ILNews

As season ends, lawyers look to revive interest in softball league

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It is time to hang up the cleats for another season.

On Sept. 29, the Indianapolis Lawyers’ Softball League played its final game of 2011. The Mudsharks, coached by Schultz & Pogue attorney J. Kirk LeBlanc, won the championship, defeating the team from Riley Bennett & Egloff, 23-11 in five innings.

Eight teams participated in the annual softball league this year, but diehard players say that they’d like to see more teams next season.

Donald Smith of Riley Bennett & Egloff has played 31 consecutive seasons with the league. At its high point in the 1980s, he said the league had 33 member teams, with some of the larger firms fielding multiple teams.
 

softball-15col.jpg Robert Brandt, attorney at Riley Bennett & Egloff, is the pitcher for the firm’s softball team. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“In the 2000s, teams began to drop out, and rarely do the big firms even field a team anymore,” Smith said. “It’s just one old-timer’s opinion, but it seems that as starting salaries skyrocketed, the newer attorneys – and more athletic ones – were required to bill more time. In turn, the newer attorneys were not as interested in spending Thursday nights on the softball diamonds, and the social aspects of the game seemed less important.”

These new attorneys may be missing out on a valuable networking opportunity, LeBlanc said, by not making time to participate.

“I think that’s one thing the younger generation needs to think about … they’re still wrapped up in the billable hour, but they need to realize you can have fun, too.”

Who plays, and why

Robert Brandt, pitcher for the Riley Bennett & Egloff team, said that in a profession that can sometimes create adversarial relationships, softball offers a chance for attorneys to get to know each other.

“It really is a good time, and it’s a good way to unwind a little bit,” Brandt said.

Today, LeBlanc plays because he loves the game. But that’s not how he started out.

“I started in 1998 when I was a law clerk, and really, when I was a law clerk, the partner I worked with just told me I had to play,” LeBlanc recalled.

At its heyday, requirements for tournament play were more rigid than they are today. Smith said that the league used to require that any member of a team playing in a tournament had to have taken the bar exam. But rules regarding team structure have been relaxed in an attempt to get more people to play.

Brandt said that nowadays, teams need to field only five lawyers or law students. And teams may be comprised of players from multiple firms. LeBlanc’s 14 players come from five or six different firms, he said.


leBlanc-kirk-mug.jpg LeBlanc

“I think there are attorneys out there that would love to play, but their feeling is that if they can’t put a team together, they can’t play,” LeBlanc said. But both he and Brandt said they would welcome inquires from anyone who wants to play. “We’ll plug them in, we’ll make the teams,” LeBlanc said.

There’s always next year

Asked if teams do any training or preparation in the off-season, Brandt chuckled.

“It really is kind of loosely organized, not in a bad sense, but the goal is to really just go out there and have some fun,” he said.

Indy Parks sets the regular-season and tournament schedules, Brandt explained, with games generally beginning in mid-May and continuing through August. This year, because of an early-season storm that knocked out the lights at the Chuck Klein Softball Complex, the league was not able to play past dark, which caused its season to run a bit longer than normal. Games typically begin at the three-diamond complex at 6:30 p.m., with the last game beginning at 8:40 p.m.

Relaxed as its structure may be, the league still follows standards created by the National Softball Association.

“We kind of play a hybrid of the NSA rules, and (Indy Parks) allows us to do that because it’s a lawyers’ league and it’s the way it’s been done for 30 years,” Brandt said.

Both Brandt and LeBlanc said they hope more lawyers join them on the field next season. For more information about the Indianapolis Lawyers’ Softball League, contact LeBlanc at 317-262-1000 or at kleblanc@schultzpoguelaw.com, or Brandt at 317-636-8000 or at rbrandt@rbelaw.com.•
 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT