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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT