ILNews

DTCI: Don’t miss the 2013 annual meeting in Michigan City

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

McComberIt is about that time of year again! The leaves have changed and are beginning to fall off the trees. Department stores are decorated for Christmas (Wait! Haven’t they been decorated since before Halloween?), and Starbucks has started using their red holiday cups. All these signs indicate that it is also time for the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana’s Annual Meeting.

This year the DTCI Annual Meeting will be held at the Blue Chip Casino in Michigan City. The conference begins at 10 a.m. Thursday, Nov. 21, and continues through 5 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 22. If you have not yet registered to attend, I strongly encourage you to pack your suitcase with casual clothes (and a little extra green for the casino) and head north to get all the CLE you need for the year at one conference for the reasonable price of $299. Walk-ins are more than welcome!

Now you may be asking, “Why should I attend this conference rather than an all-day seminar closer to my office?” In my opinion, there are several reasons to attend. To begin with, the CLE is superb. You would be hard pressed to find a practice area not covered by one of the individual break-out sessions. Health care, employment law, workers’ compensation, product liability, business litigation, construction law, insurance coverage – you name it, there is likely an opportunity to earn CLE in your area of practice. There is even a break-out session for paralegals. There are also opportunities to hone your trial practice skills and perfect your writing skills. In addition, there are two opportunities to earn your mandatory ethics credits: one on Thursday and one on Friday. Finally, there will be more than 20 exhibitors and sponsors present to help you with all your expert needs.

In addition to the great CLE opportunities, it would be difficult to find a prominent defense attorney in your area of practice who is not attending the annual meeting. There is plenty of time built into the conference schedule to get to know the other attendees. This allows you to have access to the lawyers in Indiana who face the same issues you do. While the presentations by these lawyers in the break-out sessions are filled with helpful practice information, the informal time you have to pick these lawyers’ brains is invaluable. You know that strange fact pattern in the new case you just received? Chances are someone attending the conference has had a similar case or similar past experience and is more than willing to give you some advice on how to handle your situation.

I was recently going through some materials from past annual meetings and came across some notes from several years ago. I chuckled at the items I had written down as “new ideas” from the break-out sessions; these are now things that are fully implemented in my practice in nearly all my cases. The information you learn at the annual meeting will become part of your daily practice.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to particularly encourage young attorneys to attend the annual meeting. I attended my first annual meeting in 2002 and was slightly intimidated by how everyone seemed to know each other. I volunteered at that meeting to join the substantive law committee in the area I was practicing and was immediately able to get more involved in my substantive law section and the organization. I was also able to meet several more experienced lawyers who helped me become more involved in the organization. Now, 10 years later, there are very few faces that I fail to recognize at the annual meeting. In addition to the excellent CLE available, you will begin to foster relationships with numerous attorneys throughout the state that will become valuable resources and professional contacts.

If I have not yet convinced you to attend the annual meeting, I encourage you to check out the full brochure for the meeting at www.dtci.org. Then either register online or email Lisa Mortier at lmortier@dtci.org to let her know you will be registering on-site. I hope to see you in Michigan City.•

__________

Ms. McOmber is a partner in the Indianapolis firm of Schultz & Pogue and is a member of the DTCI Board of Directors. 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT