ILNews

IBA: A 'Safe Ask' is Just a Phone Call Away

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Robert W. York, Robert W. York & Associates

york-robert.jpg York

On January 26, 2006, the then members of the Executive Committee of the Seniors Lawyers Division (later renamed the Senior Counsel Division): Justice Brent Dickson; Bob York; Bob Geddes; Phil Genetos; Ray Good and John Render, met for the Division’s organizational meeting and discussed the direction that should be taken to accomplish the directive from Indianapolis Bar Association President Judge Cynthia Ayers that the Division undertake a significant initiative for the advancement of the IndyBar, its members and the practice of law.

Following the addition of Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Judge Margret G. Robb to the Committee, discussion ensued over several months as to the development of a program which would provide a resource for members of the IndyBar to obtain guidance and information from experienced attorneys intended to assist them in providing quality and ethical legal services to their clients.

At the recommendation of Judge Barker, the Committee determined that the nomenclature, “Safe Ask,” would properly describe the program’s purpose and would encourage potential users to believe that they could be safe in asking questions that would aid them and their clients.

With respect to the implementation of the program, the Committee determined that:

For conflicts check purposes – the responder should first determine whether the inquiry involves a matter in which the responder is involved.
ask-factbox.gif It was important to receive a safe question. For example, because the provisions of Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct require the reporting of a known violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the inquirer should be informed to frame their inquiry accordingly.

Responders should avoid the temptation to try to “solve” the inquirer’s case and instead should provide their best advice while reminding the inquirer that: since the practice of law is an art, there is usually no one “best” method to resolve a legal issue; that the advice given should be considered as a recommended approach and not as a guarantee that it will obtain the desired results; and, that the inquirer should exercise his or her independent judgment in deciding upon their course of action.

In the event the responder is unable to frame a proper response, the inquirer should be referred to another source, such as the Indiana State Bar Association Ethics Committee, which has been designated by the Supreme Court to provide advice on ethics issues.

The Safe Ask program should be made available to all IndyBar members and should utilize the IndyBar’s Website at www.indybar.org. A member wanting a response to a question may access the “Member Benefits” section of the site and then send an email by using the “Safe Ask” section of the site. Depending upon the nature of the question and the member’s indication, the question will be answered confidentially by email or telephone, or, if the question does not require confidentiality, will be forwarded to the Safe Ask Panel for responses as they choose.

The disclaimer approved by the Committee should be posted on the website.

Members of the initial Safe Ask Panel were: Robert W. York, Robert W. York & Associates; John C. Render, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman; Ronald L. Dyer, Elder Law Attorney; Terrill D. Albright, Baker & Daniels; Donald L. Centers, Hannon, Hutton & Associates; Robert W. Geddes, Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons; Philip C. Genetos, Ice Miller; Raymond Good, Lewis & Kappes; John Q. Herrin, Drewry Simmons Vornehm; Paul F. Kortepeter, Sommer & Barnard; and, Michael J. Rusnak, Harrison & Moberly.

In the intervening years, panel members have responded to a broad array of questions involving procedural, discovery and evidentiary issues as well as conflicts with a court, with clients, with opposing counsel and within a law firm.

The Safe Ask program has been and will continue to be a valuable resource for IndyBar members and all are encouraged to contact any of the current panel members listed on the IndyBar’s website, knowing in advance that they can safely ask any question.•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT