Dating site for lawyers

August 21, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Have you ever wanted an online dating forum where you can meet other attorneys from around the country? Tired of those generic dating sites that make you sift through boring teachers, accountants, and sales people when all you want is a creative, affluent, and attractive lawyer?

The Dolce Network has just the thing for you! It’s Lawdate.com, apparently the first site that is exclusively for attorneys (or those looking for one.) Wendy C. Freedman, a lawyer who launched the site, said this site allows like-minded eligible men and women connect (who all are apparently “creative, affluent, and attractive” professionals).

If you didn’t meet your potential attorney spouse in law school, through your firm, or any other legal contacts, here’s another way to make that legal union happen.

Last time I checked, there were more than 1,000 people who belonged to the site. Although the company is hyping the site’s launch as this week, I think it must have been localized to California for a while based on the location and number of people on it already.

And just as I suspected, there are more women than men on the site. That’s typically how it is in the real and online dating worlds.

In conversations with co-workers and friends, most agree that we don’t want to marry someone in the same profession as us. While it’d be nice to come home to someone who can relate to your work life, it’s also nice to leave that life at the office. Being married to another doctor, teacher, or attorney may lead to more conversations about work, and really, who wants to spend their off hours discussing legal briefs or blood pressure?

If you’d rather date some other kind of affluent professional, The Dolce Network plans on launching TheDr.Date.com, CapitolHillDate.com, and EntertainmentIndsturyDate.com.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT