ILNews

Hickey: Meet Belva Lockwood

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-Hickey-ChristineNo, Belva is not a current IBA member. In fact, she was never an IBA member; however, I was just “introduced” to her and thought the timing remarkable given that I had already decided to write this President’s Message on celebrating Mother’s Day. This holiday will have passed as you read this, and my hope is that you enjoyed a day to appreciate your own mother as I will have mine. The focus of this article is all of the women lawyers who balance the tremendously difficult task of being a great mom and a great lawyer.

Inspiration. Perseverance. Belva Lockwood was a twenty-three year old widow with a three year old daughter in 1853. To provide for her daughter, Belva sought a higher education and persuaded what is now Syracuse University to admit her as a student. Interested in the law at a college with no law department, Belva took private classes from a local law professor. As a single mother of a 16-year-old daughter, Belva moved to Washington D.C. in 1866. After being refused admittance to the Columbian Law School where trustees feared she would be a distraction to male students, she was eventually admitted to what is now George Washington University School of Law. By this time, Belva had remarried, given birth to another daughter, and had buried that daughter before her second birthday. Belva completed her coursework in 1873; however, the law school refused to grant a diploma to a woman. After appealing to the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, Belva Lockwood received her diploma and was admitted to the DC Bar at the age of 43.

Lockwood went on to become the first woman admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the first woman lawyer to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. A little known fact: Belva Ann Lockwood was the first female presidential candidate to appear on a ballot. She ran first in 1884 and again in 1888 against Indiana’s very own Benjamin Harrison. Lockwood has been credited with helping to open the legal profession to women.

Balance. Along with many other of my peers, predecessors, and successors, I am blessed with the joy of both motherhood and a legal career. I have two remarkable children, Chase and Taylor, who remind me daily of the delicate balance between squeezing in client calls, discovery deadlines, track meets, school events and, oh yes, dinner. Many of our members have been law student, young associate, and law partner as a mother-lawyer. Many of our members will face the difficult task of searching for childcare as a pregnant lawyer, showing up with baby food on their suit, and trying to stave off a child’s temperature while facing a court hearing at 9:00 that morning. The conflict of family and professional life has not been lost on legal scholars, including Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who has observed the struggle of balance for women professionals caring for children.

Work-life balance is a struggle for male and female attorneys alike. It is not reserved specifically for women; the intent of this article is not to suggest otherwise. Finding ways to enhance and enrich your personal life and legal career without “giving anything up” is not always easy but it can be done. The IBA recognizes how critical a balanced life is to enjoyment in the profession, and for this reason you will begin to see regular features in our pages on this issue. Our hope is to help tip the work-life balance in your favor.

Success. From Belva Lockwood to the modern-day mom with a law degree, lap top, and a nanny-cam, being a successful attorney and devoted mother is difficult but doable. I dedicate this column to the many attorney-mothers who find a way to make it work every day.
 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT