ILNews

Leadership in Law 2013: David P. Lynch

Associate, Amy Noe Law, Richmond Capital University Law School

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

david-lynch01-15col.jpg (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

David P. Lynch is as comfortable helping clients feed their farm animals while discussing legal matters as he is sitting in a courtroom or at a conference table. All he asks is that they let him know what is best for them, he jokes, so he wears the right shoes. David has a knack for making his clients feel at ease and comfortable. He had his own practice before recently joining Amy Noe Law. David also regularly takes cases knowing he may never be paid and never seeks credit for helping with these matters. He also knows quite a bit about fireworks law – he works as legal counsel and consultant for his family’s fireworks import business. David is active in the Indiana State Bar Association, participating in five committees.

Would a world without 24/7 technology be a good or bad thing?
I was an archaeologist before I went to law school, and I have always romanticized the past. Good thing!

You deal with fireworks as legal counsel for your family’s business. What is your favorite firework?
There’s nothing like Yung Feng’s Nishiki Kamuro shells. Huge, dense, perfectly symmetrical.

If you could go back in time, “when” would you go to and what would you do?
I would like to see how ceramic technology and ornamentation developed in the late prehistoric period in eastern North America (probably around 1200 AD) as agriculture began to allow more sedentary existence and establishment of more-or-less permanent villages. 

What’s the most important thing your mentor has taught you?
She’s taught me quite a lot, but the most important thing is that I don’t have to pretend to be someone that I’m not to be a good lawyer and a leader in my community. 

If you could take a sabbatical from the law for a year to work your fantasy job, what job would you choose?
I would like to work at a restaurant specializing in molecular gastronomy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT