ILNews

DTCI: Belonging to DRI can better your practice, the law and your life

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-Kyrouac-scottAs the DTCI state representative for DRI, I think it beneficial to remind the defense bar why membership in DRI is so important.

DRI is the leading organization of private-practice attorneys and in-house counsel who strive to provide high-quality, balanced service to their individual and corporate clients. It comprises more than 25 substantive committees whose focus is to develop ongoing and critical dialogue about areas of practice. DRI provides access to resources and tools to grow your practice: Members can search a database of more than 65,000 experts; attend renowned CLE seminars, conferences and webcasts; network with 22,000-plus like-minded defense practitioners; and more.

DRI focuses on five main goals:

• Education: To teach, educate and improve the skills of its members;

• Justice: To strive for improvement in the civil justice system;

• Balance: To encourage balance in the justice system in the minds of potential jurors and on all fields where disputes are resolved;

• Economics: To assist members in dealing with the economic realities of the practice, including the competitive legal marketplace and the efficient resolution of litigation; and

• Professionalism and service: To urge members to practice ethically and responsibly, keeping in mind the lawyer’s responsibilities that go beyond the interest of the client to the good of the American society as a whole.

DRI is the largest international membership organization of attorneys representing the interests of business and individuals in civil litigation. Diversity is a core value at DRI and is fundamental to the success of the organization. It seeks the innumerable benefits and contributions that the perspectives, backgrounds, cultures and life experiences a diverse membership provides to our organization. Furthermore, its members and leaders are encouraged to be leaders of other defense organizations. DRI encourages all organizations and law firms to promote diversity, inclusion and civility in their membership and leadership.

The annual DRI meeting will be held Oct. 16-20 at the Sheridan Hotel in Chicago. The theme of the meeting is “Energizing Your Career; Making Rain in the Windy City.” Chicago is a dynamic hub of the Midwest and the home of the blues, comedy and the Cubs. What better setting for New York Times best-selling author Dan Buettner to share his thoughts on “Blue Zones” and “The Secrets of Living Longer”? Charles Krauthammer, M.D., also will present on the future of health care, medicine and bioethics. Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis will share tips concerning effective oral advocacy. In addition, there will be sharing of the latest deployments in commercial litigation, medical malpractice, professional liability, product liability, trucking law and trial practice. This blockbuster national seminar in our own backyard is simply not one to miss.

As Indiana’s leader for DRI, I want to personally encourage you to join our organization and attend the annual meeting for the betterment of your practice, the judicial system and of your life. The knowledge gained from membership and attendance at the annual meeting is only exceeded by the networking contacts and friendships that you gain.

If I can answer any of your questions about DRI, please call me at 812-917-2804.•

__________

Mr. Kyrouac is a partner in Wilkinson Goeller Modesitt Wilkinson & Drummy and is a former president 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. 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