ILNews

Chinn: A New Section, If You Can Keep It

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottIt falls upon me to make the happy announcement that the Board of Directors of the Indianapolis Bar Association has approved the creation of a new section of the bar — the Indy Attorneys Network. This new section will be a structural part of the bar like any other substantive section. But unlike other sections, it is not devoted to a particular area of law, but rather to promoting membership-driven networking opportunities. Membership in the section is open to any member of the IndyBar and can be joined like any other section — by adding it to your section membership list on your dues statement upon renewing your membership for 2013, or at any other time by contacting the bar to join the section or updating your member profile online at www.indybar.org.

The Indy Attorneys Network is not a top-down creation of bar leadership based on a national trend among metropolitan bars or to minister to a specific strategic planning objective of the Board. Indeed, we think it is likely a unique section among our peer bars. Instead, the idea came from a grass roots effort initiated by IndyBar members Liz Shuster and Chuck Schmal. Like so many, they had a desire to meet and network with attorneys outside of their practice area of intellectual property, but weren’t sure how to go about it outside of randomly approaching other attorneys at events. That isn’t an inherently bad way to network, but it also isn’t always the most natural or comfortable thing to do for many. Therefore, they posited that there might be a better way. Ultimately, their vision was to create a group solely for networking that would facilitate informal networking connections between attorneys.

One of the best things about a networking section is that its purpose is crystal clear, so participants don’t have to feel awkward about meeting new people or actually actively working to network with other attorneys. Everyone knows the purpose of the gatherings, so there’s nothing weird about handing out business cards or working to build relationships. “Networking” is always pushed as such an essential part of the practice, but for most of us it can be abstract. We say we need to do it, but we don’t always have a good infrastructure for success — especially for getting outside our comfort zones. The social events the bar offers, while a great opportunity for networking, typically are hosted through substantive sections, which means there are inherent limitations on the breadth of attendees, i.e., those with different areas of practice than the core reach of the section.

This new section will permit its members to naturally form connections based on what they need from networking — whether that is referrals, someone to turn to for help and advice or for just purely social interactions. The organizers imagine, for example, that subgroups will arise out of the section, based on non-legal demographics, like members who realize they have children of the same ages. They are focused on enabling members to get whatever they need or want out of the group, recognizing that will be different for everyone.

The initial planning meeting brought together a large group representing very different practice areas and practice types (from solos to big firms to corporations), ages and personal backgrounds, which we think is a testament to the need and desire for a group like this. Everyone had different backgrounds, but all were excited to work together to get the group off the ground. Not only are they working on how the group will function and what kind of events will be held, but they’re also considering resources that will help members really wrap their heads around how to actually be a good networker.

At the same time we celebrate the creation of the Indy Attorneys Network, let us observe two important points. First, this networking section is not intended to replace the myriad networking events and opportunities that come from IndyBar membership generally, activity in the substantive legal sections, and the work of the divisions and committees of the bar. You don’t have to be a member of the Indy Attorneys Network to do what you’ve always done or what you want to do to stay engaged and meet new people in the IndyBar. And this section’s activities won’t usurp or undermine the networking events and activities that sections, divisions, and committees organize.

Second, we should recognize this effort as an experiment — one that rewards the initiative of the lawyers who conceived it. It has a great chance to succeed, but we’ll make sure to review its progress over the next couple years and make honest assessments about its contribution to the health of the IndyBar. It is reported that upon exiting Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin’s factual reply carried with it an admonition: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The establishment of the Indy Attorneys Network is admittedly a less weighty endeavor than forming our federal Constitution. But for the founders of the section, and those who might have an interest in making this an exciting and permanent facet of the IndyBar, Dr. Franklin’s admonition likewise applies. Let us see if we can keep it.•

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT