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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT