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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT