ILNews

Committee ready to explore new home for ISBA, ICLEF, IBF

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A committee of 10 people is now tasked with finding a new, common home for three pillar organizations of the Indiana legal community.

The mission is to find a single facility that the Indiana State Bar Association, Indiana Continuing Legal Education Foundation, and the Indiana Bar Foundation can share.

Prior to 2003, all three shared a roof. But the ISBA moved to the fifth floor of One Indiana Square to be on its own, leaving ICLEF and the IBF at 230 E. Ohio St. Leases on both locations expire in 2011, but this is the year to lay the groundwork for a new, common location, according to ISBA president Richard Eynon.

Past ISBA president Jim Riley has agreed to chair the committee. Members include: Mike Bishop, Jim Casey, and Executive Director Chuck Dunlap on the IBF side; ICLEF members include board members Linda Meier and Andrew Soschnick, as well as Executive Director Tom von Kamecke; and Clyde Compton, Marianne Owens, and Executive Director Tom Pyrz for the ISBA.

While the committee hasn ;t met yet, Eynon said he expects that to happen soon following the annual spring retreat to Las Vegas next week. Several members of the committee, including Riley, plan to attend the retreat, and Eynon hopes to discuss the issue there.

Eynon has previously said the committee ;s main priority will be researching facility needs and whether new construction or existing real estate is the best option. However, the committee will also focus on how all three entities co-exist and what can be done to better increase functions for the state ;s legal community.
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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT