ILNews

Solo and Small Firm Conference puts focus on future of law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 400 lawyers gathered this month in one of the largest conferences ever for Indiana solo and small-firm attorneys.

With a focus on “The Future of Law” and highlighted by a healthy dose of ethics and a look at coming changes and challenges, the Indiana State Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Conference at the French Lick Resort drew the second-largest crowd in the event’s history, organizers said.
 

mckinnon McKinnon

“The nature of this conference is, I think, distinct in several ways. One, collegiality – there’s a sense of friendliness that’s not typical in large lawyer meetings,” said Warsaw attorney Paul D. Refior. “The fact that they provide a lot of options – there are four (presentations) to choose from every session – that allowed us to go to things that pertain to our practices.”

Refior also carried away materials from other sessions he wasn’t able to attend. “That’s going to be the gift that keeps on giving,” he said.

Conference planning committee vice chair Patricia McKinnon said featured speakers Indiana Justice Mark Massa and Jim Calloway tailored their remarks to the challenges solo and small firm lawyers face. Massa, for instance, talked about the need to sweat the small stuff, using real-life examples such as a lack of postage or insufficient fees dooming filings.

“It was very startling, but also something the audience needed to hear,” McKinnon said.

Calloway, a popular returning speaker who directs the Oklahoma Bar Association Management Assistance Program, offered a candid but optimistic assessment of the future of law in light of competition from online do-it-yourself services such as LegalZoom.
 

 

solo-massa-15col.jpg Indiana Justice Mark Massa spoke to more than 400 lawyers at the Indiana State Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Conference earlier this month in French Lick. (Photo submitted)

“The future is very bright for lawyers willing to embrace the future,” Indianapolis attorney Stephen Terrell said of Calloway’s presentation. He said Calloway’s message included a need for lawyers to express to clients the value that their services add and the assurances that come with legal representation.

“People will still need to talk to a live human being,” McKinnon said of her takeaway from Calloway’s remarks. “They need you because you can provide advice.”

On speaking your mind

With Greenwood attorney Patrick Olmstead, Terrell presented one of the most-talked-about sessions, “Crash Course: The Intersection of Legal Ethics and the First Amendment.” The session focused on attorney speech and what’s considered actionable by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission under one of the tightest rules in the nation.

Terrell said Indiana’s Professional Rule of Conduct 8.4(g) appears to be unique compared to other states, in that it defines as misconduct words or conduct “in a professional capacity” manifesting bias based on race, gender, religion and other factors that also include the vague qualifiers “socioeconomic status or similar factors.”

“We’re almost fostering a situation where, as a lawyer, if someone writes a letter to you and you don’t like it, you file a disciplinary action,” Terrell said. A novelist and host of an Internet legal talk show, Terrell said the rule gives him pause to wonder in those activities, “Am I acting in my legal capacity?”

Olmstead said the session ended with more questions from attorneys than he and Terrell had time to answer before the following program started.

“People don’t know where the lines are,” Olmstead said of attorney speech. Regarding the vagaries of the “legal capacity” and “similar factors” language, he said, “I don’t know when you stop being a lawyer.” He said other states’ rules limit 8.4(g) to matters concerning the administration of justice, for example.

After investigating the question, Olmstead’s said, “To my knowledge, I could not find another state that has an 8.4(g) written like ours.”

“What I struggle with and have had people call me about is wordsmithing,” he said. In communicating with opposing counsel, for instance, “Now you’ve got to walk on eggshells and you’ve got to figure out if you’ve said anything that would upset someone,” he said. He cited discipline orders such as In the Matter of Vincent M. Campiti, 937 N.E.2d 340 (2009), and In the Matter of Joseph B. Barker, 55S00-1008-DI-429.

Terrell said lawyers have a duty to point out problems in the justice system, but they also put themselves at risk when they do. About 20 years ago, Terrell successfully defended an attorney who faced a discipline case for writing a truthful letter critical of a judge.

“Now, today, I don’t know how many lawyers would do that,” he said. “That’s the real danger of some of these rulings that are coming out. … That’s why I think it’s a really important discussion to have.”

What’s new?

News laws taking effect July 1 were the focus of some sessions Kevin Willis of Indianapolis found particularly useful in his first year as a solo practitioner. This wasn’t his first trip to the conference, though; he’d gone last year as a law student.

“I attended the traffic law update and the criminal code update sessions,” Willis said. “Those apply directly to my practice.”

A new law requires licensing and registration of mopeds and scooters with engines smaller than 50 cubic centimeters, for instance. Another will allow scooter riders and motorcyclists to proceed through a red light after two minutes when traffic has cleared. That’s yielding to cyclists who said their lighter weight compared to cars didn’t trip some street sensors that control traffic lights.

Willis said presenters at the conference also did a good job of keeping it light. McKinnon and Disciplinary Commission attorney Chuck Kidd had fun with an ethics presentation that riffed on the game show “Let’s Make a Deal,” offering up what Willis called “ridiculously stupid prizes.”

“It was just great to see people can make fun of themselves and ease the tension,” he said.

This year, students from Indiana University Maurer School of Law, IU McKinney School of Law and Valparaiso University Law School attended the conference. It gives them an opportunity to network and work on elevator speeches, McKinnon said.

McKinnon, who chairs the planning committee for next year’s conference, said work has already started on lining up speakers and programs for the 2015 gathering that also will be held in French Lick the first weekend in June.

“Anybody that’s involved in any aspect of general practice or family law should attend this conference. They’re missing out if they don’t,” Willis said.•
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT