ILNews

Longest-practicing female attorney in Indiana has no plans to retire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Phyllis Gratz Poff built a law practice by doing the little things that clients never forget.

She would give her home phone number to clients going through a particularly agonizing time and tell them to call her if they just needed to talk.

She stayed late and came into the office on Saturdays to accommodate clients who couldn’t meet her during regular business hours. And when clients called with a question or popped into her office, she did not count the time spent with them as billable hours.

lioness-15col.jpg After nearly 60 years in practice, Phyllis Gratz Poff works at the same desk her parents gave her when she graduated from law school in 1953.(IL Photo/Steve Linsenmayer)

Reflecting on her legal career, Poff said she probably would not have been successful working at a big law firm. Yet she has done well as a solo practitioner in Auburn, not only building and sustaining a law office but also being a quiet influence on the other attorneys in DeKalb County.

She has enjoyed being a lawyer so much so that at 82 years old, she is still working. In fact, having been admitted to the Indiana Bar in 1953, she has been practicing law longer than any other woman in Indiana, according to the Roll of Attorneys.

Upon learning that she is the longest-practicing female attorney in the state, she first exclaimed, “I am!” before insisting that she has done nothing noteworthy.

“I haven’t done anything outstanding,” Poff said. “I have not done anything remarkable.”

Her significance comes not from being in practice for nearly 60 years but from her diligence to the law and her compassion for clients.

Building a career

Poff has an office in Auburn, about two blocks north of the county courthouse. She puts her name in the phone book and has a small website but, otherwise, she does not advertise.

That stance mirrors her upbringing in DeKalb County where everyone knows their neighbors and word-of-mouth is better than a commercial.

Her father owned a feed and mill business, and she and her sister spent many hours bagging the flour. Her brother also worked there, introducing a lot of innovation by designing different types of bags and milling various kinds of flour.

She might have stayed a miller’s daughter if not for that terrible day at the close of World War II. The same June day her parents received a telegram from her brother, who had enlisted in the military, saying he would be returning from overseas, a government car pulled up in front of their house. Military officers told the family their son and brother had been killed in Germany.

Poff enrolled at Indiana University to study pre-law, then she headed to the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. Even though she was living with relatives, being in the Windy City brought a spell of homesickness that caused her to return to DeKalb County for an entire week.

She did go back to law school (she was the only female in her class) and completed her studies before settling in her hometown. Poff was admitted to the Indiana bar Dec. 2, 1953, and opened her office on her mother’s birthday, Feb. 1, 1954.

DeKalb Circuit Judge Monte Brown joined Poff as a young lawyer fresh from law school in 1978. He remembers her as being a popular divorce attorney. Women going through a divorce hired Poff because they saw her as someone who would understand them. Men also enlisted Poff to handle their divorces because they believed she would be very effective in countering their wives’ demands.

At all times, Brown said, Poff was compassionate. She supported her clients, she listened to them, and she was always very kind.

The way Poff has treated other people has rippled through the DeKalb County bar. The attorneys in that community work well together and do not cause a lot of problems for each other, which Brown attributes to the example of professional and personal demeanor set by attorneys such as his former boss.

Hanging out a shingle

lioness-yearbook-15col.jpg Phyllis Poff (front row, center) was the only female in her law school class. Upon opening her practice in Auburn, she said she was never discriminated against or treated badly because of her gender.(IL Photo/Steve Linsenmayer)

Poff’s choice to practice law was not totally surprising. Sitting around the kitchen table as a youngster, she and her family talked about politics and world events. Her parents, immigrants from Austria-Hungary, often got locked in arguments over who was worse: Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

“We were encouraged to be interested in the government,” Poff said, adding she and her siblings learned a great deal from those conversations, including being proud of their country.

Deciding to study law was not difficult, but establishing a practice took a lot of hard work. When she started, Poff made $1,500 a year and lived at home, depending on her parents for room and board, meals, a car and gasoline.

Also, as was typical, while she knew a great deal about legal theory, she had few practical skills when she graduated from law school. She turned to the other attorneys in town, who had been in practice several years, to ask for their help and advice.

Never did these male attorneys discriminate or mistreat her, she said. Being a female in the male-dominated bar did not bring a lot of problems.

“I can honestly say, I didn’t find a lot of prejudice,” Poff said. “If I lost a case it was because I wasn’t prepared or I didn’t have the facts straight or the client wasn’t cooperative.”

In addition to her private practice, Poff served as the Auburn City Court judge from 1967 to 1979. Also, she served as the attorney for both the city of Waterloo and DeKalb County, and held a seat on the Auburn City Council for one term.

She carries a reputation of being a very skilled lawyer as well as being a very generous person. Poff served on the boards of the Habitat for Humanity of DeKalb County and for Youth for Christ in Auburn. Also, when her father’s mill business was bulldozed, she donated half of the land to Habitat for new homes.

Marriage in 1962 opened another career for Poff. She and her husband owned five Hickory Farms stores throughout northern Indiana. When she was not at her law office, Poff was running the warehouse operations and occasionally making deliveries until 2 or 3 a.m.

Together, she and her husband shared child care duties. If she had to be in court early or meet with a client late, her husband made sure their son and daughter were fed, got their homework done, got ready for school or whatever else they needed to do.

Because she wanted to be with her family as much as she could, Poff never participated in a jury trial. Such trials would have kept her away from home too much.

She also found ways to be with her children even when working. Her son Randy remembered going to her office each day after elementary school and being allowed to sit in her office, pretending to take dictation, just so she could be near him.

Still practicing

Today, Poff concentrates her practice on family law and some estate work. She does all the legal work and, since her secretary died, she runs her office: answering phones, greeting clients and doing the cleaning.

In the courtroom, the time she spends with each case is still evident. Brown noted Poff really gets to know the details, and sometimes her thoroughness frustrates opposing counsel.

Even after 60 years, Poff still loves the law. She cares for her clients and she enjoys being an attorney. That devotion is on display as she regularly power walks in high heels with an armload of files to the county courthouse.

“God willing,” she said, “I can continue.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Very Refreshing!!
    Hi, I hope you don't mind, but my son Corey was given your name by Patty Koepe. And as his mom, I told him I thought I would look you up and try and see how you handle things with her clients and courtroom and what your specialty is. I'm so glad I did because you just warmed my heart with your story and the way you treat people. I'm retired Navy, and my father was also retired Navy. The way we were brought up was to Be as honest and fair to people and live by the Golden Rule. That being I know my son will be giving you a call because it involves his little boy Ian. And I applaud you on such a successful career. Thank you for reading this. Pamela Secrist

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT