ILNews

Chinn: Back to School

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottDoes it feel like it is the end of summer already? Not to me. We’re still so close to the stretch of 90-plus degree days that is making this the hottest summer on record. And even though the Brickyard, the Olympics, and the Indiana State Fair are behind us – I don’t feel ready for fall.

Alas, I have already seen and heard the hustle and bustle of yellow school buses on the move and parents carting their children off to another semester at college. At the law school level, I have already taken part in back-to-school activities. I met some 2L students at a reception at the Maurer School the other evening hosted by my law firm. And on behalf of the IndyBar, I spoke briefly to the incoming 1L class at the McKinney School at orientation weekend.

As much as I try to not waste an opportunity to engage audiences – especially ones made up of impressionable young people – I am quite conscious that what I said to the new students at the McKinney School was ephemeral. Here are my excuses: First, I followed Dean Gary Roberts, Judge Jose Salinas, and Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. They are impressive people against whom I was going to pale in comparison in any event. Second, my role was necessarily and appropriately limited – to give a welcome to law school on behalf of the profession and, thereby, to introduce them to the IndyBar.

If I had had more time, I would have made slightly headier points. If only I had a forum to do that now, I would … Oh, right. Okay, here goes. Let’s pretend I turned serious in mid-speech:

“… And that’s why the first law school text books were covered in goat skin!

Now, let me give you a few substantive thoughts – three things to keep in the back of your mind as you get acquainted with the elements of torts and contracts. First, you are undoubtedly hearing a lot about how tough the job market is right now, and that coupled with tight hiring are significant changes in the profession that make the future of law practice cloudy. Well, it’s true. The days of plentiful law jobs for new lawyers seem gone for the near future. And no one exactly knows what the long-term holds. But this adversity does give you an opportunity – the opportunity to hone in on what you really want to do. I have long said that key to a long and hopefully happy career in the law is to do something you really are interested in and enjoy. So, every now and then during your law school career, ask yourself what courses you genuinely like the most. Think about how your other intellectual and social interests relate. But you also might end up feeling passionate about a specific legal pursuit, and when you do, for Pete’s sake go for it!

Second, don’t forget that one of the most important parts about being a lawyer – helping people. You are going to help a lot of people who ask for your help (whether or not you get paid for the privilege of your assistance). Lawyers solve problems, they promote peace, and they help lead the direction of institutions – both maintaining them and reforming them. Don’t shrink from these tasks (read: “obligations”), they are what you are trained for.

Finally, become part of the profession. And start that by finding out what we mean by “profession.” It’s the opportunity to engage your fellow lawyers to learn, grow, help, recreate, think, and lead. I’m not asking you to put down the Facebook and the Twitter accounts. Use those avenues to network and use some older ones too – like meeting people for coffee or a beer. I promise you this, even in these economically tough times, the benefits of honest, thoughtful networking – the kind on which real relationships are built – accrue geometrically. We’re trying our damnedest at the IndyBar to support your efforts, because we can’t wait to be your colleagues.

Best wishes on a great year as you start your legal career.”•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT