, is to overcome the inertia in the existing system, which is innately resistant to such innovations. It is where a choice exists for lawyers – not an easy one depending on where you are in the system, but one that exists for those willing to embrace it. Are you ready to learn how to think like a mountain; to apply that thinking for the benefit of your clients; and to seek out fellow travellers, so we can come together and create the momentum to dislodge the misaligned deep codes and replace them with ones fit for the times we are in?