ILNews

IBA Frontlines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seeking Volunteers for IndyBar Committees

The Standing Committees of the Bar and several bar initiatives are in need of the energy and intellect of the members of the Bar. Specifically, the groups seeking volunteers are as follows: Standing Committee on Pro Bono, Legal Services Advisory Committee, Professionalism Committee, Diversity Job Fair Steering Committee, Publications Committee, Lawyers Assistance Committee, Indianapolis Bar Foundation Dinner/Auction Committee, Indianapolis Bar Foundation Golf Outing Committee, Legislative Committee, and Membership Committee.

To volunteer email Julie Armstrong at jarmstrong@indybar.org or call 269-2000 to speak with her. Interested volunteers may also contact 2011 Indianapolis Bar Association President Mike Hebenstreit at mjh@whzlaw.com

IBF Scholarship Deadline Extended

Don’t miss out on a scholarship opportunity from the Indianapolis Bar Foundation! The deadline for 2010/2011 academic and educational scholarships has been extended until October 29, 2010. Go to www.indybar.org for the application and additional information.

Birch Bayh Federal Courthouse Renovations Under Way

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has advised that major renovations within the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Indianapolis are causing changes in the locations of judges’ chambers, courtroom closures, elevator shutdowns, and blockages of public corridors.

Attorneys are advised to pay careful attention to notices issued by the court so that they stay apprised of changes to locations of conferences, hearings, and trials. The court recommends that attorneys allow a few extra moments when arriving at the courthouse to navigate around the areas under construction and verify that they have the most up-to-date information regarding the location of their court business.

Questions regarding the location of business scheduled before the court should be directed to the District Court Clerk’s Office at (317) 229-3700 for assistance.

The construction is in conjunction with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and will result in installation of new fire and life safety systems, new heating and cooling systems, and a more energy efficient courthouse. The project will be conducted in phases and is expected to be completed in late summer 2012.

Supreme Court Approves Changes to Advertising Rule

The Indiana Supreme Court amended attorney conduct rules to prevent lawyers from contacting accident victims immediately after an accident. the changes include an amendment to Rule 7.3(b)(3). This provision prohibits attorneys from making in-person, written or electronic solicitations in cases involving personal injury or wrongful death within 30 days of an accident or disaster. The order states, “This restriction is reasonably required by the sensitized state of the potential clients, who may be either injured or grieving over the loss of a family member, and the abuses that experience has shown exist in this type of solicitation.” The changes will take effect on January 1, 2011. For more information visit the Indiana Supreme Court’s website.

Save the Date: IBA/IBF Recognition Luncheon

Mark your calendar for Wednesday, November 10, when the IndyBar and the Indianapolis Bar Foundation will honor many deserving local practitioners at the IBA/IBF Recognition Luncheon, to be held from noon to 1:30 p.m. at the Conrad Indianapolis. Stay tuned for announcements on this year’s award recipients, and register online for the luncheon at www.indybar.org.•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT