ILNews

Blomquist: In Praise of the Paralegal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerryWhen I first began practicing law, I was truly that: “practicing.” Day by day, week by week, I gained my footing and began slowly to understand how the practice of law truly differed from the study of law. And of course it does. I had always been a strong student, and my previous professional foray had been a successful one, but that challenge was nothing like the challenge of first practicing law for me.

Truth be told, and this will severely date me, but I felt like Captain Wilton Parmenter in the 1960s TV show F-Troop. Remember him? He was played by Ken Berry, and as the commander of “Fort Courage,” he was repeatedly decorated despite, not because of, his actions. This is the guy who won the Medal of Freedom when his allergic reaction accidentally set off a successful command to charge and who was (fictitiously) the only person in history to get a medal for getting a medal when he received the Purple Heart for being pricked while getting another medal pinned to his chest. Yeah, that still makes me laugh.

I could go on all day about 1960s TV sitcom humor … but the point of all of this is to say that I was used to doing pretty well, and beginning the practice of law single handedly threw me off of my game.

And then came Nina. Nina was my first paralegal, who I adored. Nina was my lifeline to how the practice of law should be done. She was approachable, gracious and polite. She had patience for my questions when my colleagues often did not. I knew how to study the law, but Nina taught me how to practice it. And she wasn’t even a lawyer. If stranded on a desert island in 1991? I’d have wanted a good pair of Spanx and Nina.

So I have to say I was at the very least saddened if not a bit dismayed and downright annoyed when I learned that of all of the groups of folks that don’t like lawyers, apparently paralegals are rising to the top. A few years back, the IndyBar Professionalism Committee under the leadership of Judge Tim Baker formed a task force that came to this conclusion and that same committee in 2013 under the leadership of Brian Zoeller has been working to address why.

Why are we losing favor among our paralegals and more importantly what can we do to correct this? With the help of Professionalism Committee members Brian Zoeller and Kevin Morrissey, here are a few not so subtle suggestions they have received.

1. Take the time to communicate. When offering direction, explain fully what you want and give a timetable. Everyone’s time is precious and no one has enough of it—be respectful of that fact.

2. Young lawyers: don’t be afraid to ask a paralegal for advice. They truly do hold the key to your happiness so settle down, tap into that and BE GRATEFUL. If you are a young lawyer with an attitude, lose it, because if you burn your bridges early on, the price of timber goes way up.

3. If you recognize yourself in this, then please listen and contemplate. If not, stand down because I am probably not talking about you. We are not the star-bellied Sneetches we think we are. Paralegals are our colleagues and they are professionally trained to practice with us—not serve us. Think twice before sending your colleague out to pick up your cleaning, get you coffee or pick up a birthday present for your husband or wife.

These are the people who make our lives easier, our practices more profitable and our work less stressful and more successful. If they are not feeling our love, clearly we have a communication problem here. Let’s work on that.•

Want to learn more about how being a part of a better attorney/paralegal team can actually help you grow your business? Check out the “Professionalism is Good Business” CLE program (and earn an hour of Ethics credit) on Friday, Dec. 13 from noon to 1 p.m. Register online at indybar.org/events.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT