ILNews

Dean's Desk: IU Maurer professor’s legacy lives on at law school

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dean-buxbaun-hannahTwo months ago, the Maurer School of Law lost an esteemed colleague, friend and teacher who touched the lives of more than 6,000 of our alumni during his 33 years at the law school.

Leonard Fromm, our beloved Associate Dean for Students and Alumni Affairs, passed away on Feb. 2. Tributes to Len have been pouring in from around the world, all of them attesting to his many qualities that served the school so well. Several alumni wrote of Len’s willingness to help them in times of personal and professional self-doubt and to guide them through the tentative awkwardness of the first year of law school.

One alumnus wrote, “Len Fromm represented all that was good about Indiana University and the Law School. He genuinely cared about the students and spent more time learning about each of their aspirations and dreams than anyone could have expected. He had a warm, thoughtful and caring manner that had a profound impact on me and other students throughout his years of service to the Law School and wider community.”
 

Leonard Fromm Fromm

Len saw himself as very much in the background, working behind the scenes to counsel students privately. Yet his influence was – and remains – deeply felt. He knew each student by name, empathized with their individual predicaments, and kept in touch with a staggering number of them after they graduated and began their professional lives.

Len’s legacy lives on at the law school in many ways that will have a real impact on our students’ ability to succeed in the profession. Trained as a counselor – he held a Master’s Degree in Counseling Psychology as well as a law degree – he took a real interest in developing our students’ professional competencies. He was intimately involved in the design of Indiana Law’s innovative 1L course on the legal profession, which uses legal ethics and the law of lawyering as the spine of a course that immerses students in a variety of practice settings. In so doing, the course helps students identify the competencies they must develop to succeed in their professional lives.

My colleague Bill Henderson, who directs our Center on the Global Legal Profession and who co-founded our legal profession course, recalled that Len was a master at taking complex social science principles and distilling them into practical teaching tools. “In 2008 I started collaborating with Len on a project to construct a Law School competency model,” Bill wrote in the March issue of The National Jurist. “Our first iteration was a list of 23 success factors. … Although valid as a model of social science, the list was too long and complex to get traction with students. … During the summer of 2011, as we were debriefing the challenges of yet another year in the legal profession course, Len said ‘I have an idea.’

“A short time later,” Bill continued, “Len circulated a list of six competencies that were appropriate to 1Ls and foundational to their growth as professionals. At last, we had a working tool!” We named these traits the Fromm Six, humorously, at first, as a play on the famous Big Five model that forms the basis of scientific personality testing. But the name stuck.

In the National Jurist article, Bill wrote, “There is no greater tribute [to Len] than to publish and publicize the Fromm Six so that another generation of lawyers can benefit from his wisdom, grace, and kindness.” I couldn’t agree more, so I share them here:

Self-awareness: having a highly developed sense of self. Possessing this competence means knowing accurately which emotions you are feeling and how to manage them toward effective performance and a healthy balance in your life.

Active listening: the ability to comprehend information fully through careful monitoring of spoken words and nonverbal cues. (Preoccupation with technology has made it very challenging to give proper weight and attention to face-to-face interactions.)

Questioning: the art and skill of knowing when and how to ask for information. Developing this skill also requires managing one’s own need to talk and control the conversation.

Empathy: sensing and perceiving what others are feeling, being able to take their perspectives, and cultivating a rapport and connection. This includes communicating understanding back to others by accurately articulating their feelings. (This is something Len was especially good at doing.)

Communicating and presenting: the ability to present compelling arguments assertively and respectfully, and sell one’s ideas to others. Being able to express strong feelings and emotions appropriately in a manner that does not derail the message is also important.

Resilience: the ability to deal with difficult situations calmly and cope effectively with stress; to be able to learn from your failures, rejections, feedback and criticism as well as from disappointments beyond your control. Being resilient and stress-hardy also implies an optimistic and positive outlook, one that enables you to absorb the impact of the event, recover within a reasonable amount of time and incorporate relevant lessons from the event.

All of us miss Len’s guidance, wisdom and warmth, but rejoice in his legacy. We are planning a tribute to him on campus this fall.•

__________

Hannah L. Buxbaum is Interim Dean and John E. Schiller Chair in Legal Ethics at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Opinions expressed are the author’s.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT