ILNews

Leadership in Law 2014: Fran Quigley

Clinical Professor of Law, Health and Human Rights Clinic, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis • Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, 1987

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
15col-Quigley.jpg Fran Quigley (IL photo/Eric Learned)

When Fran Quigley sees people in crisis, he works tirelessly to get them the help they need. In his role as a clinical professor of law, he mentors and shapes the career paths of students who have chosen his expertise: human rights. He founded the Health and Human Rights Clinic at IU McKinney School of Law in 2011, where students work with low-income clients in the community. Fran is also a co-founder of the Legal Aid Centre of Eldoret, Kenya’s first human rights legal program connected to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and is the former director of operations for the Academic Model for the Prevention and Treatment of HIV/AIDS, which cares for Kenyan patients infected with HIV.

What inspired you to establish the Legal Aid Centre of Eldoret?

I followed the lead of some terrific Kenyan advocates, led by attorney Eric Gumbo, and also Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Riley, who were the true visionaries for LACE.  They saw an opportunity to bring justice to some of the most marginalized persons on the globe: HIV-affected persons and their families in western Kenya. It was an honor to play a role in helping their vision come to life.

You worked at the law school for seven years before leaving for a period and returning in 2011. What do you enjoy about working with law students?

It is a privilege to work with law students who are fully committed to empowering low-income persons in crisis. Especially in the clinics, these students’ dedication to compassionate service not only is a big boost to their clients, it inspires me to match their idealism and enthusiasm.  

What class do you wish you could have skipped in law school?

Since I am an alum of the school where I now teach, I should plead the Fifth here. ...  In truth, I could have somehow gotten by with skipping any of the classes except for labor law, where I met Ellen White. A lot of my classes were very valuable, but that was the only one that resulted in three great kids and an amazing lifelong partner who I continue to learn from every day! 

Besides being a lawyer, you worked for a time as a news editor as well as a reporter and columnist. What drew you to journalism?

I find a great deal of connectivity between the work of public interest law and journalism, especially journalism that is focused on social justice issues. There are shared goals – telling a story, persuading an audience to reach a conclusion or take action – and shared techniques – analyzing a sometimes jumbled set of facts and bringing forth witnesses to explain and illustrate the truth.

What’s something you’ve learned over the years that you wish you could go back in time and tell your younger self?

My younger self from 30 years ago and my younger self from 30 minutes ago could both benefit from being more patient, more humble and more selfless. 

Is there a moment in your career you wish you could do over?

Oh, there are many! I wish I could say that I have always been kind and compassionate to opposing counsel and challenging clients, and was never affected by the stress of a difficult case. But that would not be true. The good thing about teaching law students in a clinical setting is that the process reminds me of the need to practice what I preach. 

What are some tips for achieving a work/life balance?

My observation has been that the biggest stressors for lawyers are when we are not living our values in our work. I am very fortunate that the big-picture goals of my work synch very well with the big-picture goals of my life.

Who is your favorite fictional lawyer?

I have never found any fictional lawyer to be as admirable as the real ones I know. I have been blessed with an abundance of lawyer role models to learn from, including practicing lawyers in my family (my brother Bill, my father-in-law John White) and many inspiring public interest lawyer colleagues, especially the lawyers at Indiana Legal Services, ACLU Indiana, and in the law school clinics.

Why do you think people often have negative stereotypes about lawyers?

Many of the most selfless, kind and dedicated people I know are lawyers. But the adversarial process does not always give us lawyers the opportunity to show our most compassionate selves. On top of that, many people only deal with lawyers at the worst times of their lives, and the entire experience is one they would prefer to forget.

What civic cause is the most important to you?

I am very fortunate that part of my day job is to work on the causes that are most important to me. My work now is focused on low-wage workers’ rights here in the U.S. and the struggle for human rights in Haiti. We lawyers are well-equipped to be the advocates that the poor need both here in our community and across the world.

 
If you couldn’t be a lawyer, what would you do for a living?

I would probably be a social worker – wishing I could sue the people and corporations who were victimizing my clients!
 

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT