ILNews

Education conclave focuses on diversity, economy

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When the Indiana State Bar Association gets law students, attorneys, professors, judges, court administrators, deans, and representatives of Indiana’s Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, Disciplinary Commission, Board of Law Examiners, and the Indiana Bar Foundation are all in the same place for a few hours, some interesting dialogues are bound to take place.

That was the goal when at least 100 members of the legal community met for the ISBA’s fourth Legal Education Conclave at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Sept. 24-25.

Among the focuses for this year’s conclave, which takes place every few years, were diversity, ethics, and stress among lawyers and law students. While all four Indiana law schools were represented, this year’s co-chairs were Gail G. Peshel, assistant dean of career services at University of Notre Dame Law School; and Chasity Q. Thompson, assistant dean of professional development for I.U. School of Law – Indianapolis.

Gary Roberts Roberts

Keynote speakers and breakout sessions addressed these topics, as well as the issues of educating lawyers in a changing economy, a comparison of alternative and traditional fee arrangements, and how technology affects Indiana practitioners.

University of Notre Dame Law School Dean Emeritus Father David T. Link opened the event Sept. 24 with a discussion about the role of ethics for lawyers and law students, including examples from his roles as dean and prison chaplain. Father Link was dean of the law school from 1975 to 1999, and continues to teach ethics.

The conversation continued Sept. 25 when Kim M. Boyle of the New Orleans firm Phelps Dunbar and the first African-American woman president of the Louisiana State Bar Association opened that day’s activities with a keynote address about diversity. Boyle is also a former assistant professor of law at Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans and spoke about how students view the troubled economy.

Brita Horvath Horvath

Another topic she discussed is when law firms focus more on lateral hires, they are less likely to improve their diversity, even though law school graduating classes are more diverse in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, and other factors.

She also participated in a breakout session about the topic. That session included a panel made up of Indianapolis solo employment attorney Michael Dalrymple; Lake Superior Judge Calvin D. Hawkins; Vanderburgh Superior Magistrate Jill Marcrum; Camille Wiggins, a staff attorney of the Indiana Supreme Court and member of the Commission on Race and Gender Fairness; and G. Michael Witte, a former Dearborn Superior judge and the new Indiana Disciplinary Commission executive secretary. Merrillville attorney Michael Tolbert, past president of the James Kimbrough Bar Association, a minority bar association based in northwest Indiana, moderated the discussion.

Among the topics were how to define diversity; what has been done to address diversity; and what the legal community still needs to do to address a lack of diversity, especially in communities that aren’t very diverse.

Another topic was why Latinos were left off of the panel, a question asked by Marion Superior Judge Jose Salinas, which – in a round about way – led to Judge Hawkins’ discussion about how what one sees isn’t always what’s there.

Judge Hawkins shared an experience of working in Washington, D.C., when he thought one of his colleagues ignored him in the hallways because the judge is African-American and his colleague was white. The judge later learned that his colleague was legally blind, and likely didn’t see him when they passed in the hall. That discussion is available on the ISBA’s Facebook page.

Brita Horvath, diversity and pro bono coordinator for Baker & Daniels, said that breakout was particularly interesting to her.

The discussion “confirms what we already know – that our traditional methods of recruiting are not necessarily effective” when it comes to improving diversity in all areas of the legal community, she said. To have more attention paid to the issue of diversity, “We need to develop leadership and diversity in law schools, on the bench, in the bar – in order to reach diverse constituents.”

Anne Ricchiuto Ricchiuto

Anne K. Ricchiuto, an associate at Baker & Daniels and a member of the conclave’s planning committee, attended breakout sessions about “resiliency in the face of stress,” and a session about technology.

She said the resiliency session was particularly effective because panelists Don Lundberg, of Barnes & Thornburg and former executive secretary of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission; and G. Andrew H. Benjamin, a psychologist and lawyer from Seattle, spoke about how lawyers can start to have mental health and substance abuse issues as early as their first year of law school, which can last throughout their careers.

For instance, while law students generally are at the same level as others before they start law school when it comes to mental health and substance abuse issues – if not healthier – even after the first year things can start to go downhill.

Ricchiuto said two of the benefits of that session were for those in the room to learn more about how lawyers can have trouble as early as law school and the coping strategies Benjamin discussed.

ted waggoner Waggoner

“Even if it was just for an hour and a half, people in the room gave serious thought to which things are in our control and how can we manage those things, and which things are outside of our control and how to minimize the impact of those things,” she said.

Another planning committee member, Ted A. Waggoner of Peterson & Waggoner in Rochester, agreed that Benjamin’s presentation was thought provoking.

“I met Andy Benjamin the night before; he impressed me as a psychologist and as a law professor. He also teaches a solo practice course like the one I teach in Bloomington,” he said.

“He gave us a quiz on our values and aspirations to help us see how the practice of law has led us to certain places in life and what we individually are getting out of our practices,” he said. The point of the exercise was to help the participants understand what they want to get out of their careers and how to get that, “so we don’t end up being one of the sad cases.”

Benjamin’s PowerPoint presentation is available as a link on the ISBA’s Facebook page.

Following two rounds of breakout sessions and lunch, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, an active participant in the conclave, concluded the event with a call to action regarding various issues discussed at the conclave.

“The whole concept of the conclave was to address how the profession is changing, and to address how structures, values, and diversity are getting hit by the current legal economy,” Waggoner said.

“People are suffering financially in ways we haven’t seen in the lifetime of most attorneys, which the keynote speakers also addressed when they spoke about diversity. Students are in a different world than what the older attorneys grew up in … and the economy is causing additional stress and additional problems,” he said.

I.U. School of Law – Indianapolis Dean Gary Roberts attended the conclave but said via e-mail that he was disappointed in the breakout session topics.

“There was nothing focused on how the bar and law schools can work together to bring about change in the academy that will result in students being better prepared for practice and leadership when they graduate, and how the schools can accomplish this in a more efficient manner in an era of declining revenues and a contracting job market,” he said.

Following the conclave, co-chairs Thompson and Peshel received information from the breakout sessions and discussions of participants, which they have been compiling into a report. Action items and future plans to implement these action items from that report will be announced at the ISBA’s annual meeting, which starts Oct. 13. A final report from conclave organizers will be released early next year.•

ADVERTISEMENT

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