ILNews

Sidebars: Get down to business at Palomino

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Sidebars


Now it's time to get serious. During the past couple of years writing this column Jenny and I have had a great deal of fun. If you readers enjoy our contribution to the Indiana Lawyer only half as much as we do then this article serves its intended purpose - a break from the hard-nosed realities of practicing law.

A vast majority of readers of this column do not know me. What you do know of me is that my practice carries me to all parts of this wonderful state. I deeply enjoy meeting judges, prosecutors, and local lawyers from counties all across this state and becoming privy to the nuances each county brings. My travels, however, are not without their difficulty.

Seven years ago it all seemed so perfect. A beautiful wife. Three children - at that time ages 6, 4, and 1. A successful practice. Then I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

I've always taken the approach that it isn't what happens to people that matters. What does matter is how they respond to it. Having worked so hard to get where I was I knew that failure was not an option. It isn't just about me, I told myself. It is about those who depend upon me. I never liked jogging anyway so the inconvenience of MS is just that. It is an inconvenience and not a burden. Just watch the news some night. Pick up a file in your office. Those people have burdens.

Those who do know me or who have seen me, have seen me with my cane in the courtroom. You Marion County practitioners undoubtedly have seen me zip to court from my office to the City-County Building on my Segway. It's really quite liberating. Or as my dear wife, Amy, describes it, suddenly I go from "cripple to cool."

Dr. Keith March is a fellow parishioner of mine. A professor of cardiology, inter alia, at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, he invited me to lunch recently to discuss a new foundation he's helped formulate and how it can positively impact people like me. Known as the Cell Therapy Foundation, its mission is to advance the cause of adult stemcell research. The purpose of our meeting was to get my thoughts about whether MS would be a worthy disease to study, along with a few select others.

Joined by Bryan Snook, the director of resource development for the foundation, and Ann Myers, the director of operations, the four of us met over a lively lunch and discussed everything from strategy, funding, policy, procedure, Costa Rican research models, Northwestern University studies, and yes, the food.

This is an exciting, one-of-a-kind project, and it's going on right in our backyard. Still in its infancy it has accomplished much. Dick Van Dyke, 84 years strong, is donating his time and image to the foundation as its national spokesperson. The board of directors is an esteemed group, working hard to raise awareness about the foundation be it through fundraising, securing grants and, of course, research.

Adult stem cells are void of the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells and potentially show greater promise. Taken from your fat cells through liposuction, they are used to regenerate growth to damaged areas of your body. Imagine a day where you enter a doctor's office in a wheelchair with the ability to walk out unassisted. Plus, you might lose 10 pounds in the process! Space limitations prevent me from going on. You will see donation possibilities from me in the future. Now, about the food.

Palomino, while not an independent restaurant, is one of the best in Indianapolis for a business lunch. I had the grouper, swimming in a savory broth mixed with vegetables, legumes, and perhaps a hint of pancetta. The others enjoyed sea scallops nestled on a bed of spinach and drizzled with pine nuts. Quality food and a favorite of locals and out-of-towners alike. This place is always a worth visit.

Thanks for letting me vent and spread awareness today. For more information, visit www.celltherapyfoundation.org and www.palomino.com. 45 W. Maryland St., Indianapolis.

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