ILNews

Bar Crawl - 3/2/11

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Bar Crawl

ISBA, AG team up for 3rd food drive

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and the Indiana State Bar Association have teamed up with Feeding Indiana’s Hungry for the third annual March Against Hunger food drive, which is scheduled for March 14 to 31.

The competition between law firms is to raise donations of money and nonperishable foods for Indiana’s 11 regional food banks.

“While there are some hopeful signs of an economic recovery on the horizon, for many in our state the harsh realities of unemployment and financial difficulties leave them desperate to buy the basic food essentials to feed their families. For the third year I am calling upon the members of my profession to step up and do what attorneys do best – serve the interests of others,” Zoeller said in a statement. “The food banks in Indiana are facing a critical shortage of supplies due to the increase in the need to help put food on the table of our fellow Hoosiers. I’ve been very proud of the past support by the many members of the ISBA, and I hope for greater support this year to meet the greater need.”

In 2010, Zoeller presented the Attorney General’s Cup to the highest donating firms in three categories. Barnes & Thornburg was the winner of the large firm division; Rubin & Levin placed first in the small firm and solo practitioner division; and the Office of the U.S. Trustee Indianapolis/Region 10 won the public/nonprofit division. This year’s categories will be the same, recognizing a winner in each category who collects the most donations.

Visit http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/2773.htm to sign up to participate in the 2011 statewide competition. Firms may sign up before the competition begins or anytime during the collection period. For more information, contact Michelle Mayer at the attorney general’s office at michelle.mayer@atg.in.gov or 317-234-6668.

CLE focus on stress and social media

“The Attorney and Social Media & Stress Management for Attorneys,” which counts as three credits of CLE and one credit of ethics, will take place at 1 p.m. March 29 at The Summit Club, 211 W. Washington St., South Bend. The CLE will be followed by a reception.

Scheduled presenters are John Conway and Erin Linder of LaDue Curran Kuehn, and Genelle King of King Communication Resources.

The CLE will address how Indiana’s ethics rules apply to using social media such as LinkedIn, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and MySpace. These issues include: advertising and solicitation, investigation, and confidentiality.

Among these issues are: What constitutes advertising on social media sites and what is impermissible puffing? Are attorney profiles subject to the advertising rules? Can attorneys use social media as a discovery tool for information regarding parties, witnesses, and jurors? When is an attorney-client relationship created? How can an attorney protect his client from waiving the privilege?

The stress management portion of the CLE will focus on myths and facts about stress, what does it mean to be “stress hardy,” and effective ways to break negative stress cycles and enhance the quality of everyday experiences.

The fee includes the reception and refreshments. Cost is $75 for SJCBA members who are new attorney members, non-profit attorneys, and full-time government employees; $115 for all other SJCBA members; and $230 for non-members.•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT