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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT