ILNews

Blomquist: Embracing Diversity for the Greater Good

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerryI sat down to write this column about recognizing the strengths in our diversity in the middle of the 2013 federal governmental shutdown…it was challenging at best. But then I thought the timing was perfect. Right now, it is pretty obvious that we spend much more time highlighting our differences than highlighting our many similarities. In the end, we have to rely on our abilities to focus on the latter to work for the greater good. It was Indira Gandhi who said, “You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.”

October has been designated “Diversity Awareness Month” by the American Bar Association. I know this because I am on the National Conference of Bar Presidents’ (NCBP) Diversity Committee and as such I get to work with some great bar leaders to promote the best and most effective diversity programs, initiatives and ideas from all different levels of the organized bar. Diversity refers to meaningful representation of and equal opportunities for individuals who self-identify with those groups that are historically under-represented in the legal profession.

This is an increasingly important issue for us as lawyers and as managers of lawyers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by the middle of this century white Americans will comprise less than 50 percent of the population of the United States. It is critical that diversity within the legal profession keep up with the overall growth of diversity in our communities. It’s a sound business conclusion because that represents an overlooked but substantial book of business. It is a clear ethical conclusion because as leaders of this bar and of this profession, we must help underserved populations access their system of justice.

This week I had a chance to email NCBP Diversity Committee Chair Steve Toole about the work the IndyBar is doing in this arena, specifically to brag about this summer’s wildly successful 2013 Diversity Job Fair. I said early on that this column will be used to highlight the great work of this bar association and its leaders and on that note, let me brag about one thing: every once in awhile, I can pick ‘em. Shelley Jackson from Plews Shadley Racher and Braun agreed to chair this year’s Diversity Job Fair Committee and she and her committee did an extraordinary job.

Shelley and her committee engaged 28 employers who interviewed 72 students of color and diverse backgrounds from all over the country. This year, they added a student workshop called, “What the employer wants to know in a 20 minute interview” with a capacity of 25 students. They had a waiting list. Also this year, and for the first time, they hosted an Employer Retention Workshop. It also proved successful, and showed again that one of the best things about the committee leadership in this bar is their willingness to try something new. They did, and it worked.

The results so far indicate that 25 callback interview invitations were extended, 24 callback interviews were held and 23 offers were actually extended. I say “so far” because hiring personnel is a fluid process; the work of that one day will continue to change lives down the road. The IndyBar Diversity Job Fair is growing in both numbers and prestige.

Thank you to our sponsors, our employers and our interviewees. Thank you to Shelley Jackson and her hard working committee for taking point on this and running full speed. Thank you to Caren Chopp and IndyBar staff for being flexible and willing to do what is not always easy but is always innovative, because the goal here is to serve our members and advance this legal profession. The IndyBar’s continued good work in this area will change the stars of this profession down the road, and definitely for the better. For more information or to get engaged for next year, check out ibadiversityjobfair.com.

Now that this column is going to press and the government shutdown is over, it means that fists have unclenched, even if just a little, even if just for a while. Taking a page from my weary and dog-eared book on positive anticipation, this is a chance to refocus and recommit to working together … and for someone to write, “Everything I know about being a Congressman I learned in Kindergarten.” It’s a bit overdue.•

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT