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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT