ILNews

Blomquist: Online and on Your Time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerryLast night after work, I learned a lot about the art and science behind truly effective direct and cross-examination from colleagues Phil Isenbarger and John Kautzman, IndyBar past presidents, 2013 board members and a couple of the best litigators around. I’ve been practicing law for more than 20 years but listening to great trial lawyers talk about their passion and skill in a courtroom is always enlightening, never ever boring, and just plain fun.

And the bonus? I earned this CLE credit while I was in my pajamas, because I was online.

This week, your IndyBar is launching its Online CLE Course offerings after months of planning by both the IndyBar staff and leadership. This expansion of services to our members has been a part of the IndyBar strategic plan for more than three years, so a special nod to past presidents Scott Chinn, Mike Hebenstreit and Chris Hickey for building the bridge we cross this week. Nod also to Julie Armstrong and her staff who confronted an Internet systems learning curve sufficient to land them a guest role on “The Big Bang Theory” (accordingly, please note that for safety reasons, use of terms like Sonic Foundry, Silverlight and Mediasite must be used with caution while in the IndyBar offices. Don’t get them started.).

So now let’s back up and get some facts.

Anytime, anywhere. Bar members can take up to 6 CLE hours of your three year, 36 CLE hour requirement online. To me, that means an hour of CLE while watching kids’ soccer practice, while waiting in an airport or on a summer weekend in the hammock or on vacation.

Education you can trust. Because IndyBar members are presenting, I choose to learn online from people I know and trust in their subject expertise. An ethics seminar from IndyBar member Michael Witte, Executive Secretary of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission? Appeals 101 from the Honorable Cale Bradford from the Indiana Court of Appeals and current IndyBar board member? Those are good investments of my time.

This is affordable CLE. IndyBar Online CLE is $32.50 per credit hour for IndyBar members—that is an incredible bargain by anyone’s measure, and given that non-member rates double, the availability of Online CLE is another tremendous benefit for our members.

It’s easy. The tech requirements for accessing Online CLE could not be any easier. Registration is online and is comparable to the process for regular IndyBar programs. Once you review the programs and select the one you want, check out and complete the purchase; you are emailed a link to the program and you are good to go. Bonus #1: you have 30 days to watch the program so you can purchase a few together. Bonus #2: IndyBar reports the completed CLE to the Commission for you, so when the program is done, you are done.

Privacy. One important but understated benefit of Online CLE is the fact that your choice to learn or refine your knowledge of legal subject matter is private. I have a dear friend and colleague who has chosen to take an online CLE course on estate planning, not because it is his area, but because it is not, and he has elderly parents and needs to know more—ideally without running into a lot of his colleagues. A former law student of mine is seeking knowledge in other areas of the law through online CLE contemplating a direction switch. Still another is learning more about immigration law because of a friend in need.

This is exceptional knowledge that rises far above the “Continuing Legal Education” we are compelled to receive and report. IndyBar Online CLE puts our ability to become better lawyers, and I will argue better people, at our fingertips. Please check out the more than 70 course offerings at http://www.indybar.org/events-education/online-cle/.•

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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT