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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT