Lawyers do not wake up one morning and decide to become overwhelmed, exhausted, and chronically overcommitted. They drift there. Or perhaps more accurately, they slide there.

Relationship researchers have used the term “sliding versus deciding” to describe the tendency people have to drift into major commitments without ever making a deliberate choice. Instead of intentionally deciding, people gradually slide forward because each individual step feels small, temporary, or barely noticeable. Other times, sliding is simply easier than confronting a difficult decision.

The concept applies surprisingly well to the practice of law. Burnout in law firms often does not arrive through one catastrophic event. It develops through a series of incremental commitments that accumulate over time. A lawyer agrees to take one more case, join one more committee, say yes to one more client call after hours, or handle one more “quick favor.”

Each individual decision seems manageable in isolation. None of them feel like the moment when balance was lost. But eventually the lawyer looks up and realizes they are carrying a workload and level of stress they never consciously intended to accept.

Part of the danger is that lawyers are often rewarded for sliding. The dependable associate gets more work because they are dependable. The responsive partner gets more client demands because clients know they will answer at all hours. The lawyer who never says no slowly becomes the lawyer who cannot breathe.

And because the escalation happens gradually, many lawyers never pause to evaluate whether the current pace is sustainable. They simply adapt to the new normal again and again until exhaustion starts to feel ordinary.

There is also a psychological component to sliding. Saying “yes” today feels safer than risking a missed opportunity. Saying “no” can feel uncomfortable, risky, or selfish. Lawyers may worry about disappointing partners, losing business opportunities, harming advancement prospects, or appearing uncommitted. So instead of making intentional decisions about workload and boundaries, they continue drifting forward.

Unfortunately, sliding has a way of creating commitments that become harder to unwind over time. The more matters, clients, leadership roles, and obligations lawyers accumulate, the more trapped they can begin to feel by the very commitments they never fully chose.

The good news is that lawyers can take steps to avoid sliding into chronic overcommitment.

One of the most important is periodically conducting an intentional workload audit. Lawyers should regularly step back and evaluate whether their current commitments are consistent with their professional goals, personal values, and desired lifestyle. Too often, obligations accumulate one at a time without anyone ever asking whether they contribute meaningfully to the life the lawyer wants to build. Not every committee, client, project, or responsibility deserves a permanent place on the calendar simply because it was accepted at some point in the past. Periodically curating commitments can be just as important as managing them.

It is also important to create friction before saying yes. Many lawyers respond to requests reflexively because responsiveness is deeply ingrained in the profession. Instead of immediately agreeing to every new matter or responsibility, it can help to build in a pause. Even saying, “Let me check my current workload and get back to you,” creates space for a more thoughtful decision rather than an automatic one.

Lawyers should also become more comfortable recognizing that every “yes” is simultaneously a “no” to something else. Agreeing to another client matter may mean less time for family, sleep, exercise, focus, recovery, or existing clients. Sliding often occurs because lawyers evaluate new commitments in isolation rather than considering the cumulative effect.

Law firm leaders also play an important role. Firms should be careful not to unintentionally reward unsustainable behavior. In many workplaces, the most conscientious and dependable lawyers slowly become overloaded precisely because they are the least likely to complain. Over time, this creates what some researchers call a “reliability tax,” in which the most responsible people carry increasingly disproportionate burdens.

One of the lessons from the sliding versus deciding concept is that intentional decisions generally produce healthier outcomes than passive drift. That does not mean lawyers should avoid hard work or ambition. It means they should periodically stop and ask themselves an important question: “Did I consciously choose this pace and these commitments, or did I simply slide into them?”

That moment of reflection may be one of the most effective burnout prevention tools lawyers have.