ILNews

Inbox: Personal values and experiences define 'all'

August 29, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ms. Lucas:

Can women in the law have it all? I chuckle when I read this headline.

I chuckle at such a broad, open-ended question that is personal in a unique way to each reader. I am happy that the topic is at the forefront of conversations because it evokes emotion, raises awareness which leads to acceptance. Awareness and acceptance lead to ACTION.

First, a little about my background in candid form and how I identify with the community. I am a female, Amerasian, 35-year-old divorcing mother, solo practitioner of 6 years, professional model and distance runner. My areas of practice which I commonly refer to as money, dirt and debt were all chosen specifically based upon my life experiences.

Money, or rather banking law, was chosen because I am fascinated by currency – the lack there of or the lavishness of multiple zeros. I am a child of the government welfare system that experienced poverty and homelessness at a young age with my family. Dirt, or real estate law, stems from my desire to have a home with a concrete foundation having lived in a camper and single-wide trailer as a child. Debt, or bankruptcy law, stems from a combination of the latter two, and allows me to help those similarly situated through knowledge and experience. I have also had the unfortunate experience of watching and surviving my family be torn apart by mental illness and addiction … twice. And my client base continues to reflect my experiences. My practice areas allow synchronicity to connect the bridge to my own personal experiences. My experiences strengthen my learned book knowledge.

Back to the conversation of can women have it all? My answer is yes.

I often say, I have what I need, not necessarily what I want. And the most important needs that I have are love, happiness, compassion, open mindedness and willingness. These needs shape my perspective and define who I am. They give me purpose. And because my needs are met, I do in fact have it all. It is my humble opinion, that everyone, man or woman, can have it all too. I am not special, but I do have gifts and talents that make me unique. And I have tools that allow me to share my gifts and talents, purposefully. I have let go of my desire for perfection, my biggest Achilles heel, and have ultimately chosen to live a life of contentment and peace. I am not certain whether everyone wants the same of what I have, but my guess is that many do.

I work nationally and locally on women in the law issues. I have chaired the Women and the Law Division for IndyBar, I sit on the Women in Law Committee for the ISBA, I serve on the Board for Women Rainmakers of the ABA LPM, and I am on the editorial board for Perspectives, the magazine for women lawyers published by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession. My involvement does not make me an expert on this topic. From all of my experience, however, I have identified two forefront challenges that women lawyers face and there stems the question of can women have it all. The first challenge is how a woman lawyer views herself. The second challenge (which I call the true “war on women”) are women lawyers who recognize themselves in the profession simply as lawyers, and not women.

In my perspective, it is not a disadvantage to be a woman in the profession so long as I know who I am. It is when I forget who I am, or try to be somebody that I am not, that I lose sight of my goals. If I try to accustom or assimilate to any so-called “norm” or “standard,” or strictly follow the direction or advice that my intuition speaks against, I am not me and, therefore, not as effective in anything I do, including practicing law.

In regards to the second challenge that I identify above, I understand both sides of the coin. But one side of the coin is more fearful than the other. I have observed and overheard many women who believe women should assimilate to the customs of the profession to “blend.”

Some women desire to be only recognized for their professional accomplishments, identifying as an attorney rather than as a woman first. They may not recognize the reward in sharing what they have learned in their own experience. Who created the customs of our profession anyway? And who is to judge what is right or wrong for an individual? Neither of those questions can be answered by black letter or case law.

As I often quote: A woman that seeks to be equal with men lacks ambition – Marilyn Monroe. I can disagree with you, but still love and respect you the same. Each person is uniquely tailored by their experience, but history has shown that our similarities bond us together stronger than our differences. I am a woman that practices law. I will share more similarities in my perspective and experience with another woman than I will with a man. I understand what it is like to be a woman, not a man. And if my experience can help another, I have a human duty to help. I help myself feel useful, serve my purpose, grow, and help my profession and community by helping another. It just so happens that I may be more helpful to more women than men in certain areas simply because I am a woman. What a gift! And I recognize the dozens of MEN and women that have helped me to come to this place where I have it all.

Your editorial and this conversation have once again reinvigorated me. I have thought for years to assist in founding the Indiana Women’s Bar Association and have excused myself from service to focus on other matters. It now seems timely to assist the movement forward of helping other women have it all too. Time to assemble! Thanks for once again opening the door!

L. Leona Frank, Attorney at Law
Indianapolis

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT