ILNews

DeGroote: The new social network - return to the bar

February 15, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tim DeGrooteNot so long ago, when I was a “young” lawyer, our local bar association sponsored various outings. I remember them fondly. There was always a summer golf outing and bus trip to Chicago. In the fall and winter months, the bar association would sponsor various events, including the occasional happy hour at a local watering hole. The events were well attended and memorable.

Those events provided the opportunity for me to get to know my fellow lawyers in an enjoyable, casual and non-adversarial setting. Just as important, the events brought lawyers from different practice areas and generations together. Judges, prosecutors, criminal defense counsel, family lawyers and civil litigators all joined forces with a common goal: to have a good time. Stories were told. Accomplishments and defeats were embellished. It was a wonderful time.

When I joined the law firm, I had the privilege to be mentored by several great lawyers. They spent time with me both in and out of the office. They encouraged me to get involved in local and state organizations. They introduced me to other lawyers and took me to seminars, events and to the occasional happy hour where, once again, stories, accomplishments and defeats were shared and embellished.

Times have changed. In the last 15 years, life has become more complicated. Like many, I attempt to juggle and balance my professional and home/family commitments. I have a fabulous wife who works full time as a magistrate. We have two children who are actively involved in school and extracurricular activities. It is a rare evening when something is not scheduled on the work or family calendar.

With more demands on my time, I find myself less involved in the state, local, and firm activities and social events. Apparently, I am not alone.

In the last several years, there has been a steady decline in active participation in local bar association events. I anticipate that other organizations have experienced a similar problem. While I do not have all of the answers to explain the decline, several factors come into play, including the changes in society, the family structure (both parents working) and the increasing demands made by the workplace.

Change is inevitable. The way we communicate and socialize has been redefined. We are now connected 24/7. We have the ability to email, text and update our Facebook pages while we sit in traffic. The phone call has been replaced with the text and/or tweet. The handwritten and (even) dictated letter has been slain by the email. The social gathering at the local bar event has fallen victim to the chat room. There is no need to be physically present because we are connected all the time. Technology has allowed us to become more efficient so that we may accomplish more in less time. Technology has allowed us to save time. And yet, do any of us feel like we have more time?

I truly enjoy the benefits of the advancements made in technology. However, I would propose that we use some of the time saved through the use of technology and re-invest it in our profession and the people with whom we work. Attend a state or local bar association event. Take a young lawyer, fellow associate or partner with you. Get involved in a worthy organization, such as the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana (shameless plug). Put down the mouse, leave work early, and spend time with your partners and associates outside the office. Attend a happy hour or two. Reconnect with your fellow lawyers. Stay involved or get involved and get to know the people you work with or who may be across the table from you in your next case. The time spent is a valuable investment in your practice and our profession.•

__________


Mr. DeGroote is a partner in the Fort Wayne office of Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros and is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT