Using quantitative and qualitative data from a large national sample of lawyers, we examine self-reports of perceived discrimination in the legal workplace. Across three waves of surveys, we find that persons of color, white women, and LGBTQ attorneys are far more likely to perceive they have been a target of discrimination than white men. These differences hold in multivariate models that control for social background, status in the profession and the work organization, and characteristics of the work organization. Qualitative comments describing these experiences reveal that lawyers of different races, genders, and sexual orientations are exposed to distinctive types of bias, that supervisors and clients are the most frequent sources of discriminatory treatment, and the often-overt character of perceived discrimination. These self-reports suggest that bias in the legal workplace is widespread and rooted in the same hierarchies of race, gender, and sexual orientation that pervade society.

Considerable work has shown that optimistic future orientations can be a resource for resilience across individuals’ lives. At the same time, research has shown little downside to “shooting for the stars” and failing. Here, we bring these competing insights to the study of lawyers’ careers, investigating the relationship between mental health and failure in achieving desired career advancement. To do this, we differentiate between expectations and aspirations for the future, a conceptual distinction that has been much theorized but little tested. Using longitudinal data, we show that dashed expectations of making partner are associated with depreciated mental health outcomes, whereas a similar relationship does not exist for unfulfilled aspirations. We conclude that inasmuch as expectations are more deeply rooted in an individual’s realistic sense of their future self, failing to achieve what is expected is more psychologically damaging than failing to achieve what is simply aspired. Our findings contrast with studies of younger people that demonstrate fewer consequences for unfulfilled future orientations, and so we highlight the importance of specifying how particular future-oriented beliefs fit into distinct career and life course trajectories, for better or for worse. In the process, we contribute to the academic literatures on future orientations, work, and mental health.

Despite research on the causes of populism and on the narratives of populist leaders, there is little empirical work on the relationship between populist attitudes and behavior, notably including criminal behavior. Our overarching concern is the recurrent social volatility of metaphorical populist themes that are central to impactful political messaging. Drawing on a national United States survey conducted around the 2016 election, we use multilevel models to show that the politically charged exclusionary boundaries of “America First” populism are behaviorally connected to increased odds of having been arrested. We argue that the rapid redrawing of social boundaries that make up populist attitudes is closely connected with the effects of economic and political frustrations during times of rapid social change. In the process, we develop a behavioral analysis of the social volatility of the recurrent populist movement in America.