ILNews

Lawyer couples

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While some couples prefer to keep their work and personal lives separate, it’s not unheard of for lawyers to pair up. Four couples shared their stories with Indiana Lawyer.

Heather and Sebastian

J. Sebastian Smelko, associate legal counsel and gaming and public safety advisor to Gov. Mitch Daniels, met Heather James, an associate in Ice Miller’s municipal finance group, on their third day at Valparaiso University School of Law in August 2005.

After they graduated from law school in December 2007, they moved to Indianapolis. They were engaged June 5, 2009, and married June 26, 2010.
 

il-legalcouples04-15col J. Sebastian Smelko, associate legal counsel to Gov. Mitch Daniels, met Heather James, an associate at Ice Miller, on their third day of law school in August 2005. They were married in Rome, pictured above, June 26, 2010. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

While in law school, Smelko recalled, he and James would often be the only two doing legal research in the library on Friday nights. They still sometimes talk about work, but they are careful not to betray the confidences of their clients.

“We can communicate with each other in ways a lawyer and non-lawyer can’t,” Smelko said. “It’s not just, ‘I had a hard day,’ but ‘here’s why I had a hard day.’”

Because they’re both busy, they also make an effort to spend time together. The two walk to work together, and they will schedule dinners. “I send him calendar invites,” James said.

Craig and Diane

Craig Burke, a partner at Ice Miller, met Diane Cruz-Burke, assistant general counsel at Eli Lilly, on a bus to Chicago when they were undergraduate students at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business.

Both graduated from business school in 1988. Cruz-Burke went to Harvard Law School immediately after graduating from IU, and Burke got a job in Boston. They were married in 1989, and Cruz-Burke finished law school in 1991.

Burke said he never intended to go to law school, but after seeing the experience his future wife was having, including the issues she debated in class, he changed his mind.

Because their first child was born during spring break of Cruz-Burke’s second year of law school, Burke considered schools closer to their home state of Indiana. Cruz-Burke passed the Indiana bar in 1991 and worked in Indianapolis, and Burke attended Indiana University Maurer School of Law and graduated in 1994.


il-legalcouples02-15col Craig Burke, a partner at Ice Miller, and Diane Cruz-Burke, assistant general counsel at Eli Lilly, met on a bus to Chicago when they were undergraduate students at Indiana University. They were married in 1989. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

While they rarely talk about work at home, they sometimes impart their legal-thinking skills on their children. For instance, they may ask their children, now ages 20, 14, and 10, to make their case about why they should be able to do something they want to do.

The couple’s 20-year-old, a business student at IU, is now considering law school, but Cruz-Burke said she has suggested to her daughter that she wait a few years after receiving her bachelor’s degree, something the Lilly lawyer sometimes wishes she had done so she could have either traveled or done something else between finishing her undergrad degree and starting law school.

Both said they work together to come up with “win-win” situations. When Cruz-Burke went to Austria for work, Burke agreed to go with her even though it had an impact on his work at the time.

“But I was the best ERISA lawyer in all of Vienna,” he quipped about his experience with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Rebecca and James

Rebecca and James Balanoff are the only two attorneys at the firm they started in the 1980s, Balanoff & Balanoff, with offices in Munster, Merrillville, and Chicago.

They met at a New Year’s Eve party at Rebecca’s parents’ house when James was in law school at IU Maurer School of Law and Rebecca was a junior at the University of Chicago.

James graduated from law school in 1977, and followed Rebecca to Washington, D.C., where she attended George Washington University Law Center, and he worked for the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations. The two moved back to the Chicago area for Rebecca to finish her legal education at the University of Chicago.

When they first started working as a small firm, James worked as a part-time deputy prosecutor for a time and while their children, now ages 28, 25, and 19, were young, Rebecca took time away from her legal career or worked part time in their office balancing the roles of mother and lawyer.

Starting out, they’d take just about any case that walked in the door, but now most of their work is focused on Social Security disability.

The toughest thing has been planning vacations because there are only two of them, and when they do take a vacation, it’s usually together. If they’re visiting their kids, who now all live in Colorado, they’ll stagger it so one will get there a day or two earlier and the other will leave a day or two later.

The advent of electronic communication has also proven helpful for staying in touch with clients when they are on vacation, they said, even though it means they don’t always get a true break from the office.

Rob and Cathy

Rob Wiederstein and Cathy Nestrick have a different dynamic. Nestrick is an attorney at Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn in Evansville, and Wiederstein is a district judge in Henderson, Ky.

The two met at Hanover College and married a week before they began classes at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. Nestrick said they consider their three years in law school “our honeymoon.”

“I definitely think that our marriage during law school was easier because we were both law students,” she said. “We saw many law students divorce while in school, and I often thought it was due to the stress of the program. It helped that we went through that stress together.”

Like other couples interviewed, Nestrick said even though both are lawyers, the two aren’t competitive with each other.

“While our markets do overlap, my base is in Indiana and his is in Kentucky,” she said. She added that she also wouldn’t appear before him in court, but if a client she represented was ever to appear in his court, he’d recuse himself.

Like the other couples, she also said because they’re both lawyers, they do talk about legal issues.

“It is helpful to have someone to use as a sounding board. As you know, the law is rarely black and white, and finding the ‘right gray’ can be tricky,” she said.

As for applying legal lessons with their children, now ages 11 and 13, “We have had our kids (and their friend in one instance) sign ‘contracts’ to reinforce the importance of promises. I also tend to demand ‘evidence’ that a particular event occurred as described,” she said.

All four couples said that their shared legal backgrounds have helped strengthen their marriages. They also agree that at the end of the day, it’s nice to come home to – or drive home or walk to work with – someone who can understand what they’re going through, whether they talk about it often or not.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • more lawyer couples
    Vijayalaxmi my wife, and me are one among the several lawyer couples in Kerala, South India.
  • nice story
    I liked this story. Lawyer families are a tradition in Indiana. The Tucker law firm in Paoli and the Steele law frim in Bedford asr just two family firms. And, there are a number of lawyers who are married to lawyers and whose children are now law school grads. Mary Lee Comer and Lee Comer are lovely example couple in Danville.

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. 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