The Partner Track Trap: When Making Partner Costs Too Much
LAST UPDATED: JULY 2026
You worked for years toward making partner, and when the news finally came, you felt strangely flat instead of relieved. This is an educational coaching guide, not clinical or legal advice, exploring why the arrival fallacy shows up so often on the partner track, what the promotion actually costs, and how to think through staying, renegotiating, or leaving without pretending any single answer fits every firm, every life, or every woman.
Last reviewed: July 2026 by Annie Wright, LMFT
- The Email You Waited Eight Years For
- What Making Partner Actually Costs
- The Arrival Fallacy: Why the Finish Line Doesn’t Feel Like Relief
- When to Get More Support Than This Post Can Offer
- What Keeps Some Women on the Track Longer Than It Serves Them
- What Making Partner Reveals
- Both/And: You Can Be Proud of This and Still Want Something Different
- The Systemic Lens: A Structure Built Without Caregiving in Mind
- Staying, Renegotiating, or Leaving
- What Coaching Can, and Can’t, Help With Here
- Frequently Asked Questions
The flat, dreadful feeling after making partner has a name: the arrival fallacy, the mismatch between how good we expect a milestone to feel and how it actually feels once we get there. It does not mean the achievement was wrong or worthless. It usually means the goal was carrying more emotional weight than any single job title can hold. In my coaching work with women in law and other partner-track fields, the flatness is common enough that I’d call it the norm, not the exception, and it is worth taking seriously without assuming it means something is broken in you.
In short: Making partner rarely delivers the relief it promises, because the arrival fallacy sets us up to expect lasting happiness from a single achievement. That flatness is common and workable. It calls for clear thinking about the actual costs and choices ahead, not a diagnosis and not a verdict on the career itself.
If your nervous system learned the safest way to exist was to manage everyone else's world, my self-paced course Enough Without the Effort is the recovery map.
In my executive coaching work, I’ve sat with a fair number of newly minted partners and directors who expected to feel triumphant and instead felt hollow, and it’s one of the more consistent patterns I see at this particular career stage. This is a coaching lens on a career transition, not a clinical diagnosis of anyone’s mental health. If what you’re carrying feels heavier than a rough season at work, the differential-support section further down names when a therapist, a physician, or an employment attorney is the better first call.
The Email You Waited Eight Years For
Kristin is forty-one, a senior associate at an AmLaw 100 firm, and for eight years she has billed close to 2,300 hours a year. She has missed a sister’s baby shower, two college roommates’ weddings, and both of her parents’ milestone anniversaries. She has learned to eat lunch at her desk in under six minutes. She did all of it aiming at one thing: the partner vote.
In my coaching work with women like Kristin, I notice a particular kind of quiet before the vote comes back. Not anxiety, exactly. More like holding your breath before a test you’ve already spent a decade studying for.
On a Tuesday morning in November, the email arrives. She made it. She is a partner. Kristin reads her own name on the screen three times, the way you’d reread a text to make sure you saw it right. She waits for the wave of relief she has been promising herself for years. It doesn’t come. What comes instead is a strange, cold quiet, and underneath it, something closer to dread than joy.
She looks across the hallway at the partner two doors down, who has been through two divorces and hasn’t taken a real vacation since his kids were in elementary school, and thinks: this is what I was racing toward.
If you have ever felt this exact flatness after a milestone you worked years for, you are not alone, and you are not broken. This is one of the most common things I hear in coaching sessions with newly promoted women across law, medicine, finance, and consulting: the promotion arrives, and something in the body simply doesn’t celebrate.
To be clear about what this post is and isn’t: this is educational coaching content, not individualized legal, financial, or mental health advice. Whether making partner is worth the cost in your specific situation depends on your firm’s culture and compensation model, your practice area, your health, your caregiving responsibilities, your debt load, your relationship, and what you actually want your life to look like in five years. None of that can be answered in general terms, and I won’t pretend otherwise.
In my coaching practice, I see this pattern constantly among driven women in partner-track fields. The career becomes the place where the rules are clear and the payoff is at least theoretically predictable, which can feel like a relief compared to parts of life that are messier and less rule-bound. That doesn’t make the career a symptom of anything. It makes it a place many people, understandably, put a great deal of themselves into.
What makes the flatness after arrival particularly hard to talk about is the isolation around it. You can’t easily say it at work, where any hint of ambivalence reads as ingratitude or worse, as a sign you can’t handle the seat. You often can’t say it at home either, where a partner or family member sees the win and doesn’t understand what there is to be upset about. And you may not have close friends in a position to hear it, simply because eight years of eighty-hour weeks doesn’t leave a lot of runway for the kind of friendships that can hold complicated news well.
What Making Partner Actually Costs
When firms talk about the cost of the partner track, they usually mean hours: the 2,000-plus billable requirement, the client-development dinners, the Sunday email checks. What gets discussed far less is the cost to a person’s sense of who they are outside the job.
A concept from developmental psychologist James Marcia, PhD, building on Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development, describing a state in which someone commits to an identity, career path, or role without meaningfully exploring alternatives, often because the commitment was made early and under pressure rather than after genuine reflection.
In plain terms: It’s what happens when you decided at twenty-three that you were going to make partner, and that decision was so total you never really asked whether it was what you wanted or just the clearest path available at the time. That’s not a personal flaw. It’s an extremely common way careers get built, and it’s worth revisiting once the goal has actually been reached.
I first came across James Marcia’s identity status research years into my coaching work, well after I’d already been sitting with driven professionals who described exactly this: a career chosen at twenty-two that had quietly become load-bearing for their entire sense of self by forty-one. Marcia’s framework gave me language for something I’d been watching without a name for it.
Making partner also tends to cost something in the body’s baseline. Eight years of chronic, low-grade urgency trains a person to override hunger, fatigue, and the impulse to say “I need a break” in favor of getting the next thing done. That override doesn’t switch off the day the partnership vote comes back. It has to be unlearned deliberately, often alongside the same kind of perfectionism that burns high achievers out long before any title changes, and that unlearning is coaching work, not a switch that flips on its own.
None of this means the partner track is a mistake for every woman who pursues it, or that ambition itself needs explaining or excusing. Plenty of women make partner, find real satisfaction in the work, and build lives that fit them. This section is about naming the costs that tend to go undiscussed, not arguing that the whole enterprise is a trap for everyone who enters it.
The Arrival Fallacy: Why the Finish Line Doesn’t Feel Like Relief
What Kristin experienced has a name. Tal Ben-Shahar, PhD, a positive psychologist who taught one of Harvard’s most popular courses and wrote the bestseller Happier, coined the term arrival fallacy after his own experience winning a national squash championship and feeling, almost immediately, hollow rather than triumphant. I read Happier years ago specifically because so many of my coaching clients described this exact letdown, and Ben-Shahar’s own description of it stopped me: “Arrival fallacy is this illusion that once we make it, once we attain our goal or reach our destination, we will reach lasting happiness.”
“Arrival fallacy is this illusion that once we make it, once we attain our goal or reach our destination, we will reach lasting happiness.”
Tal Ben-Shahar, PhD, positive psychologist, Harvard lecturer, and author of Happier: Learn the Secrets to Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment
The BigLaw version of this fallacy has a particular shape. The firm structure relies, whether anyone admits it out loud or not, on associates believing that partnership will finally bring control over their schedule, or standing, or the ability to breathe. Then the vote comes back, and as any honest new partner will tell you, the pressure doesn’t decrease. It changes shape. The anxiety of the billable hour gets traded for the pressure of the book of business. You’re no longer just responsible for your own output. You’re responsible for generating work for other people too.
RESEARCH CONTEXT
What peer-reviewed research on the legal profession actually shows (studies of attorneys broadly, not partners specifically):
- A large-scale study of nearly 13,000 licensed attorneys found elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and problematic drinking compared to the general population, cutting across seniority levels (Krill, Johnson & Albert, 2016, PMID 26825268).
- A follow-up analysis of gender-specific risk factors found that women attorneys reported significantly higher rates of contemplating leaving the profession for mental-health-related reasons than their male peers, with workplace stress and alcohol use identified as key contributing factors (PMID 33979350).
I want to be precise about what that research does and doesn’t say. It studied attorneys as a broad population, not partners specifically, and it can’t tell us what will happen to any individual reader. What it does support is something I already see constantly in coaching: the demands of BigLaw practice carry real, measurable costs to wellbeing, and those costs land harder on women. That’s a pattern worth naming honestly, without inflating it into something the data doesn’t actually claim.
The well-documented psychological process by which people return to a fairly stable baseline level of happiness after both positive and negative life changes, which means even genuinely major achievements tend to feel less satisfying, and for a shorter time, than we expect going in.
In plain terms: It’s the reason you made partner and felt something like a high for maybe two weeks before your attention started drifting to the next target. You didn’t do anything wrong. This is a well-established feature of how motivation works for most people, not a personal defect, and it means no single external achievement was ever going to be the thing that settles the restlessness for good.
Robert Sapolsky, PhD, a neuroscientist at Stanford University and the author of Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, describes the mechanics of this in terms of dopamine: the brain’s reward system is built to respond to anticipation and pursuit far more strongly than to the achievement itself. I think about Sapolsky’s framing often in coaching sessions, because it takes the moral weight off a pattern that otherwise gets read as ingratitude. The chase feels good because chasing is what the system is built for. Arriving was never going to feel the same way, for anyone.
When to Get More Support Than This Post Can Offer
Before going further, it’s worth being explicit about what this post is equipped to help with and what it isn’t, because the flatness after a big career milestone can mean several very different things.
An ordinary demanding season. A brutal trial calendar, a major deal closing, a temporarily unsustainable few months. This is uncomfortable and doesn’t require a diagnosis or a life overhaul. It usually resolves as the season passes, sometimes with better boundaries around it.
A structural workplace problem. Chronic understaffing, a billable-hour culture that doesn’t bend for anyone, an expectation of constant availability that the whole firm treats as normal. This is a systems issue, and it’s real, but it is also not evidence that something is wrong with you personally. Coaching can help you decide how to respond to a structural problem. It cannot fix the structure itself.
Discrimination or harassment. If what you’re navigating involves being treated unfairly because of your gender, race, pregnancy, disability, or another protected characteristic, or if you’re experiencing harassment, that is a matter for your firm’s HR function, an employment attorney, or in some cases a regulatory body. Coaching is not the right tool for this, and I’d rather say that plainly than let a career-coaching framework stand in for legal protection you may be entitled to.
Clinically significant impairment. If you’re experiencing persistent depression, panic attacks, an inability to function at work or at home, or emotional distress that isn’t easing with time and rest, that calls for a licensed therapist or a physician, not a career coach. I’m a licensed therapist myself in addition to being a coach, and I want to be honest that when this is what’s happening, therapy is the more appropriate first step, not this article.
Substance use as a coping strategy. If you’ve noticed drinking more to get through the week, or needing more to get the same effect, that’s worth naming directly and bringing to a licensed clinician or a substance-use specialist, not something to try to coach your way past on your own.
Urgent health or safety concerns. If you are having thoughts of harming yourself, or you’re facing a medical emergency, please contact 988 (the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline), 911, or your nearest emergency room right away. That takes priority over everything else in this post.
If none of those describe what you’re experiencing and what you’re feeling is closer to disorientation, ambivalence, or a flat letdown after a milestone that was supposed to feel triumphant, the rest of this guide is built for exactly that.
What Keeps Some Women on the Track Longer Than It Serves Them
Why do some women stay on a demanding track well past the point it’s serving them, while others make a change earlier? In my coaching work, a few patterns show up often enough to be worth naming, without treating them as universal or as evidence of anything clinical.
Conflict-avoidance under pressure. Some women describe a strong pull to never be the one who says no, who pushes back, or who disappoints a partner or client. In a demanding professional environment, that instinct gets rewarded constantly, which makes it very hard to notice when it’s costing more than it’s returning.
Achievement as a proxy for security. For some clients, a title and a paycheck function as a stand-in for a sense of safety that feels otherwise hard to access. There’s nothing wrong with wanting security. The pattern worth noticing is when the goalpost keeps moving, so that no amount of achievement ever quite lands as “enough.”
Sunk-cost thinking. After eight or ten years of sacrifice, walking away can feel like it would waste everything already invested, even when staying no longer serves the person’s actual goals. This is a very human, very common decision-making trap, documented well outside the legal profession, and it deserves a clear-eyed look rather than shame.
None of these patterns are diagnoses, and none of them are reasons to pathologize ambition itself. They’re simply patterns that show up often enough in coaching conversations with driven women that naming them out loud tends to be useful.
What Making Partner Reveals
Paige is thirty-nine, six months into a non-equity partnership at a mid-size firm. From the outside, everything looks like it worked. Her name is on the letterhead. Her calendar is full of the kind of meetings junior associates used to whisper about wanting to be in the room for.
“I keep waiting to feel like I made it,” Paige told me in one of our early sessions, turning a pen over in her hands. “And instead I mostly feel like I finally have proof that the finish line kept moving the whole time. I hit the mark I set for myself at twenty-six, and the twenty-six-year-old in me is thrilled. The rest of me is just tired.”
What Paige was naming wasn’t burnout in the clinical sense, and I was careful not to treat it as one. It was something closer to a recalibration. For years, “make partner” had functioned as the answer to a much bigger, vaguer question: will this all have been worth it? Once the title arrived, that question didn’t go away. It just lost its easy answer.
Making partner tends to remove a certain kind of protective story. For years, it’s possible to tell yourself that the exhaustion is temporary, that things will ease once you get there. Once “there” has actually happened, that story runs out. What’s left is the actual life you’ve built, evaluated on its own terms rather than as a stepping stone to somewhere better. For some women that evaluation is straightforwardly good news. For others, like Paige, it surfaces questions that had been comfortably deferred for a decade.
Both/And: You Can Be Proud of This and Still Want Something Different
The period after making partner is often dominated by a specific kind of guilt. You look at the compensation, the title, and the line of associates who would trade places with you in a heartbeat, and you think, what is wrong with me that this isn’t enough?
This is where I ask clients to practice holding both things at once, rather than picking one. You can be genuinely proud of the intellect, discipline, and sheer endurance it took to make partner, and you can also be honestly disappointed that the achievement doesn’t feel like what you expected. Your pride doesn’t cancel out your disappointment, and your disappointment doesn’t erase what you earned.
For Kristin, holding both looked like telling her mentor, six months after the vote, “I’m proud of this, and I also think I want to talk to someone about whether this is actually the life I want for the next ten years.” Both sentences were true. Neither one undid the other.
For Paige, it looked like keeping the partnership for now while starting to ask harder questions in our coaching sessions about what “success” would need to mean for her at forty-five, rather than assuming the definition she’d used at twenty-six still applied.
You are allowed to change your mind about what you want, even after you’ve already gotten it. That’s not inconsistency. It’s usually a sign that you’ve grown since you first set the goal, which is generally a good thing, not a problem to be managed.
You've been holding everything together. You're allowed to put some down.
A focused self-paced course on overfunctioning, achievement-first self-concept, and the trauma response that masquerades as a personality. Not a productivity problem. Not a boundary problem. A nervous system that learned competence was the only safety.
The Systemic Lens: A Structure Built Without Caregiving in Mind
It’s worth naming plainly that many partnership-track structures in law, consulting, and finance were built around an assumption that whoever was climbing the ladder had someone else handling the rest of their domestic life. That assumption wasn’t written into any policy manual. It was baked into the billable-hour model, the expectation of round-the-clock availability, and the informal rule that the “committed” associates were the ones who never seemed to have anywhere else to be.
This lands disproportionately on women, on average, for a straightforward and well-documented reason: women still carry a larger share of caregiving labor across most households, even in dual-career couples. That’s a structural pattern, not a claim that every firm or every man is working against every woman, and it’s worth stating carefully rather than as a sweeping accusation.
When a woman with significant caregiving responsibilities tries to operate inside a structure that assumes she has none, she’s often solving a problem the system itself created, then absorbing the blame when the math doesn’t work. Firms tend to respond to this mismatch by offering time-management advice, which treats a structural mismatch as a personal productivity failure.
You cannot time-manage your way out of a genuinely unworkable structure. If the demands of your role and the demands of your life don’t fit together no matter how well you plan, that’s useful information about the structure, not proof that you’re failing at either job.
I want to be careful here not to overstate the case. Some partnership structures have changed meaningfully in the past decade, some firms have built real flexibility, and plenty of women build sustainable, well-fitting careers in exactly this kind of environment. The systemic pattern is real and worth naming. It is not evidence that success in this field is impossible or inherently exploitative for every woman who pursues it.
Staying, Renegotiating, or Leaving
If you’ve made partner and feel trapped, the options are usually broader than “grit it out” or “quit immediately,” and I want to walk through them without pretending any one of them is obviously correct.
Staying, with changes. Some women renegotiate scope after making partner: shifting practice areas, reducing a specific type of caseload, or finally practicing the kind of workplace boundaries many of them were never taught to set now that they have more standing to set them. This can work well when the firm culture has enough flexibility to support it, and it can also fail if the firm’s actual incentives haven’t shifted at all.
Staying, as is. Some women decide, after real reflection, that the current arrangement is worth it for the compensation, the intellectual challenge, or the specific kind of work, even with its costs. That’s a legitimate choice, not a failure of self-awareness.
Leaving for a different setting within the field. Moving in-house, to government work, to a smaller firm, or to a different practice area entirely can preserve the professional identity and credential while changing the day-to-day demands substantially.
Leaving the field. Some women decide the entire structure, not just this particular job, doesn’t fit the life they want, and choose a different career path altogether. This is a major decision with real financial and professional implications, and it deserves the same rigor you’d bring to any major life decision, not a hasty exit made in a moment of exhaustion.
Any of these paths can be the right one, and the right one for you depends on factors this post cannot know: your specific compensation structure, your equity stake, your debt, your family’s needs, your health, and your own honest read of what you want. I want to be direct about one boundary here: questions about equity buyouts, non-compete terms, tax implications of a career change, or the specifics of your compensation agreement need a compensation attorney, a financial advisor, or an accountant who can see your actual numbers. I can help you think clearly about what you want. I can’t and won’t answer those questions as if I were qualified to give financial or legal advice, because I’m not.
What Coaching Can, and Can’t, Help With Here
If you’re in the flat, disoriented place that often follows a milestone like this, here’s what executive coaching is actually built to help with, and what it isn’t.
1. Naming the letdown without pathologizing it. Coaching can help you understand the arrival fallacy and hedonic adaptation as ordinary features of how motivation works, so the flatness doesn’t get read as a personal failure or a sign that something is deeply wrong with you.
2. Clarifying values separate from the title. A lot of coaching work at this stage is simply helping someone figure out what they actually want now, distinct from what they wanted at twenty-two when the goal was set. That’s values work, not therapy, and it’s often the most useful thing we do together.
3. Building a decision framework. Whether the choice is to renegotiate, stay, or leave, coaching can help build a structured way to weigh the factors that matter to you, rather than making a major decision in a moment of exhaustion or a moment of adrenaline.
4. Practicing hard conversations. Coaching sessions are a reasonable place to rehearse the conversation with a managing partner about scope, or the conversation with a spouse about what needs to change at home, before having it for real.
What coaching does not do: diagnose or treat depression, anxiety, trauma, or substance use; give legal or financial advice; or promise that any specific outcome, whether that’s staying, leaving, setting boundaries, or anything else, will resolve your distress or improve your wellbeing. Coaching can support clearer thinking. It can’t guarantee a particular result, and I don’t think it’s honest to imply otherwise.
If you’re navigating this and want structured support to think it through, executive coaching is built for exactly this kind of transition. If what you’re carrying is heavier than a career question, the differential-support section above names when a therapist or physician is the better next call, and therapy support for executive burnout is one place to start that conversation.
Related patterns I see often alongside the partner-track letdown: the sense that your worth is tied entirely to output, discussed in why confidence hacks don’t cure imposter syndrome; the specific exhaustion of being the only woman in a room built for someone else, covered in the “only woman in the room” syndrome; and the broader pattern of treating resilience as a substitute for actual support, covered in the high cost of being the “strong one”.
If you recognize yourself in Kristin’s flat Tuesday morning, or Paige’s tired pride, I want to say something plainly: the fact that you’re asking these questions at all, rather than just pushing through on autopilot, is itself a sign of clear thinking, not a sign that something is wrong with you.
EXECUTIVE COACHING WITH ANNIE
Thinking Through a Major Career Decision?
Structured, trauma-informed coaching for driven women navigating promotions, burnout, and the choice between staying, renegotiating, or leaving.
Q: Is it normal to feel let down right after making partner?
A: Yes, and it’s common enough that I’d consider it typical rather than unusual. It’s frequently described as the arrival fallacy: the mismatch between how good we expect a big milestone to feel and how it actually feels once we’re there. It doesn’t mean the achievement was wrong for you.
Q: How do I think about leaving BigLaw when I have significant financial obligations tied to staying?
A: Coaching can help you get clear on what you actually want and how to weigh competing priorities, but the specific financial and contractual questions, like equity buyouts, non-compete terms, or tax implications, need a compensation attorney, financial advisor, or accountant who can review your actual agreement and numbers. This is not something a general article or a coach can responsibly answer for you.
Q: I feel like leaving would let down the other women at my firm. How do I think about that?
A: That’s a real and heavy consideration, and there’s no single right answer. Some women decide staying and changing the culture from inside matters more to them; others decide that modeling a sustainable choice, even if that choice is leaving, matters more. Both are legitimate. What’s worth watching for is whether the sense of obligation to other women is the only thing keeping you in a role that isn’t working for you.
Q: Can I stay a partner and still set real boundaries?
A: Sometimes, depending heavily on your specific firm’s culture and your practice area. Some partners do successfully renegotiate scope or availability after making partner. Others find the firm’s actual incentives haven’t changed at all, no matter their title. This is worth assessing honestly for your specific situation rather than assuming either outcome.
Q: Will coaching just tell me to quit my job?
A: No. Coaching isn’t in the business of telling anyone to quit or stay. The goal is to help you think clearly enough about your own values and constraints that you can make the decision yourself, with confidence in your own reasoning, rather than being handed someone else’s answer.
Q: What’s the difference between coaching and therapy for something like this?
A: Coaching focuses on clarity, decision-making, and forward movement around a specific goal or transition, and it does not diagnose or treat mental health conditions. Therapy is appropriate when what you’re experiencing includes persistent depression, anxiety, panic, or distress that isn’t resolving with time, and a licensed therapist is trained to address that clinical picture directly.
Related Reading
[1] Ben-Shahar, T. Happier: Learn the Secrets to Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment. McGraw-Hill, 2007.
[2] Petersen, A. H. Can’t Even: How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation. Mariner Books, 2020.
[3] Schafler, K. M. The Perfectionist’s Guide to Losing Control: A Path to Peace and Power. Portfolio, 2023.
[4] Sapolsky, R. M. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Holt Paperbacks, 2004.
References
Peer-Reviewed Research (Vancouver)
- Krill PR, Johnson R, Albert L. The prevalence of substance use and other mental health concerns among American attorneys. J Addict Med. 2016;10(1):46-52. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000182. PMID: 26825268.
- Stress, drink, leave: An examination of gender-specific risk factors for mental health problems and attrition among licensed attorneys. PMID: 33979350.
Books & Cultural Sources (Chicago Author-Date)
- Ben-Shahar, Tal. Happier: Learn the Secrets to Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment. McGraw-Hill, 2007.
- Sapolsky, Robert M. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Holt Paperbacks, 2004.
Read Annie’s weekly essays on rebuilding after relational trauma.
Weekly Substack essays from Annie Wright, LMFT on relational trauma, recovery, and the House of Life framework. For driven women who want a structured path back to themselves.
WAYS TO WORK WITH ANNIE
Individual Therapy
Trauma-informed therapy for driven women healing relational trauma. Licensed in 15 U.S. jurisdictions, including Colorado (telehealth only).
Executive Coaching
Trauma-informed coaching for driven women navigating leadership and burnout.
Fixing the Foundations
Annie’s signature course for relational trauma recovery. Work at your own pace.
Strong & Stable
The Sunday conversation you wished you’d had years earlier. 25,000+ subscribers.
Annie Wright, LMFT
LMFT · Executive Coach · W.W. Norton Author
Helping driven women finally feel as good as their résumé looks.
Annie Wright is a licensed psychotherapist (LMFT #95719) and trauma-informed executive coach with over 15,000 clinical hours. She works with driven women, including Silicon Valley leaders, physicians, and entrepreneurs, on the career transitions and leadership challenges that come with an impressive but exhausting professional life. Annie is the founder and former CEO of Evergreen Counseling, a multimillion-dollar trauma-informed therapy center she built, scaled, and successfully exited. A regular contributor to Psychology Today, her expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information. She is currently writing her first book with W.W. Norton.
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT #95719)
15,000+ direct clinical hours
CA LMFT95719 · CO MFT.0003236 (telehealth only) · CT 003806 · DC LMFT200001447 · FL TPMF356 · IL 166.012270 · ME MF8600 · MD LCM1206 · NH 1030 · NJ 37FI00254800 · NY 002805 · TX 206391 · UT 14300323-3902 · VA 0717002589 · WA MFT.LF.70098096
Creator of House of Life™ and Fixing the Foundations™
The Everything Years (W.W. Norton)
Founder & former CEO, Evergreen Counseling
Regular contributor to Psychology Today. Expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information.
