4/24 - Modern Lawyering Utilizing Social Media (Indianapolis)

Sponsored by
Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  April 24, 2013 

Program:
Social Media: First Amendment Implications and the Employment Context
      Moderator: Andrea Ciobanu, Ciobanu Law, PC
      Panelists:
      Kenneth J. Falk, Legal Director, ACLU of Indiana
      Linda Calvin, former Social Media Manager for Dow
      Jessica Tucker Ballard, Clerk, Indiana Court of Appeals

Utilizing Social Media Ethically
      Moderator: The Hon. James S. Kirsch, Indiana Court of Appeals
      Panelists: 
      Hon. Paul D. Mathias, Indiana Court of Appeals
      Hon. Melissa S. May, Indiana Court of Appeals
      G. Michael Witte, Indiana Disciplinary Commission
      Jaime Lira, Marketing Manager, Cohen & Malad

Litigation and Discovery: How to get Social Media Evidence in and Keep it in
      Moderator:  Jimmie McMillian, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
      Panelists: 
      Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Southern District of Indiana
      Hon. David Shaheed, Marion County Superior Court
      Hon. David Hooper, Commissioner, Marion County Superior Court

Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Time (local time): 2:00 - 5:00 pm
Reception follows program

Credit hours: 3.0 CLE /  2.0 Ethics (pending)

Cost:
$50 MCBA members
$90 non-MCBA members

Go to mcbasocialmediacle.eventbrite.com to register online.

Location: Barnes & Thornburg Auditorium
11 S. Meridian St., Indianapolis 46204

Provider: Marion County Bar Association

Contact information:
Andrea Ciobanu
(317) 495-1090
aciobanu@ciobanulaw.com
www.mcbaindy.org
 

Back to Events
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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT