ILNews

Blomquist: The IBA Bench Bar Conference, Well Worth the 'Conference Depression' Risk

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerryHere is a new phrase for me: “Conference Depression.”

According to the Urban Dictionary, the definition of “conference depression” is: “Being extremely depressed after an awesome weekend at a conference.” Withdrawal usually lasts a day or two depending on the conference. Example:

Q: “Dude what’s up with him?”

A: “He just came back from Bench Bar and his ‘conference depression’ is really bad.”

Prediction: On Monday, June 17th, 2013, the moon will be 53 percent visible in the night sky, fathers will be boycotting any and all food after an indulgent Father’s Day, and many Indianapolis lawyers and judges will be suffering from “conference depression” because the IndyBar Bench Bar conference was held just a few days before.

I’m that confident.

Our 2013 IndyBar Bench Bar is June 13th to the 15th in Louisville and it’s gearing up to be the biggest and best one yet. It’s not often lawyers and judges can mix business with pleasure, but over the past 20 years this conference has become known as the premier event to do just that, and in casual attire no less.

Confession of a Bench Bar junkie: I don’t need the CLE and in 20 years I have never been “sent” to this conference. It has always been on my time and on my dime, but it has been one of the best investments I have ever made. It is where I have made great friends that I occasionally get to practice with and to whom I can refer clients (with money). It is where I have met judges from all benches that have become my friends and my colleagues. And it is where I know I will get quality, entertaining CLE because my colleagues are the experts in what they do.

Co-chairs of this year’s 20th Anniversary Bench Bar Conference are Judges Annie Christ-Garcia and Bob Altice who, with their committees, have been working tirelessly to put together a stellar program of events. Highlights are almost too many to mention but include a new in-house counsel track to accompany existing tracks in family, civil and criminal law; golf on Thursday for the brave and the talented (I’m brave); dinner at Quattro, a highly acclaimed chef-owned restaurant in Louisville; and an encore presentation of Trivia Night to benefit the Bar Foundation, which is always a good time.

While this is an unapologetic commercial for Bench Bar, this is also an opportunity for associates to learn and for partners to lead. Any bar leader will tell you that the two questions most frequently asked us by young lawyers are: How can we effectively network and how can we develop a client base? To each of those, the answer is the same. Work your soft skills. Nothing can replace the contacts, the referral sources and the friends you can garner at a conference like this. Especially in this economy, investing in your legal community pays off more than you know. Let’s face it; in this era of voicemail, email, conference calls and webinars, it is the face-to-face natter that falls by the wayside while that is precisely what often determines success. We used to meet people and follow up by email. Now we forge relationships by email and are surprised (positively or negatively) if or when we finally meet them in person.

Confession, lest you doubt I live in a glass house.

I reached out to Frost Brown Todd’s Tom Davis a couple of weeks ago to ask him to reflect on the history of Bench Bar. Twenty years ago, when “T.D” penned this same column, his IndyBar legacy became the Bench Bar Conference. Along with colleagues John Baker, Tony Metz, Jim Babcock and the late great Neil Shook, he choreographed the first of these conferences and IndyBar history was made. By “reaching out,” however, I mean I emailed him some questions. What was shot back was an absolutely appropriate and bracing: “Really? Can’t we just meet in person?”

Ouch. “Snap,” as my teens would say.

The result was the most delightful hour I have spent in a long, long time inadvertently reinforcing the argument that nothing comes close to personal contact. It is what we need to do more of as professionals and as people. Bench Bar is a great place to start. Take a look at the agenda, make your plans now, and prepare to have some fun. Information and registration can be found online at www.indybenchbar.org.•

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT