Published in Illinois Super Lawyers

In the lobby of the Chicago Bar Association (CBA) building stands a statue of Lady Liberty rising from—or, depending on your perspective, being devoured by—a block of bronze. It was donated by Laurel Bellows and her husband.

“[The statue] will tell you all that you need to know about me,” says Bellows, a former CBA president.

It’s a comment on what Bellows calls “our fragile democracy” and a visual expression of the nature of justice. For her, some days liberty is on the rise; others it’s sinking in quicksand.

The contrast certainly says a lot about Bellows, who is both a consummate people person and a fighter who sometimes heads into particularly tough negotiations carrying a briefcase that’s decorated with skulls and crossbones.

“Laurel is small in stature, which is more than compensated for by her generosity of spirit and warm smile,” says her friend, Cook County Circuit Judge Michael Hyman. “But she is also undaunted by obstacles. She’s a powerhouse of gutsy determination.”

It’s hard to imagine that anything—a block of bronze, the justice system or an opposing attorney—could possibly devour Bellows.

The daughter of a commercial auctioneer and an actress, Bellows grew up an only child in Highland Park and later, after her parents divorced, Chicago. Her mother’s ability to communicate on stage, seemingly an obvious touchstone for a successful litigator, was not something Bellows inherited.

“I didn’t grow up being outwardly focused,” says the 62-year-old partner at The Bellows Law Group. “I wasn’t an actress and I never auditioned. I was too shy and uncomfortable onstage.”

Instead, from a young age, she played the piano like her concert-pianist grandmother. The attention to detail of that classical training carries over into what she does today.

“Both require patience and putting your entire soul into your work,” Bellows says. “You have to focus on every detail. You can’t ignore the slightest sentence or phrase.”

But one thing Bellows never learned as a child was a lesson siblings often provide for their brothers and sisters, whether they like it or not. Bellows had no idea how to fight.

“You could hurt my feelings in a second,” she says. “Toughness? That came later.”

After getting her undergraduate degree at the University of Pennsylvania in 1969, Bellows took a job promoting a German product named The Handi Screen—a see-through cover for frying pans that let you see if your bacon was done without spattering grease all over the kitchen.

“It was fantastic,” Bellows says of the job, which allowed her to get involved in all aspects of the business: licensing, letters of credit, importing, managing ad budgets and accounting.

After a few years, Bellows knew it was time to move on—to either law or business school. Since she’d already spent a few years in the business world, she says, “the young brain thought, ‘I’ll apply to law school.’”

Bellows wound up at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where she was one of only a handful of women in her class and emerged in 1974 into a job market in which big firms rarely hired female attorneys. And when they did, those women didn’t wind up litigating or developing business practices. Instead they were employed in areas such as wills, trusts and real estate.

Bellows’ first job was with a firm that soon imploded, when one of the name partners died.

Shortly thereafter, she interviewed with an attorney who had a small firm and was looking for a female lawyer he could train as a litigator. His theory was that women excelled at building personal relationships and that this ability to connect would make them better before a jury.

That attorney was Joel Bellows, who, along with a few other lawyers, operated out of an office upstairs from a trading firm and specialized in representing commodities brokers.

Bellows was about to get into court and learn how to fight—just not in the way that she had anticipated.

“When I first came to Joel, I didn’t know where nonfederal court was,” says Bellows, who worked for the U.S. attorney while at Loyola. But when she joined her future husband’s firm, he informed her that she would not be cutting her teeth with the brokers or business litigants.

“Not my cases,” he told her. “Not my clients.”

Instead, Joel Bellows sent her to what they called “women’s court” at 11th and State, where her clients had few resources. The defendants were, indeed, all women, typically facing prostitution or shoplifting charges. Most could pay an attorney only their bond premium, about $50. It was a place where everyone except the defendants had power. The judge would ask each woman if she wanted an attorney.

“The defendants were street-wise,” says Joel, “and someone like Laurel, who cared—climbed down into the trenches with her clients—became in such high demand that, when a defendant was asked if she wanted a lawyer assigned to her, she would say, ‘I want the little blonde who fights.’

“Every day, Laurel would come back with a string of adoring working girls and shoplifters in tow. Invariably, she would be angry about some institutional abuse suffered by a client and she wouldn’t let it go. [She] wouldn’t shrug it off.”

Laurel was filled with what her husband says is the single most identifiable character trait of the seven attorneys who work at their firm: “indignation for abuse of authority.”

Day after day, she was on her feet in women’s court or arguing personal injury cases, experiencing what she calls “the thrill of being able to defend someone.”

Joel adds, “And the clients were loyal. In later years, they came back with house closings and the like. Maybe a dozen years ago, I got a call from one of Laurel’s clients who called looking for Laurel—under her maiden name—because she had created a stuffed olive that she wanted patented and Laurel was the only lawyer she had ever had.”

Laurel remembers learning the ropes of litigation in women’s court. “I became passionate about fighting for my clients—and fighting was the word,” she says. “I needed to be in their corner.”

That is the Laurel Bellows with the bellicose briefcase and two pillows on a chair in her cheerful Rookery office. One says: “Get Over It.” The other reads: “You Can Agree With Me … Or You Can Be Wrong.”

After establishing her reputation as a tough advocate for commodities and securities clients, women from those industries began coming to Bellows with their employment issues. They wanted advice on how to get out of their jobs without losing all that they’d earned, or they needed someone to negotiate their way into a job with better protection.

Before long, her practice became focused on executive compensation law—from employment contracts to severance packages; or, as she puts it, “marriage and divorce—corporate style.”

Severance brings with it all the trauma of a real divorce.

“[Clients] are frightened, no matter how significant they are, and the separation is usually out of their control,” Bellows says. “If you’re representing a CEO who has always been taken care of by his company, all he knows is that he’s on the street. They’re not sure who to turn to. Some come to me before they’ve even told their families.”

That is where the other Laurel Bellows emerges: the woman who is adept at reading others and able to work toward resolution by understanding the emotions and objectives of all parties involved, no matter how acrimonious the situation.

“Laurel is extraordinarily attuned to people, meaning that she is very social, very dynamic and she really listens,” says Monica Weed, general counsel at Navigant Consulting Inc. and a Bellows client. “I’m guessing that, if you were inside of her brain, Laurel is constantly reading you, based on the things you are saying, and filing them away in categories.”

Bellows says she goes into each negotiation knowing that she must be more than a fighter. There always remains a singular goal—all parties must perceive her to be trustworthy.

“Problems are only solved by people who trust each other,” she says. “Even among adversaries.”

That guides everything Bellows does on the day of a negotiation, including how she dresses.

“You need to present yourself in a way that makes the other party trust you,” she says. “You should moderate your dress, your language and your agenda to fit the situation. You need to know your audience and you need to be flexible.”

That flexibility is often passed along to her clients, many of whom are ready to go to war by the time Bellows comes on the scene. While most lawyers of her caliber are adept at addressing what will and won’t work from a litigation perspective, Bellows looks for ways to resolve matters before trial and oftentimes before a heated formal negotiation. Much of her work, Weed says, is behind the scenes.

“She will drill down—almost like being in therapy—until you get to the nub of what’s really bugging you, then she starts creating a solution,” Weed says. “What I value about Laurel is that her advice is well-grounded in the law, but also very practical. She’s good at saying, ‘We could do that, but what about this?’ She enjoys getting to the practical business resolution.”

Personal connections

When Joel met Laurel, he saw someone who was young and enthusiastic, who shared his professional values of working hard, keeping your nose clean and representing your client as well as humanly possible. He saw someone he thought he could train to be a good attorney.

There were, however, a few things he missed, including the fact that they would eventually marry and have a daughter together. That they would become partners in their own firm and that she would be in line to become the president of the American Bar Association (she is currently unopposed and will likely become president-elect this August). Or that she would become a fighter as fierce as he was, while maintaining her gift at connecting with others.

“My natural attitude then and now, 40-plus years later, is that if you’re dealing with somebody who doesn’t see things your way—sue them,” he says. “Laurel’s position is that if they don’t see things her way—convince them. After being in day-to-day contact with her for so long, now at least I consider if an accommodation is possible before suing them.”

And on the days when the justice system seems to be tilted in the wrong direction, Laurel Bellows can suit herself to the situation. She is both fighter and therapist.

Which makes the reason she will never be devoured fairly simple.

“What I didn’t appreciate [about Laurel] that I recognize now,” her husband says, “is that she’s just very, very good at dealing with people.”

Source: superlawyers.com

• Women who work full-time, with no time off for child-bearing, earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent resumes.
• In a group of graduating students who received job offers, 51 percent of men negotiated for more money, while only 12.5 percent of women did. People who negotiated got 7.4 percent more. Right out of the gate, the men earned an average of about 3 percent more than the women. That initial difference increases over time because raises are often a percentage of what you’re already earning – and because people who negotiate better the first time usually keep winning bigger raises.
• Recent research showed that gender affects how negotiation behavior is perceived. When men were the deciders, they penalized women who negotiated but were neutral about men who asked for more. When women were the deciders, they penalized both women and men who negotiated. Women who asked for more ended up losing, regardless of the gender of the decision-maker. These findings suggest there are two kinds of barriers to women succeeding at salary negotiations – internal barriers that make it hard to ask for more, and external barriers that penalize them when they do. Are we doomed to settle for second-best in the money arena? Or are there ways to overcome barriers and get paid what we’re worth? Here are some time-tested tips for negotiation success.

Overcoming Internal Barriers
Lack of confidence Women sometimes have a hard time selling ourselves because we lack confidence. Ask trusted others to give you feedback on your credentials and your value in the marketplace. Look at yourself as if you were looking at someone else – would you think she is a loser?

Too much humility You know you’re good at what you do, but you don’t want to sound as if you’re bragging. That’s smart – people don’t like braggarts. But in between selling yourself short and being a jerk, there’s talking confidently about your achievements, while also giving credit to others.

Selflessness Women’s negotiation skills shine when we’re negotiating for other people. Take on your cause as if it were someone else’s.

Fear of confrontation This is a big problem for many women. We want people to like us, and as the research shows, they like us less when we stick up for ourselves. Overcome the fear through practice. Role-play negotiating with a partner and dealing with conflict when it arises. Ask for feedback. The more you practice, the more comfortable you’ll be in the real negotiation.

Over-confiding Women sometimes share too much personal information in the workplace. One of our clients, Anne, had this experience. She confided in her boss that she was feeling overwhelmed and ineffective. A couple of months later, not only did she fail to get a promotion – she was let go in a re-organization. Confiding is for your friends, not your business associates.

Overcoming External Barriers
The mirror effect Most employers, consciously or unconsciously, hire and promote people who remind them of themselves. Overcome this by building connections with your employer before the negotiation. Find our as much as you can about the company and the person interviewing you, then discreetly establish common ground in the interview.

Devaluing of women’s work Most people value what men do more highly than what women do. This is true whether we are men or women, and the bias is often unconscious. Women need to do our homework before we enter a negotiation, demonstrate the value of our past and future contributions, and make an argument for why we deserve to be paid what we’re worth.

Dislike of pushy women A woman who negotiates for herself risks been labeled as pushy and demanding. Skilled female negotiators balance strength and confidence with a receptive, collaborative manner.

And a few last hints
Focus on your value to the company – your skill, experience, education, ability to generate business, et cetera. – not on your previous salary.
Communicate with bravado and optimism. Fake it if you have to.
Ask the right questions. What is Mr. X making? What is the barrier to my getting a raise? What are my next opportunities?
Don’t whine. You won’t win by being pitiful.
When you’re in the decision-making role, guard against your own biases against women. Don’t penalize women negotiating on their own behalf. The story of Jill and Melissa ended happily.

Jill left the company and moved to another job, where she negotiated a good starting salary. She continued to be a strong negotiator, but learned to soften her style and do the groundwork of building rapport with her boss before asking for a promotion or raise. Melissa realized she had been selling herself short, and as she learned to value her own work she became more respectful of the contributions of other women. Jill and Melissa figured it out, and so can you.

Smart Negotiating for Women

Former professor and head of the Science Institute sues college sues Columbia

Zafra Lerman, former Columbia professor and head of the Science Institute, has filed a federal lawsuit against the college and four administrators, claiming the college violated her civil rights and deprived her of employment as a tenured faculty member of more than 30 years of service.

Lerman is seeking punitive and monetary damages in the amount of no less than $5 million.

In addition to Columbia, the eight-count complaint, filed on April 8, names as defendants Allen M. Turner, chairman of the Board of Trustees; President Warrick L. Carter; Steven Kapelke, provost and senior vice president; and Annice Kelly, vice president and general counsel.

College officials were unavailable for comment regarding the litigation due to a Human Resources policy that restricts them from commenting on personnel matters. The suit accuses the defendants of conspiring to terminate Lerman’s tenured employment without an opportunity for her to be heard before her peers on the Elected Representatives of the College Committee, which handles grievances involving tenured faculty members.

Laurel Bellows, of the firm Bellows and Bellows which is representing Lerman, told The Chronicle the main issue at hand is that Carter and Turner chose to ignore rulings found in favor of Lerman by the Elected Representatives of the College Committee.

“The removal of tenure without due process is inexcusable and that is what has happened in this matter,” Bellows said.

The Elected Representatives of the College Committee ruled in favor of Lerman on Dec. 21, 2009, stating “the efforts of the ERC in the Lerman case have been impeded by a lack of specificity in the reasons offered by the college for Lerman’s termination,” and that it “unanimously agrees that the college did not appropriately inform Lerman of the reasons for her termination as set forth in the Statement of Policies.”

In addition, in a letter dated Nov. 17, 2009, the American Association of University Professors had written Carter stating that Lerman’s termination went against Columbia’s own policies and also the recommended policies outlined by the AAUP for procedures for protection of due process and academic freedom.

Lerman was relieved of her position last Oct. 5 for allegedly misappropriating grant funds. Her lawsuit charges that her removal came after she expressed concerns to Kapelke about the statement by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, or ADC, that deemed Columbia a “most serious discriminator” against Arab Americans.

The ADC accusation against the collegefocuses on its termination of part-time Columbia faculty member Suriya H. Smiley. The Chronicle reported in its Oct 12, 2009 issue that Smiley, who is of Arab descent, said she was allegedly fired without proper investigation when accused of making the anti-Semitic remark to one of her students, “I should have known you were Jewish by the size of your nose.”At the time, Lerman expressed support in favor of Smiley.

The lawsuit alleges that Columbia has a history of treating Jewish and female faculty less favorably than male faculty of the same descent in regards to sanction and dismissal.

The complaint explains that after an Aug. 25, 2009 statement from Lerman to Kapelke which objected to Smiley’s termination, she was interviewed by Columbia’s Human Resources Department. Lerman said she believed, at the time, that she was interviewed because of a complaint she filed against Ken Ilio, director of the Science Institute Research Lab, whom she believed was not doing the work and research he was hired for but still received payment of grant money dating back to 2007.

However, the suit claims this interview was part of an alleged investigation started by Kapelke in regards to Lerman’s competency to perform her duties, despite a positive performance evaluation which was conducted on April 29 of last year. The complaint states the investigation included faculty members that Kapelke allegedly understood to be personally antagonistic to Lerman.

In addition, an alleged second investigation was started by Kapelke in regards to claims that Lerman had purposely misappropriated grant fund payments made to Columbia, Ilio and other members within the Science Institute in 2007.  According to the suit, the funds in question were allegedly authorized by Lerman upon consultation from Kapelke and Michael DeSalle, vice president of Business Affairs and chief executive officer.

“There are people responsible for grants,” Bellows said. “Faculty people don’t just make distributions. How is it that Lerman is making these transactions without any kind of guidance from the school? It just doesn’t happen.”

The complaint argues that as of October 2009, it was not within Kapelke’s jurisdiction as provost to conduct an investigation regarding reasons a tenured faculty member would be removed from her position at the college. Such investigations should have only been authorized by Carter as president.

Lerman, who at press time was on a lecture tour in Amsterdam, told The Chronicle in an April 22 e-mail that her alleged treatment by the college is surprising and called it sad that discrimination exists at an academic institution.

“The reaction in the U.S. and around the world is a shock in how the school treated me, ignoring any accepted rules and regulations in the academic world,” Lerman wrote. “Many presidents of universities and presidents of scientific societies are asking if Columbia is an academic institution. They claim they have never heard a story like that.”

Lerman added that the matter affects students as well.

“It is very sad for Columbia students who cannot celebrate all the awards that their work in my classes received, and will not have the opportunity to go for joint symposium at Princeton University or be invited to present in conferences on science visualization,” she said.

Kapelke issued a memorandum on Aug. 26, 2009, which allegedly omitted both his and DeSalle’s involvement in the guidance of Lerman regarding the misappropriated grant funds according to the suit. It also involved Turner for tenured faculty member’s disciplinary matters.

The complaint alleges that on July 2, 2009, Kapelke involved Carter, Kelly and the Human Resources Department in a “scheme” to protect the employment of Ilio against the concerns of Lerman.

The lawsuit states that Columbia fired Lerman in retaliation for her complaints concerning its alleged misuse of federal monies, and it said that in October 2009, the defendants tried to use their influence over the college to inhibit Lerman’s attempt to appeal her termination through the Elected Representatives of the College.

According to the complaint, Lerman filed a “Verified Charge of Discrimination and Retaliation” against Columbia. Allegedly, this led Kelly and Kapelke to terminate her employment, strip her of tenure rights, refuse to pay benefits during her appeal process, ban her from campus, renege on their commitment to compensate her for two years of sabbatical and to “ruin” the Malta Conferences.

The Malta Conferences are international conferences that seek to use science to help bring peace in the Middle East. Lerman is one of their prominent organizers.

Lerman’s suit invokes the U.S. Civil Rights Act in charging that the college discriminated and engaged in retaliatory conduct against her for her exercise of her rights, whereas the school has never punished similar employees in the same fashion.

Joel Bellows, who is Lerman’s lead council in the case, said Lerman’s allegations are a violation of civil rights that constitute actionable discrimination under the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission regulations.

“This is an unusual case as discrimination cases go because Zafra is covered by her tenure rights,” Bellows said. “To fire someone or hassle them by starting two investigations is against her academic freedoms, which are guaranteed under the policies.”

Bellows said Columbia is treating tenured faculty members like non-tenured employees.

“To be a good faculty member, they have to have the ability to speak out on issues that are unpopular,” Bellows said. “They don’t only have the ability but the responsibility to speak out.”

According to the suit, Lerman received a letter from Kapelke following her filing of a complaint involving Ilio. The letter, dated Oct. 5, 2009, said, “reasons for your termination can be found in Section IX, A, 2, 4, and 7 [of Columbia’s Statement of Policy on Academic Freedom, Faculty Status, Tenure and Due Process].  As a result, your continued participation in the affairs of the college is likely detrimental and/or disruptive to the college.”

The federal complaint contends the letter did not accurately outline factual reasons for
her termination.

According to Columbia’s Statement of Policy on Academic Freedom, Faculty Status, Tenure and Due Process last updated on Oct. 1, 2009, it is the college’s responsibility to advise tenured faculty members of the reason for their termination in writing.

Columbia responded by letter on Dec. 14, 2009, stating it declined to make a response to AAUP’s allegations that Columbia did not follow the correct policies, but did not deny any charges outlined against them.

Carter then sent Lerman a letter on Feb. 4, 2010, stating he would “follow the ERC’s recommendation and state in writing that [Lerman] was terminated for misappropriating grant funds,” and he would uphold Kapelke’s decision to terminate her effective immediately.

The complaint contends that because Carter sent a termination letter in February stating her termination was effective immediately on that date, her previous termination by Kapelke was invalid, and that she was refused due process to fight for her position.

Carter is individually facing two counts against him along with Columbia.

One count states that Carter defamed Lerman last October, when he allegedly told staff members of the Illinois Congressional delegation in addition to unidentified members of the public that Lerman had “misappropriated government grant funds and engaged in improprieties with regard to grant funds.”

The suit says these alleged false statements may affect Lerman’s future employment prospects and caused her anguish, embarrassment and humiliation.

The second states Carter’s statements placed Lerman in a false light which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Source: The Columbia Chronicle

Crain’s Chicago Business

Chicago business attorney Laurel Bellows is running unopposed to lead the American Bar Assn., putting her in line to be the first ABA president from Illinois since 1975.

Owner of the Bellows Law Group–she and Joel Bellows practiced law together for 25 years–counsels executives on employment matters.

The ABA is the largest voluntary professional association in the world, with more than 400,000 members. It provides members with law-school accreditation, legal education and other assistance.

In Ms. Bellows, the ABA has found a master networker. She’s a past chair of the Chicago Network (a women’s networking association) and various law organizations.

“No one gets to the top of the flagpole alone,” Ms. Bellows told me.
Maybe with that in mind, she hosted a spring party at her Gold Coast home Saturday for some 50 notable friends and colleagues from the business, government and legal communities — “women who make it a priority to pull other women up the ladder,” she said.

She noted the achievements of a few in the room, including U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who worked behind the scenes for passage of health care legislation, and Bridget Gainer, a new Cook County Board commissioner.
Ms. Bellows then took the spoons at the end of the buffet table and served up chicken salad to each of her guests. “This way I can talk to each of them,” she said, in between chatting with guests who lingered by the table.

Other attendees included Carrie Hightman, chairwoman of the Illinois Board of Higher Education; Elaine Leavenworth, vice-president of global affairs at Abbott Laboratories; and Barbara Levy Kipper, owner of Chas Levy magazine distribution company.

She’s seeking the office of president unopposed. The winner takes the title next year.

Source: Crain’s Chicago Business

The Chicago Tribune

In 1992, when Cook County changed the way voters elected judges — altering geographic boundaries and creating judicial subcircuits — the stage was set for more women to run. Many did and won, encouraging Jane Stuart, then a lawyer in the civil division at the Cook County state’s attorneys office, to run for Cook County Circuit Court judge four years later. She won and has been re-elected since.

Today, a judge in Probate Court, Stuart makes financial and other important decisions for disabled adults. She sees her role as a protector for those she calls “the innocents.” Susan Hutchinson, who was part of the first generation of women to go to law school in large numbers, said male lawyers frequently groused that women weren’t fit for the legal profession because they were bossy or irrational and crying all the time.

“I purposely decided not to go like a bull in a china shop because that’s what men expected, and I’ve heard male lawyers say to me, ‘You’re not the pushy broad we thought you’d be,’ ” said, Hutchinson, now an Appellate Court judge in Illinois’ 2nd Judicial District, based in Elgin.

For their endurance and accomplishments in the profession — women make up 31 percent of the nations’ lawyers, according to the American Bar Association — the Illinois State Bar Association this week bestowed on Stuart and Hutchinson Presidential Commendation Awards during a luncheon celebrating women in law. But keynote speaker Barbara Howard, president of the Ohio State Bar Association, reminded the more than 270 attendees that while they’ve come a long way, discrimination persists in often more subtle forms.

Howard said she was encouraged by her association’s Gender Fairness survey that showed women make up 25 percent of judges in that state; they were 15 percent in 1993. But she noted that when lawyers were asked whether women have the same opportunity for promotion and advancement as men, 50 percent of the men and 11 percent of the women surveyed said they did. Chicago lawyer Laurel Bellows, a past president of the Chicago Bar Association and past chairwoman of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, said the disparity at large law firms is apparent. She said few women have advanced to equity partners: top earners who share in the profits.

“Even today, significant barriers persist. The passage of time and increased numbers of women in the profession will not eradicate discrimination,”
said Bellows.

Women in legal professions often have had to find more creative ways to achieve success. For example, before deciding to go to law school, Stuart was an art teacher for nine years. After graduating in 1981, she took a job with Chicago Title Insurance Co. “I’d been trying to break through the glass ceiling since the time I became a teacher, and there were no women in the upper management of that company, so my perception was that there was a glass ceiling,” Stuart said. No women were in high-level positions at her next job, too, with the Cook County state’s attorney’s office in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

“I think litigants aren’t prepared for me being a woman or a minority,” she said, “but if you’re fair and reasonable, they’re OK with you.” Like Stuart, Hutchinson broke through barriers via the judiciary, winning a 1992 election for Circuit Court judge in the then-19th District, which consisted of Lake and McHenry counties (McHenry County split off in 2006 to become its own judicial circuit). She was elected to the Appellate Court in 1994.

She ran for appellate judge partly because the job would give her more control of her schedule to deal with the special needs of her son, then 4. Appellate judges mostly review trial court cases and rarely require litigants to appear in person. “If you’re a Circuit Court judge, it’s hard to tell a jury who’s taken time off work, ‘I have to leave now to take care of my son,’ ” said Hutchinson, who takes care of foster children. Her son is 19.

More women also find success owning firms. Bellows said that when she graduated from law school in 1974, no law firms would hire women to try cases, which is what she wanted to do. She finally got a job with a lawyer who became her husband. Joel Bellows told her at the time that women could have an advantage in court because they form relationships with juries and everyone else faster. As they worked together, and raised four children, Laurel Bellows built a practice in executive compensation and has formed a firm.

Source: The Chicago Tribune

ABA Journal

It is not much of a secret that Laurel G. Bellows will become ABA president in August 2012.

Bellows, a principal at the Bellows Law Group in Chicago who concentrates much of her business law practice on litigation matters, formally announced her candidacy at the midyear meeting with a speech to the ABA Nominating Committee.

The fact that Bellows, a popular member of the ABA leadership ranks who chaired the House of Delegates from 2006 to 2008, is running unopposed makes her election a virtual certainty, although candidates, following the etiquette of ABA politics, always are reluctant to acknowledge such realities.

But it is a given that the Nominating Committee will formally select Bellows as the ABA president-elect nominee at the 2011 midyear meeting in Atlanta, and that the House will officially make her president-elect in August 2011 at the annual meeting in Toronto. She will automatically become president in August 2012 at the close of the annual meeting in Chicago.

Even at this early stage in her presidential candidacy, Bellows is giving serious thought to how the ABA can help lawyers safely navigate their way through the recession.

“Lawyers don’t have jobs for the first time in my memory,” Bellows told the ABA Journal after her speech to the Nominating Committee. Moreover, she said, “most lawyers don’t have access to what can help them best in a fast-moving technological society.”

That is the gap the ABA must take steps to fill, she said, especially to help practitioners at smaller firms like hers, which has eight attorneys.

“We have a chance to do wonderful things for lawyers, and we’re doing them right now,” Bellows said. “The hands-on help for lawyers is something the ABA is well-placed to provide.”

Source: ABA Journal

Don’t tell anyone, but Laurel G. Bellows will become ABA president in August 2012.

Bellows, a principal at the Bellows Law Group in Chicago who concentrates much of her business law practice on litigation matters, formally announced her candidacy today with a speech to the ABA Nominating Committee.

The fact that Bellows, a popular member of the ABA leadership ranks who chaired the House of Delegates in 2006-2008, is running unopposed makes her election virtually inevitable, although candidates, following the etiquette of ABA politics, always are reluctant to acknowledge such realities.

But it is a given that the Nominating Committee will formally select Bellows as ABA president-elect nominee at the 2011 Midyear Meeting in Atlanta, and then the house will officially make her president-elect in August 2011 at the annual meeting in Toronto. She will automatically become president in August 2012 at the close of the annual meeting in Chicago.

Even at this early stage in her presidential candidacy, Bellows is giving serious thought to how the ABA can help lawyers navigate their way safely through the recession.

“Lawyers don’t have jobs for the first time in my memory,” Bellows told the ABA Journal after this morning’s meeting of the Nominating Committee at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Orlando, Fla. Moreover, she said, “Most lawyers don’t have access to what can help them best in a fast-moving technological society.”

That is the gap the ABA must take steps to fill, said Bellows, especially to help practitioners at smaller firms—like hers, which has eight attorneys. “We have a chance to do wonderful things for lawyers, and we’re doing them right now,” she said. “The hands-on help for lawyers is something the ABA is well-placed to provide.”

Source: ABA Journal.

Attorney Laurel Bellows, a pioneer for women trial lawyers, began blazing a trail after graduation from Loyola Chicago School of Law in 1974, when she joined Bellows and Bellows, P.C., where she met her future husband, Joel. In 2009 Bellows spearheaded the formation of Bellows Law Group, a woman-owned practice with five male and five female associates.

Throughout her 35-plus years in practice, Bellows has kept a steadfast focus on helping other women advance in law careers—and frequently holds negotiation seminars for women, who, she says, aren’t aware of their inherent negotiation abilities. “Many women are insecure about this ability, but women are talented negotiators because we’re relationship-builders and good listeners,” she says.
Bellows has even taken her work for women to Capitol Hill. In 2009, she was instrumental in the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a federal bill that promotes equal pay for women. This year, Bellows is supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act, working with the Commission on Women to write legislation and lobby in Congress.

Today she’s running unopposed for nomination as president-elect of the American Bar Association; if elected, she’ll govern the 400,000-member organization. Her reputation certainly precedes her: Bellows was the chair of the House of Delegates for the ABA from 2006 to 2008, and in 1991, she became the second female president of the Chicago Bar Association. She’s also a member of the Chicago Network, an exclusive association of high-powered professional women.

Tea time: Every spring, Bellows hosts a networking tea full of highpowered women—from politicians to artists to corporate CEOs—who she has a close relationship with, “who, like me, believe it’s important to help other women succeed.”

World rights: Bellows joined the World Justice Project and traveled to South Africa last year. The meeting brought together opinion leaders from each African country to talk about the importance of the rule of law. “Without it, justice systems around the world would be destroyed,” she says.