ILNews

Blomquist: All I Really Need to Know About Being a Lawyer, I Learned in Kindergarten

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerryOkay, that is a bit sweeping, I admit, and before I rain on our academic colleagues’ summer parade and disenfranchise an entire generation of young lawyers out there who are trudging along with massive law school loan debt, let me revise: a lot of what I need to know about being a lawyer, I learned in kindergarten. For example (and please work with the metaphors like I know you can): play nice in the sandbox, do unto others, share the good stuff, help people when they need it, be respectful of your elders and don’t promise marriage to anyone just because they buy you an orange creamsicle.1 And of course, the biggie: rules are important. Rules let us know what is expected of us. Rules keep us in order.

Much of our profession is based on the concept of rules, specifically the Rule of Law, and I need not remind this audience that while the “Rule of Law” constrains all individuals’ behavior for the greater good of society, it arguably constrains the behavior of the “rule makers” even more. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. No written law is enforceable if it is determined to be inconsistent with the human principles of fairness and justice. I would love to put links to the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta in right here, but space precludes me from doing so (you’re welcome). In the end, Aristotle said it best a couple of thousand years ago when he said “The rule of law is better than that of any individual.”

How cool is that?

Of course the big elephant in the room right now is the fact that Marion County seems to be taking a bit of a reputation hit after a series of arrests involving several key public officials. This is decidedly not cool for many reasons, and there are many places to go for facts, opinions and rantings on this issue. My choice is to be guardedly optimistic that while we as a profession continue to watch and process this chain of events, we will remember the following:

1. That as we live and breathe and opine and blog, we remember the principle of the presumption of innocence, a maxim that, while adopted by our civil society, dates back to Roman times. It is worth repeating: “the burden of proof lies with the one who declares, not the one who denies.”

2. That our local government is comprised of hundreds if not thousands of dedicated public servants including but not limited to civil service workers, prosecutors, public defenders and judges who work every single day doing the hard work, and doing it well. Just a few days ago I participated in an IndyBar CLE about Marion County’s implementation of the JTAC Odyssey Case Management System. It served as a vivid reminder of the many state and local public servants who have put in extraordinary hours and energy to make this system work here in central Indiana and indeed all over the state. Those are the headlines you don’t see; those are the sound bites you don’t hear.

3. That we, as attorneys and judges, are the guardians of this system of justice, and as such, we have a great deal of control over how it is perceived. If we need a reminder of our obligation to our profession, our clients and our civil society, we need only remember the lesson from kindergarten: follow the rules, and this one in particular. The following rule not only bears repeating, it needs to sit in a frame on each of our desks. It should be memorized early on and not just recited once in our professional lives.

Rule 22. The Oath of Attorneys:

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that: I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense which shall appear to me to be unjust, but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime in any case; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client at every peril to myself; I will abstain from offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will not encourage either the commencement or the continuance of any action or proceeding from any motive of passion or interest; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance; so help me God.” 2

__________

1 I’m not sure that one “took.”

2 Apologies to this audience for not editing this, but I wouldn’t dare.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT