ILNews

IBA: A 'Safe Ask' is Just a Phone Call Away

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Robert W. York, Robert W. York & Associates

york-robert.jpg York

On January 26, 2006, the then members of the Executive Committee of the Seniors Lawyers Division (later renamed the Senior Counsel Division): Justice Brent Dickson; Bob York; Bob Geddes; Phil Genetos; Ray Good and John Render, met for the Division’s organizational meeting and discussed the direction that should be taken to accomplish the directive from Indianapolis Bar Association President Judge Cynthia Ayers that the Division undertake a significant initiative for the advancement of the IndyBar, its members and the practice of law.

Following the addition of Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Judge Margret G. Robb to the Committee, discussion ensued over several months as to the development of a program which would provide a resource for members of the IndyBar to obtain guidance and information from experienced attorneys intended to assist them in providing quality and ethical legal services to their clients.

At the recommendation of Judge Barker, the Committee determined that the nomenclature, “Safe Ask,” would properly describe the program’s purpose and would encourage potential users to believe that they could be safe in asking questions that would aid them and their clients.

With respect to the implementation of the program, the Committee determined that:

For conflicts check purposes – the responder should first determine whether the inquiry involves a matter in which the responder is involved.
ask-factbox.gif It was important to receive a safe question. For example, because the provisions of Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct require the reporting of a known violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the inquirer should be informed to frame their inquiry accordingly.

Responders should avoid the temptation to try to “solve” the inquirer’s case and instead should provide their best advice while reminding the inquirer that: since the practice of law is an art, there is usually no one “best” method to resolve a legal issue; that the advice given should be considered as a recommended approach and not as a guarantee that it will obtain the desired results; and, that the inquirer should exercise his or her independent judgment in deciding upon their course of action.

In the event the responder is unable to frame a proper response, the inquirer should be referred to another source, such as the Indiana State Bar Association Ethics Committee, which has been designated by the Supreme Court to provide advice on ethics issues.

The Safe Ask program should be made available to all IndyBar members and should utilize the IndyBar’s Website at www.indybar.org. A member wanting a response to a question may access the “Member Benefits” section of the site and then send an email by using the “Safe Ask” section of the site. Depending upon the nature of the question and the member’s indication, the question will be answered confidentially by email or telephone, or, if the question does not require confidentiality, will be forwarded to the Safe Ask Panel for responses as they choose.

The disclaimer approved by the Committee should be posted on the website.

Members of the initial Safe Ask Panel were: Robert W. York, Robert W. York & Associates; John C. Render, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman; Ronald L. Dyer, Elder Law Attorney; Terrill D. Albright, Baker & Daniels; Donald L. Centers, Hannon, Hutton & Associates; Robert W. Geddes, Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons; Philip C. Genetos, Ice Miller; Raymond Good, Lewis & Kappes; John Q. Herrin, Drewry Simmons Vornehm; Paul F. Kortepeter, Sommer & Barnard; and, Michael J. Rusnak, Harrison & Moberly.

In the intervening years, panel members have responded to a broad array of questions involving procedural, discovery and evidentiary issues as well as conflicts with a court, with clients, with opposing counsel and within a law firm.

The Safe Ask program has been and will continue to be a valuable resource for IndyBar members and all are encouraged to contact any of the current panel members listed on the IndyBar’s website, knowing in advance that they can safely ask any question.•

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT