GMR: How did you find your way into law and then to the MSW at Penn?

KOF: I grew up in a family steeped in the practice of law. My grandfather, my dad and my uncle all were attorneys. Although interest and pre-vocational tests suggested a strong preference toward social work, I had grown up thinking that I would follow my grandfather, dad and uncle into law; and that was the academic route I took initially. I majored in history at the College of Notre Dame, a women's college in Maryland. After graduating from college, I taught 8th and 9th grade History and Civics in the Baltimore City Schools for one year and began attending law school at night. The following year, I continued going to law school but switched my day job to that of juvenile probation officer in Baltimore. My supervisor, Tom Albert, '58, a graduate of the Penn School of Social Work, had a well-developed set of professional skills and an approach to his work that I wanted to understand and emulate. That mission brought me to Penn after I completed law school (at the University of Maryland). By the way, when I graduated from law school in the mid-1960's, it was very difficult for women to find work in firms or elsewhere. In fact, about 25% of my first-year law class was female, but only five of us graduated.

GMR: What kinds of skills were you seeking to learn at Penn?

KOF: Tom Albert had a remarkable way of interviewing clients and helping them make decisions about their lives. His approach to social work practice differed greatly from that of the other social workers at our agency. I wanted to develop these skills in building and sustaining relationships with my clients.

GMR: Were you successful in completing your mission?

KOF: More so than I ever would have imagined. I loved my experience at Penn! Having had some prior work experience, what I learned and how I learned it joined a number of personal and professional issues I had been struggling with. I was so fortunate to have had Professors Taft, Smalley, Rank and Pray among my teachers. "The Catch in Praise" still resonates for me. Their inßuence, added to my work with Tom Albert and Esther Lazarus in Baltimore, reconfirmed the importance of working for constructive social change, whether in social work, law, or other arenas. I also learned to understand how offering help differs from exerting control, that doing change for clients means something entirely different from helping clients make changes for themselves. As a circuit court judge, I remind myself of this difference almost daily; judges are vulnerable to exerting authority and control, rather than educating about choices and their consequences. Of course, using my self in the present has proven to be a very useful tool as well.

GMR: After you completed your MSW at Penn, what were your next professional steps?

KOF: I returned to Baltimore and the Department of Juvenile Services, where I worked for a year as Intake Supervisor. (My husband, Rich Friedman, and I met as juvenile probation officers writing policies and procedures for the juvenile intake process.) At the end of the year, I moved to the Legal Aid Bureau, gradually going into the general practice of law and then specializing in domestic law, focusing on domestic violence against women. During my work with Legal Aid, students from the School of Social Work at the University of Maryland helped me develop a task force with other activists and community organizers, including the police and legal authorities. Our efforts helped create Maryland's first House of Ruth, a protective organization for abused women with organizational prototypes throughout the United States and in other countries. 

GMR: How has the philosophy of social work education and practice that you learned at Penn shaped your professional development?

KOF: In many ways, of course. At the most basic level, I would say that social change has informed all of my decision-making about involvement in professional and volunteer activities. If I've taken anything away from my education at Penn, it's the strong belief that clients have the ability and inclination to grow, change, and find self-satisfaction. They have the ability to do for themselves within realistic parameters. With my former clients who had experienced domestic abuse, I began from the premise that we can neither protect victims nor promote their victimization. I believe that people can learn to grow to be independent and move beyond the position of victim. In my law practice and now as a member of the judiciary, I use my self professionally by helping others take some measure of control over their lives. My goal is to show them that they have the power to make choices about the direction of their lives, and then encourage them to take responsibility for making incremental changes (at first), so that ultimately they can make their circumstances different and more positive.

GMR: Given your demanding schedule, to what extent do you have opportunities to share your knowledge with others outside of the courtroom?

KOF: I have always enjoyed teaching, and my non-courtroom activities have tended to be in the area of higher education. For example, as a member of the Board of Trustees at the College of Notre Dame (my undergraduate alma mater), I chaired the presidential search committee (and had the opportunity to meet some interesting people who do not practice law!). About ten years ago, I participated in a three-week program about general trial jurisdiction, sponsored by the National Judicial College. It was fun being a student; but last summer I had the privilege and pleasure of serving as a facilitator/instructor in the same program for three weeks. I've taught a course at Goucher College on women and the law, and I continue to serve on the faculty of the Maryland Judicial Institute, where I teach about child abuse, child support, and other domestic law issues. Earlier this year, I participated in the School's annual continuing education program, when I presented "Law and Social Work Practice."

GMR: What challenges do you see for the social work profession in the 21st century?

KOF: Social workers value ethnic and cultural differences (or at least those of us educated at Penn do). This trend will define many of the social issues in our country in the years ahead. We must be vigilant in not imposing the values of one group on others. Social workers can lead this charge. In addition, the ongoing so-called "breakdown of the family" will result in the formation of new social groups, and the need for new support mechanisms. All of us will be expected to think of new ways to construct our community organizations as such established institutions as churches and schools gradually decline in inßuence. The profession of social work needs to remain in the forefront of creating new structures for family and other support systems, and a new language to describe the change. Because our MSW education has taught us about the value of individuals and their fundamental ability to grow and change, the process should neither frighten nor overwhelm us. Our long-term mission remains building and implementing mechanisms for change. Central to this task is the nurture of our sensitivity to cultural and ethnic difference.