ILNews

Bar Crawl - 3/2/11

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Bar Crawl

ISBA, AG team up for 3rd food drive

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and the Indiana State Bar Association have teamed up with Feeding Indiana’s Hungry for the third annual March Against Hunger food drive, which is scheduled for March 14 to 31.

The competition between law firms is to raise donations of money and nonperishable foods for Indiana’s 11 regional food banks.

“While there are some hopeful signs of an economic recovery on the horizon, for many in our state the harsh realities of unemployment and financial difficulties leave them desperate to buy the basic food essentials to feed their families. For the third year I am calling upon the members of my profession to step up and do what attorneys do best – serve the interests of others,” Zoeller said in a statement. “The food banks in Indiana are facing a critical shortage of supplies due to the increase in the need to help put food on the table of our fellow Hoosiers. I’ve been very proud of the past support by the many members of the ISBA, and I hope for greater support this year to meet the greater need.”

In 2010, Zoeller presented the Attorney General’s Cup to the highest donating firms in three categories. Barnes & Thornburg was the winner of the large firm division; Rubin & Levin placed first in the small firm and solo practitioner division; and the Office of the U.S. Trustee Indianapolis/Region 10 won the public/nonprofit division. This year’s categories will be the same, recognizing a winner in each category who collects the most donations.

Visit http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/2773.htm to sign up to participate in the 2011 statewide competition. Firms may sign up before the competition begins or anytime during the collection period. For more information, contact Michelle Mayer at the attorney general’s office at michelle.mayer@atg.in.gov or 317-234-6668.

CLE focus on stress and social media

“The Attorney and Social Media & Stress Management for Attorneys,” which counts as three credits of CLE and one credit of ethics, will take place at 1 p.m. March 29 at The Summit Club, 211 W. Washington St., South Bend. The CLE will be followed by a reception.

Scheduled presenters are John Conway and Erin Linder of LaDue Curran Kuehn, and Genelle King of King Communication Resources.

The CLE will address how Indiana’s ethics rules apply to using social media such as LinkedIn, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and MySpace. These issues include: advertising and solicitation, investigation, and confidentiality.

Among these issues are: What constitutes advertising on social media sites and what is impermissible puffing? Are attorney profiles subject to the advertising rules? Can attorneys use social media as a discovery tool for information regarding parties, witnesses, and jurors? When is an attorney-client relationship created? How can an attorney protect his client from waiving the privilege?

The stress management portion of the CLE will focus on myths and facts about stress, what does it mean to be “stress hardy,” and effective ways to break negative stress cycles and enhance the quality of everyday experiences.

The fee includes the reception and refreshments. Cost is $75 for SJCBA members who are new attorney members, non-profit attorneys, and full-time government employees; $115 for all other SJCBA members; and $230 for non-members.•

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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT