, , , , , , , , , ,

We the people in order to form a more perfect union

We the people in order to form a more perfect union

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

– Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, Proposed by Convention September 17, 1787 | Effective March 4, 1789

Notice that within the Preamble words appear such as:

we; more perfect union; domestic tranquility; common; general welfare; ourselves.

The Constitution itself came about through and by way of a Convention – the political leaders convened to discuss, debate, engage in robust discourse, and ultimately agreed to a specific type of government: a democratic republic.

By design, our government and its Constitution emerged as a deliberate departure from the idea and reality of “rule-by-one”…be that one person (dictator), one family (monarchy), or worse yet – without adherence to any governmental structure – else, as a nation, we would run the risk of descending into complete anarchy and widespread danger for all.

The three separate branches of government (legislative, judicial, and executive) were established as a set of checks and balances.  Or, put another way: a set of counterbalances.  Like an equilateral triangle, this system of government makes for a stable structure.  The more counterbalanced (or counterweighted) the structure, the more sturdy the structure.  When one of the governmental branches “breaks away from the pack” and with wild abandon exceeds its Constitutional powers, it needs to be brought back into balance. Otherwise, the structure weakens and is made vulnerable to attack and destruction.

This has real-world, physical consequences. It is not only in principle, but in form and function.  Recent events at the United States capitol building made manifest this scenario. Unlike opportunity, dictatorship as well as anarchy doesn’t kindly knock. It swells. It bludgeons. It dismantles. It destroys.

For your consideration:

Note that the Preamble doesn’t state that the founders were establishing a perfect union, only striving to form a more perfect one.  It was something to which they aspired.  The Constitution is a living document; the Amendment process allows for the Constitution to evolve with the times.

The early colonization and its legacy are fraught with imperfections – some of them stark and deeply disturbing.  The original union was far from perfect.  That does not diminish, however, the principles themselves:  of the pursuit of life, liberty, and justice for all.  We have a long way to go to ensure that all are protected. While I do not particularly like the visual this phrase conjures up, the sentiment applies:  Be careful not to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Our nation’s dark history and stark present may be gritty and soiled, but principles of great value are contained within our representative democracy. Implicit in the Constitution is also the principle that with rights, also come responsibilities.  We must beware that dismantling the government by a violent overthrow neither serves nor preserves the pursuit of life, liberty, and justice for all.

Okay, your turn:

What is the role of citizens and elected leaders in a representative democracy? How does it, if at all, impact how you live your life?

I invite you to share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences by leaving a Reply in the Comments section, below. Soul-to-soul!

© 2021 Lori A. Noonan. All Rights Reserved.
/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , , , , , ,

The loftiness of law and public discourse

In this new moon’s edition of Soul Notes, we take a look at public discourse and what it means to be a good citizen.

Why so lofty?

With our President scoffing at current climate crises, and declining to attend a climate discussion meeting at this year’s recent G7 summit (this within two years of having pulled the United States from the multilateral Paris Climate Accord) – and, in lieu of holding frequent press conferences, resorting instead to a constant flow of shall we say disrespectfully taunting tweets online (lessons in how not to play well with others), and with the overall rise in documented hate speech and hate crimes in our society, I ponder this:

Have we reached a low point in our collective public discourse? And where do we as citizens – and the legal system and the government as well – play a role in elevating the discussion?

Shall we be aiming higher? Not unlike having a set of golf clubs, we have at our disposal a range of “lofts” to choose from. By that I mean, depending on the degree of upward spiral we select, we aim by design to reach an intended end state. A golfer may select a high loft club (such as a sand wedge) to pop up the ball from the sand trap and onto the green, gently landing and running a short distance without the ball making a bee line well beyond the hole and off the green altogether and maybe even into a water hazard.

Sometimes we speak of “lofty ideals” and “lofty goals” as if they are far-off, unreachable, untenable, and unattainable. I’d say that when they are grounded in tolerance and compassion, they stand a good chance of longterm success, not only for us as individuals but as a collective. (For more on this, see the previous edition of Soul Notes, From Idealist to Lost in the Practice of Law, here.)

In Ancient Greece, the “agora” (translated as market square or gathering place), as captured by Christopher Phillips in his book entitled, Six Questions of Socrates:

“Those who converged centuries ago in this center of commercial and civic life didn’t just come to barter and sell a wide range of merchandise, but also to exchange and examine ideas and ideals.” (p.10).

In Ancient Athens, considered the center of polis (think politics) and the birthplace of democracy, towns people would come together to create coalitions and build upon a shared sense of morals and high conduct. There was an emphasis placed on being a good citizen. Public discourse was encouraged and carried the day. History tells us that Ancient Athens eventually unraveled due to increasing corruption and resulting cynicism. So, what can we learn from Athens’ later societal crumbling and decline?

Recently, I attended a town hall hosted by a Southern California member of Congress. The Congressional representative spoke for about twenty minutes from the stage and then opened up the forum for an hour of questions from the audience. I was struck by the thoughtfulness of the questions and the candor and specificity of the responses. There was an exchange of ideas and while passionate at times, all the while respectful in tone and temperament. I felt the genuine need for citizens to be heard was being honored. I felt the appreciation from the audience that they had an opportunity to share their admiration, ideas, as well as their pleas for improvements in Congress and what we can expect from our representatives on the national stage. There was a discussion of enacted and pending legislation. The rule of law and how we are governed was a running thread.

For your consideration:

In our own lives — in how we communicate in person and online — we have an opportunity to elevate rather than debase one another and the sharing of ideas.  It makes for a more tolerant and dare I say more learned society. And with that comes greater understanding and an increased ability to sustain our planet and each other.  Let’s commit to being good citizens, good friends, and good stewards.

Okay, your turn:

Where have you witnessed a rise in the sharing of ideals, wisdom, and collective calls to action that are a way of building up rather than tearing down?  Have you taken part in a public forum, such as a town hall?  If so, what did you notice?

I invite you to share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences by leaving a Reply in the Comments section, below. Soul-to-soul!

© 2019 Lori A. Noonan. All Rights Reserved.
/0 Comments/by
, , , , , ,

Peaceful assembly and why we march

Why We March

Assuredly, the legal profession is part of a system (the judicial system) that plays an important role in the proper functioning of our society.  So, too, does the First Amendment and the fundamental right to peacefully assemble and freely express our ideas and opinions, all in the furtherance of an informed citizenry and responsible discourse.

Ever since I set out to attend U.C. Berkeley as an undergraduate and budding journalist, I’ve had a deep reverence for the First Amendment, and to being an active participant in our electoral system.

My senior year in college, I lived in an international house with students who came to U.C. Berkeley from around the world.  I was one of the few Americans who lived in this shared housing that had space for about 20 students.   On Wednesday evenings, all the student residents were expected to participate in the household dinner preparations, followed by a group discussion.  We would rotate through, with each of us taking a turn at least one Wednesday per term serving as the ‘keynote speaker’ for the evening.  We were encouraged to share cultural insights about our home countries.  Typically, students would provide photos or slide shows from home.

When it came around for my turn at the helm, I decided to make the U.S. Constitution my topic of discussion. I read aloud the words of the First Amendment, and asked for each person to share what that meant to them when comparing it to the concept of freedom of expression in their home countries.  Naively on my part, I expected a lively discussion.  The most “telling” part of the conversation, however, was the silence.  Hardly any of the foreign students felt comfortable enough to speak up.   I learned a lot that evening.  More than I ever anticipated.  And more than I could have ever learned without the diversity of that group assembled.

This edition of Soul Notes is dedicated to free speech, the right to be heard, and the right to vote.

“What they all had in common: A sincere desire to make a positive impact in our country, and to have their voices and opinions heard.  There were tears and cheers.  Laughs and smiles.  There were also expressions of focused determination.” 

A Legion of Women Brought Together for a Common Purpose

This past weekend, I attended a gathering of women, and one man, who met at a co-work space near midtown for an event led by the organizers of this year’s Women’s March Los Angeles.  My intentions were two-fold: 1. Learn more about this year’s March and what the organizers were planning; and 2. Receive the facts firsthand (and not via potentially wildly incorrect secondhand information) about the organization, its functions and mission.

Taking place one week prior to the second annual Women’s March, at this weekend’s gathering, we painted signs, and chatted with others who either went to the March last year, or were planning to go this year, or both.  Midway through the event, several of the organizers spoke to the group, and fielded questions from the audience.  In the audience were school teachers, business owners, stay at home parents, community leaders, and activists from a wide spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds, ethnicities, and countries of origin.

What they all had in common:  A sincere desire to make a positive impact in our country, and to have their voices and opinions heard.  There were tears and cheers.  Laughs and smiles.  There were also expressions of focused determination.  As I looked around the room, and conversed with some of the women, and listened to impassioned comments from the audience, and asked my own questions of the organizers – a visceral response came over me.  What must it have felt like to be one of the women who attended the early organized suffragette meetings?  Was it something akin to what I was experiencing at that very instant?  My next realization was this:  I, however, wasn’t risking life and limb to attend this gathering.  Those women, though, a short century ago – the suffragettes — certainly were and did.  In that moment and in my heart, I thanked them for paving the way for us.

A few things that I was able to confirm at the meeting, hearing directly from the organizers:  Women’s March Los Angeles is a 100% volunteer run, nonprofit organization.  All proceeds made through the sale of tshirts and hats and other merchandise go toward administrative costs.  No one is paid to participate in the March.  Billionaire George Soros is not a donor, nor has he had any involvement with Women’s March Los Angeles.

“The march is open to everyone who stands for human rights, civil liberties, tolerance of diversity, and compassion for our shared humanity.”  — Women’s March Los Angeles

While an estimated 750,000 marchers participated in last year’s March in downtown Los Angeles, the organizers are expecting a smaller crowd in L.A. this year.  Is that because of diminished interest this year?  According to the organizers, it’s the opposite:  Last year’s large turn-out inspired a number of other, smaller cities throughout California this year to form their own Marches. So instead of traveling hundreds of miles to participate in the March in L.A., many are staying closer to home.  At least twenty other formally organized Marches are scheduled to take place throughout California this time around.

An Election Year

Like last year, the organizers planned out this year’s March with careful precision and with the full intention of bringing together a peaceful assembly.  The organizers have put into place various levels of security and safeguards to allow for an environment that’s conducive to raising awareness, respectfully, about what they deem to be critical issues.  With 2018 being an election year, this year’s March will be focused on addressing: voter turnout, access to the polls, voting restrictions, and voter intimidation.  The organizers intend to continue a dialog about these issues and to create a concerted plan of action leading up to and after the November 2018 elections.  I applaud their efforts, and am grateful to have been able to participate in that planning meeting.

While the intricacies and merits of specific policies may be debatable – and that’s the beauty of a representative democratic republic – the rallying cries remain the same:

Being heard matters.

Unifying our voices matters.

Access to voting matters.

And, so it is.

To the Republic for Which We Stand.

Okay, your turn:

In what ways have you voiced your concerns, if any, about the electoral process?  What actions, if any, have you taken?  Is marching in the streets effective – why or why not?

I invite you to SHARE your thoughts, feelings, and experiences in the Comments section, below. Soul-to-soul!

© 2018 Lori A. Noonan. All rights reserved.
/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What does it mean to have a strong constitution?

A Strong Constitution

When someone refers to someone else as having a “strong constitution,” they usually mean that the person is of strong mind and body.  They see that person as having a grounded, centeredness about them – a hardy, stable core and foundation, from which all else stems.

The same can be said with regard to a country’s Constitution.  The United States (U.S.) Constitution dates back to 1787 and is the oldest formal national Constitution.

Presidential Oath

In Article VI, Section 1, Clause 8,  the U.S. Constitution sets forth (and the one and only place where it does so) a word for word Oath to be taken by a member of the federal government.  It is the Presidential oath, and it states, as written in the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” 

Many constitutional scholars contend that this oath was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution precisely so that the Office of the President and the person holding that Office would be different from a King – in both power and structure.  This was by design.  The oath was memorialized in the Constitution to remind future presidents that they are not royalty. Presidents are not to “rule over,” but rather to act as servants of, the people.  This oath was written into the Constitution as a safeguard to ensure Presidential restraint.

All of this, of course, is to be done in service of (not denying), the Constitution and its tenets.  Those tenets include:  “Separation of Powers” and a predetermined set of “Checks and Balances.”

As designed, the Constitution established a separation of powers among the three branches of government:  the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  The triangular form of government was built upon the foundational belief that no one branch should have authority over another.  And specifically with regard to the Executive: The Presidential Oath was designed to serve as a reminder and explicit “internal check” on what would otherwise be unbridled power in the hands of a singular person at the helm of the Executive branch.  It is important to note that the Presidential oath is the only  oath that is spelled out in the Constitution itself.   Having left behind a monarchy, our country’s founders felt strongly about limiting the powers of the President.

Cooperation and Collaboration

The framers of the Constitution also captured their thoughts and intentions in a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers. As made clear by James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 51 (entitled, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances between the Different Departments):

“[T]he separation of powers frustrates designs for power and at the same time creates an incentive to collaborate and cooperate, lessening conflict and concretizing a practical community of interest among political leaders.”(Emphasis added).

The nation’s founders desired that the members of our government work together on behalf of the greater good.  Collaboration rather than conflict was the message of the day.

So, what is one to make of it, when we now see such divisiveness within the federal government, and in particular with regard to what many contend is an irreverent, cavalier attitude and stark semblances of “king-like” behavior being displayed by our current President?

Some examples:

  • Signing more than 30 Executive Orders within the first 100 days of the presidency, including two international travel bans that were quickly challenged on Constitutional grounds;
  • Removing several mainstream media outlets from White House press briefings; and
  • Resisting any limits on business dealings that raise potential conflicts of interests, as proscribed by the Constitution’s Emoluments clause (which prohibits public office holders from accepting gifts or monetary remuneration from a foreign state).

While not the first or likely the last Presidential administration to invoke executive orders, the sheer number of them being signed so quickly at the start of a President’s Administration is nearly unprecedented.

And, limiting and even excluding certain members of the press corps at the White House press briefings smacks of blatant disregard for the First Amendment.  Traditionally, journalists and the news media have been considered to be a “fourth estate,” and as such are often considered to be another “check” on any otherwise untethered governmental power.

Also, the current President has demonstrated complete disdain for members of the Judiciary.  He openly criticized and scoffed at federal judges who, on Constitutional grounds, ruled against him on two of his so-called Muslim Bans.

Reflections

The past few months have been rather disheartening for me. I’m sure I’m not alone in this sentiment. In particular, I have been feeling as if the fabric of our Constitution, over and over, was being sliced to shreds. For me, the impact of recent news events and what’s being revealed about members of our federal government, extends well beyond political party lines and affiliations.  It hits at the very core of our nation’s, and by extension the world’s, stability.

The ultimate outcome of this Presidency, and of any federal investigations and the like, remain beyond the purview of this blog article.  My focus and intention here, however, remains this:  to shed some light on why all this matters.  It matters to us here in the United States; and, it has worldwide implications, because:  Put simply, unexamined and unchecked abuses of power are a threat to everyone.  Carefully examined (ab)uses of power, however, are critical to the ongoing survival of our nation and the planet.

Accordingly, it brings me great solace to see that recently:

The ever flowing tide of executive orders has noticeably ebbed.

Journalists at the White House press briefings are literally and figuratively standing up to apparent obfuscations and inconsistencies in statements made by the Press Secretary on behalf of the Administration.

Members of both parties less and less seem willing to simply “look the other way” with regard to potential or actual conflicts of interest, and other strains on our Constitutional safeguards.

And, most recently, the appointment of a Special Counsel to oversee an investigation into the role, if any, that the Russian government may have played in the 2016 presidential election — and potential collusion by members of the Administration — sends a strong signal that unbridled uses of Executive power and influence will not go forever unexamined or unchecked.

While the Constitution may have suffered a few incisions during the past several months, I’m comforted to see signs that they may ultimately have been only flesh wounds.  The Constitutional net formed by the threads woven together by the framers more than two centuries ago remains strong.  Throughout the various attempts to unravel it, the Constitution continues to hold it all!

We do have a strong Constitution.  It rests, as can we, on a solid foundation.  And, its well-crafted weave keeps the bottom from falling out.  That is, indeed, good news.

Okay, your turn:

What does a “strong constitution” mean to you?  As citizens and constituents, what should we expect or even demand of our elected representatives?

I invite you to share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences by leaving a Reply in the Comments section, below. Soul-to-soul!

© 2017 Lori A. Noonan. All Rights Reserved.
/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From idealist to lost in the practice of law

From idealist to lost in the practice of law

I set off to the University of California at Berkeley as a budding journalist. What better place, perhaps, than at the home of the Free Speech movement?  Along the way, I spent two college summers in Washington, DC, living in Georgetown, and interning in the nation’s capital.

And, by the end of my junior year, while I enjoyed writing and reporting and broadcasting (I was a news reporter for the campus radio station) – I came to realize that a career in law was what was really calling to me. One of my majors was in Political Science, and I knew that I desired an advanced degree and was eager to learn more about Constitutional Law, and in particular the First Amendment.

I headed off to Boston University School of Law, where I had been accepted into their joint JD/MA program in conjunction with B.U.’s School of Broadcasting. Overwhelmed, though, by the high cost of living and at the time even higher interest rates on my law school loans, I made the difficult decision to try to get accepted to another law school in a more affordable town. I ended up transferring to a law school in Sacramento, California where I could save money on rent. And, I was able to apply for and did receive an academic based California Graduate Fellowship to help fund my education. Nonetheless, lacking any proverbial ‘rich uncle’ to assist, I still remained financially challenged. I continued to incur tens of thousands of dollars in student loans.

The topics in law school, though, sometimes thrilled me. I learned even more about the First Amendment, including artists’ rights and other constitutionally protected forms of expression. I was ‘in the zone,’ thinking I could advocate on behalf of principles that I truly felt passionate about.

If you knew me back then, you would have called me an idealist. I was also, though, a pragmatist. I couldn’t end up helping anyone if I couldn’t afford to complete my law school education and pay off my law school debt. Accordingly, I found myself “chasing the almighty dollar.”

I went into what attorneys refer to as “big law,” by taking a job as an associate at a 100-lawyer civil litigation defense firm. Unlike the plaintiffs’ side, on the defense side, your “worth” is measured in terms of billable hours. Our time was broken down into one-tenths of an hour. Each morning, I arrived at the office with tabula rasa – a blank time sheet to be filled out.  It didn’t matter how many hours I had billed the day before. Each day, I was expected to prove my value to the firm, by racking up another 10-12 hours for that day, and so on, and so on.

We represented large corporations, mostly with regard to breach of contract disputes. Why did I end up at a large firm, doing something pretty much polar opposite to what I really wanted to do? In a nutshell:  Because it paid well.

My first year as an associate, I brought in a salary that surpassed any dollar amount that my parents ever made. I bought my first-ever and only “brand new car,” right off the lot, with only four miles on it. The firm had a courtroom built right into the center of one of the two floors we occupied in a Century City high rise. It had its own jury box, and two-way mirrors, and we were provided acting classes where we could hone our trial advocacy presence and skills.

Admittedly, at times it was kind of intoxicating. Parts of it did feed my ego as well as my pocketbook.  That feeling dissipated, though, within a short period of time. While grateful that I had landed a well-paying job, I became increasingly disenchanted with the practice of law.

Whatever work that I didn’t complete before I left the office at 7 pm, I often finished back at my apartment, sometimes up to 1 o’clock in the morning before needing to rise a few short hours later and beat rush hour traffic downtown to appear at the courthouse in time for an 8:30 am court appearance.

My energy, my enthusiasm, and my eager idealism – the very zeal I initially brought to the practice of law – was waning, and waning fast. Where did I go astray? The money’s nice, I kept telling myself, but I also kept thinking that “this can’t be all there is”? Like a line from that Talking Heads song, I kept saying to myself, “How did I get here?” This was not my beautiful life; not really.

What was unclear then, and has become readily apparent to me now, is that I was so focused on paying off my law school debt, that I was paying a steep price of a different kind: I was paying with my sense of purpose, my spirit, my health, and my overall joie de vivre.

Feeling as if my life had been reduced to six-minute increments, even standing in a post office line seemed stressful. “I could be billing my time, instead of standing here,” I found myself thinking. Day to day errands had become a source of dissonance and tension.

And the work that I was doing wasn’t fulfilling. While everyone deserves zealous representation, and I maintained my dedication to doing quality work for our corporate clients, my heart wasn’t in it. Instead of fighting the good fight to protect journalists, artists, and others deserving of First Amendment protections, I was drowning in the minutiae of whether certain conduct or conditions were considered breaches of contracts, and whether they would withstand judicial scrutiny.

And I was doing so in largely male governing, patriarchal law firm environments, where there were few women partners and no women serving as managing partners. There was no attention paid to bringing anything remotely akin to a “holistic” approach to running the firm or the practice of law.

While my brain and analytical abilities were put to good use, my consciousness, like a faucet, was shut off. All in pursuit of a paycheck.

Then even the paychecks stopped. That firm ended up going bankrupt. I was one of the few high-billing associates that survived the firm’s earlier lay-offs so that I could help keep the boat afloat. One fateful Friday, the office manager came into each attorney’s office, one-by-one, and let us know that even though our paychecks had been issued – it would do no good to cash them, as they would bounce. The bank had cut off the firm’s credit line, and there was no chance of a rebound.  Stunned, and angry, I soon also felt the sting of having to look for another job.

Ever in pursuit of an income to keep my debt from swallowing me whole, I took a job at another, smaller, law firm across town where another attorney friend of mine had headed. I left that firm within a year.  That firm had all kinds of partner in-fighting. And, among other things, this is the firm where one of the paralegals one day brought me into his office to show me the handgun, stashed away in his briefcase, that he’d been bringing with him into the office. The firm later fired him. Throughout, I was billing out at a rate of 2,400 hours/year. Walking into the office, on most mornings, I couldn’t even make it from the front desk to my office down the hall without someone at the firm needing to tell me about the latest shenanigans going on “behind the scenes.” I couldn’t stand it any longer. Practicing law was stressful enough, let alone working in such a turbulent and toxic environment.

One morning, after spending those middle-of-the-night hours breaking down in an emotional heap on the front steps of my local Catholic church (one of those dark nights of the soul, for sure) – I decided to give my two weeks’ notice, and to the shock of the male partners there, set out to find a more promising work environment. I ended up leaving the practice of law, and never went back.

That was a couple decades ago now,  and I’ve since paved my own way through a creative career path that I’ve carved out for myself, and while not always quite as lucrative, has definitely been more fulfilling.

Upon leaving the practice of law, it was about at that same time that I started to revisit and deepen my spiritual practice. And, recently, through expert guidance and tuning into my own intuition, I’m now discovering that I am fully committed to helping other women attorneys stay in the practice of law.

What if, yes, what if  I had the type of heart centered support from other women attorneys, mentors and role models available to me now, back then, so that: I didn’t feel so alone; didn’t feel so dismissed for my ‘feminine qualities’; I was valued for more than purely the number of hours I billed; and I was able to cultivate a culture that not only helped transform “big law” firm environments – but in doing so ultimately created more meaningful, heartfelt environments and results for litigants, too?

As a bit of an aside (yet, it’s relevant here!):  Little known fact about me – I’ve coordinated and participated in the painting of murals on walls of buildings all over Southern California. One of the murals that I helped design and paint was a children’s mural in a room down the hall from the Family Law department in one of the local Superior Courthouses. Our purpose was to create a welcoming environment for the children to have as a safe waiting room and play area, when their parents (and sometimes themselves) were scheduled to appear in court. Now, THAT was fulfilling. My heart swelled with every paint stroke as I brought fun pictures of farm animals and cute meadow scenes to life on those walls.

As I write this, I’m remembering and recapturing that which is the true essence of me. As I continue to listen closely to what my soul is calling me to embody next, I pledge to keep stepping forward to help serve those whom I’m most meant to serve.

Stay tuned!  I’m heading off to a remote setting, and will be “off the grid” for a vitality retreat led by one of my trusted spiritual advisors. I’ll be taking several days to discern and envision what the “whole”-istic approach to law may look like. And, I’m designing a program to help women lawyers do exactly that.

My idealism is back, front and center. I look forward to bringing it, and my new programs, to you!

Okay, your turn:

Where or when has your life path taken a sudden or surprising turn? What would you like to do differently going forward, given what you know now, that you didn’t know then?

I invite you to share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences by leaving a Reply in the Comments section, below. Soul-to-soul!

© 2017 Lori A. Noonan. All Rights Reserved.
/2 Comments/by