Government

camera.002-2col.jpg

Supreme Court, Legislature leave police body camera statute as is

January 11, 2017
Prosecutors say releasing police video will violate Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.More.

Indiana settles with securities firm over agent who ran Ponzi scheme

January 20, 2017
The state has reached a $275,000 settlement with NYLife Securities LLC over the activities of an Indiana wealth manager who killed himself in 2013 while being investigated for operating a Ponzi scheme that took millions of dollars from dozens of investors.More.

GOP lawmaker targets protesters obstructing traffic

January 19, 2017
An Indiana lawmaker says disturbing newscasts of chaotic and sometimes violent protests across the U.S. helped lead him to propose a bill that would direct police to use "any means necessary" to breakup mass gatherings that block traffic.More.

Consumer agency accuses Navient of 'systematically' cheating borrowers

January 19, 2017
Navient Corp. has been sued by a U.S. regulator over allegations that the student loan giant “systematically” cheated borrowers.More.

Attorney General Hill names executive staff

January 18, 2017
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has announced key appointments to fill out his executive staff as he becomes the state’s top lawyer.More.
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good argument can be made that voices in the first century were more dedicated to diversity and inclusion than even these uber progressive Indy-based legal eagles. Pioneers like Stan, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

  2. The origination numbers are in IL's more factually based, viewpoint neutral Oct. 14 article, and show that women partners' pay is 38.1% of their originations. For men, it's only 36.6%. To the extent origination isn't credited fairly, that should be addressed. But overall the split seems equitable, especially considering associates take home something like 20-25% of the revenue from their billable hours. To express a more cynical point: to many, elitist lawyer millionaires debating how unfair things are because, even though the numbers look totally equitable on their face, there might possibly be some latent gender bias that's holding down women law partners' half a million dollar salaries by a few bucks is sickening. This is especially true when people also see lawyers (fairly or not) as the folks that are helping companies ship jobs overseas, ship taxable income overseas through inversions, being smart arses who make it a point to act combative and intimidating (and not just at work), and as totally unaffordable. Sure, perhaps in a bias-free world you could make a little more money and buy a fourth BMW or take yet another trip to Europe. But we should probably forgive those who are unsympathetic to an insistence on rigid notions of income equality among law firm partners.

  3. Bravo to Julie King's reply ... took the words right out of my mouth. I have seen more and more attorneys using the title "Corporate Risk Officer" or Executive Risk Officer" rather than Corporate Counsel. I like the two former titles better than Corporate Counsel. For example,I found that Corporate Risk Officer is less threatening to outside other attorneys, business executives and others I would need to deal with to resolve business or legal related problems or to prevent risks to the corporation which may cause litigation and the need for expensive outside counsel. My duties broadened due to my need to interact with nearly every level personnel to prevent those foreseeable but unassuming risks which result in loss of revenue, impeding business progress, needless turn-over or retraining of personnel, intervention of government in business activity, taint of the company's reputation and wasted outside litigation fees and costs. due to litigation. Had I not had an "open door policy" the daily business and operational information I learned being exposed to all echelons of the business activity and personnel I would not have been able to act with celerity to prevent the risks to the corporation it would have resulted in serious loss revenue, increased the compliance cost and scrutiny to the operations of the business and killed business progress in key areas of the market targeted for expansion.

ADVERTISEMENT