ILNews

Abrams: See you in Cincinnati

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

jeff abrams ibaBy the time you are reading this article, I will be on my way to the 21st Annual Bench Bar in Cincinnati, Ohio. So, I asked myself when I attended my first Bench Bar, what is a Benesch commercial real estate lawyer going to do at a Bench Bar Conference? The answer? Lots of things.

The Bench Bar Committee routinely provides quality CLE for all of us. I enjoy listening to some of the speakers even as a commercial real estate lawyer. I have the opportunity to reminisce with judges who were in law school with me but with whom I have very little contact anymore as a result of our separate paths in the legal profession. We talk about our kids. We talk about some recollections during law school and embarrassing moments. We talk about some of the people and where they are today. This is all very worthy of our time.

I mingle with other lawyers and while they are primarily litigators, they are still very nice people. I meet family law attorneys, prosecutors, public defenders, other government attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, general practice litigators, solo practitioners, small firm owners, and individuals from all walks of life in our professional community. I meet new people every time that I go to a Bench Bar, and I am much better off for the opportunity to get to know the individuals who have chosen the legal profession for their career. I have opportunities to answer questions about the IndyBar and how it might be able to help their practice. I have the opportunity to connect lawyers with other lawyers who might be able to help them with a particular problem.

I talk with our county, appellate and state Supreme Court judges and justices. How many other situations do we find ourselves in with this incredible opportunity to mingle with our judiciary and learn more about each of them? Conversations include their family, their interests outside sitting on the bench and some interesting insight on how they manage their court. All of this information has helped me as a person and even as a practicing commercial real estate attorney at Benesch, where we have a litigation practice that works with Indy litigators and appears before all of these judges.

When my real estate clients have disputes, the last thing they want is to spend money in litigation. It has been a challenging discussion to explain to a developer, a lender, a landlord, a tenant or a commercial broker that the unfortunate experience in court is the price of doing business in today’s complex business environment. In a perfect world, we would not have disputes, but it does not work that way. We are trained to write documents as carefully and clearly as possible, but even in the best of times, there are two or more interpretations of a document which leads to disputes. Understanding how a judge looks at commercial disputes has been incredibly enlightening and beneficial to my practice.

During Bench Bar there is also time for relaxation, or for some of us, frustration. There is a golf tournament on Thursday where lawyers and judges get to spend four-plus hours hitting a little golf ball around and talking about things totally unrelated to practicing law. But if a “what if” or “how do I” question is posed, I am confident that the lawyers and judges trying to concentrate on playing quality golf still take the time to answer the question and help out a young, aspiring attorney trying to understand the nuances of an area of the law or how the judicial system works.

These are all the great experiences that avail themselves at Bench Bar, and I hope by the time you are reading this article, you also are on your way to Cincinnati. It will be a great few days.•

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