ILNews

Chinn: What I'm Thankful For

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottWith Thanksgiving meals, family gatherings and football games barely visible in the rear view mirror, I want to get my thoughts of holiday thankfulness in just under the wire. In full disclosure, I’m focused here on three things about which I am most thankful for the Indianapolis Bar Association. While I don’t confuse that with the other important things about which we all can and should reflect on with thanksgiving, I am proud to observe these three things about our bar.

First, and foremost, I am thankful for the membership of more than 5,000 legal professionals in the IndyBar. I promise you everyone in the leadership and staff of the IndyBar has your membership top of mind. Ours is a voluntary bar. Your membership is a registering of your consumer choice that you derive value from the bar. I am confident that it will always be a top priority of the IndyBar leadership to maintain and create new value for your bar membership. It’s also worth noting that even beyond member services, there is value in what unites us to become and stay members of the IndyBar. With 5,000 members strong we are able to garner resources to have active pro bono programs, to reach out to law students and new lawyers to get them on the right track in our profession, and to advocate for the profession to elected officials and the broader community.

Second, I am thankful for the IndyBar staff. Over the past 20 years, the number of IndyBar programs has multiplied and the membership has doubled without a general dues increase. At the same time, in recent years the number of paid staff members has decreased from 13 to nine full-time equivalent employees along with one part-time and one contract employee. In short, what this lean and productive staff accomplishes is amazing – and is admired by executive directors of peer bars around the country. This is a testament in large part to Julie Armstrong’s tremendous leadership.

Last, and by no means least, perhaps the greatest strength of our bar is the large number of legal professionals who volunteer their time, energy and creativity as bar leaders. The Indy Bar has a 29-member board of directors, 18 standing or steering committees, 18 sections and 4 divisions. The sections, divisions and committees have multi-member executive committees that govern their operations. In addition, every year even more people volunteer for discrete efforts on task forces or special projects and on pro bono programs. So, scores of legal professionals contribute to success of the bar.

Just this past week, President-Elect Kerry Hyatt Blomquist presided over a two-day leadership retreat in which all the 2013 section, division and committee chairs and board members gathered to get to know each other and plan operations for the year. It went great, and Kerry and her leadership team are poised to keep what is working, shed what isn’t, and continue to innovate while keeping members foremost in mind. What I am most thankful for is what was observed by the retreat’s facilitator, Elizabeth Derrico from the ABA’s division of bar services. Elizabeth explained to those assembled that by agreeing to becoming leaders of the IndyBar, they had signed up to be the latest in a line of people whose tremendous efforts are recognized by bars all over the nation. I couldn’t agree more. Our bar association is noteworthy for the number and quality of initiatives, its willingness to take calculated risks to stay ahead of the professional curve, and for its number of people in positions of influence in national organizations like the ABA, the National Conference of Bar Presidents, the Conference of Metropolitan Bar Associations and the Metropolitan Bar Caucus.

To go full circle, from my perspective this last list of things isn’t to be looked at like a set of trophies on the mantel, but real live examples of a vibrant bar association that works to sustain itself from the most basic membership service obligations to promoting justice and the profession to serving the community. And at the core of that vibrancy is the breadth of our membership, the diligence of our staff, and the zealousness of our volunteer leaders. For these things I am very thankful.•
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT