What of Indiana\'s reputation?

July 15, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
It seems Indiana’s legal community has a good reputation out there. Studies appear to come out regularly assessing some aspect of Indiana’s legal system: Our litigation climate, ethics of the judiciary and legal community, and so on. But off-the-cuff, what are the regular, everyday thoughts circulating out there? A recent conversation IL had with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court shows they think highly of our high court. She keeps in touch with our own top jurist, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, and her court often looks to Indiana for guidance and insight on various issues. Others have made similar remarks when talking about the civility displayed by our bench and bar. But even Indiana’s legal community has its moments. An Indiana Court of Appeals not-for-publication opinion Monday caught our eye. The original dissolution case filed in April 2006 was dismissed in August 2007 because the couple reconciled … but the case bearing the couple’s names continued because of their attorneys! The court wrote in a footnote the attorneys argued whether they and their respective law firms were the proper parties in the appeal, but the court noted the “only real parties in interest” were the attorneys. One attorney questioned imposed sanctions, one of which was reversed; the other requested attorney fees from opposing counsel, which were not granted. The court noted one attorney’s “obdurate behavior,” while there were accusations of unethical conduct regarding the other attorney. Fortunately, such cases don’t make national headlines, but such behavior certainly can’t help any legal community’s reputation. What do you hear about Indiana from those outside the state – whether it’s from clients or colleagues from afar?
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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT