ILNews

IBA: IndyBar's First Women's Symposium Exceeds Goals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Area lawyers gathered to attend the Women, Law & Leadership Symposium, hosted by the IndyBar Women and Law Division (WLD) on October 5 and 6, 2011 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel and Conference Center in downtown Indianapolis.

The day-and-a-half-long event marked the WLD’s 25th Anniversary. For twenty-five years, WLD has worked to promote the advancement of women in the Indianapolis legal community by providing a variety of educational, networking, and philanthropic engagements and opportunities.
 

wld-photo-1-15col.jpg An enthusiastic crowd gathered to kick off the IndyBar’s first Women’s Symposium at its opening reception at the Crowne Plaza Indianapolis.

The event opened with a reception and dinner on October 5. The dinner featured Martha S. West, Professor Emerita from University of California-Davis, as keynote speaker. Professor West’s address was titled “Choices and Changes.” Her remarks on reproductive decision-making kept the audience buzzing the following day. Also at the dinner, WLD presented its annual Antoinette Dakin Leach award to the Honorable Margret Robb. Judge Robb, who was recently appointed Chief Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, impressed the audience with an inspiring address in which she remarked on the early hardships faced by women in law and the demonstrable progress that has been made in recent years.

On October 6, the Symposium began with a Table Topics breakfast, during which attendees enjoyed breakfast while participating in discussions on several timely self-improvement topics. The conference attendees next participated in a plenary session titled “Building Your Success,” featuring three panels composed almost entirely of past Antoinette Dakin Leach award winners. First, Ann Delaney, Monica Foster, and the Honorable Denise LaRue provided insight and guidance on personally defining success. Second, Abigail Kuzma, the Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, and Myra Selby discussed the importance of mentoring and advised regarding finding mentors and navigating the mentor-mentee relationship. Third, Deborah Daniels, Francina Dlouhy, and Heather Wilson relayed insightful and practical advice about how the attendees can brand and market themselves to improve their business development proficiency.



wld-photo-5-15col.jpg Lawyers from a variety of practice areas and practice environments packed the meeting rooms to learn about a broad spectrum of topics.

At mid-day, attendees gathered for the Symposium’s “Leadership Luncheon” featuring Roberta Liebenberg, a senior partner at Fine Kaplan and Black, RPC in Philadelphia and the immediate past chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession. In her remarks, Ms. Liebenberg detailed how, despite comprising nearly 50 percent of law school student bodies for many years, the number of women in leadership roles in law firms continues to lag far behind men due to what she described as “implicit bias” that impacts many areas of law firm decision-making. Ms. Liebenberg shared with the audience her views on how organizations can begin to eradicate implicit bias as well as specific strategies to help women lawyers advance in law firms and other workplace settings.


wld-photo-2web-1col.jpg (Left) Christi Anderson, Shannon Landreth, Whitney Mosby, Meg Christensen all of Bingham McHale and Debi Edwards of Heritage Environmental Services enjoy an evening of networking and camaraderie.

Following lunch, the Symposium offered attendees their choice of CLE break-out sessions. Among the timely topics covered in the afternoon sessions was “Diversity as a Competitive Advantage,” featuring the nationally recognized legal scholar William Henderson. Marion County judges, Hon. Cale Bradford, Hon. Sheila Carlisle, and Hon. Heather Welch presented “In the Courtroom: Advice from the Bench.” A panel of five lawyers, including Indiana Department of Labor Commissioner Lori Torres, presented “Human Trafficking: Closer to Home Than You Think.” A total of eight sessions led by panels of well-known lawyers from the Indianapolis legal community comprised the afternoon’s program.

The Symposium Planning Committee was pleased to receive sponsorship funding from its Gold Sponsor, Ice Miller LLP, and Silver Sponsors Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer and DeLaney & DeLaney LLC. Bronze sponsors included Baker & Daniels, Frank Law, Krieg DeVault, LewisWagner LLP, Spotlight Strategies, and Stewart & Irwin PC. Due to the generosity of several organizations, nine law students and recent law school graduates received scholarships that permitted them to attend the Symposium free of charge.


wld-photo-4web-1col.jpg Carol Nemeth Joven of Price Waicukauski & Riley and Christina Clark of Baker & Daniels congratulate The Hon. Margret Robb, Chief Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, 2011 recipient of the IndyBar Women and the Law Division’s Antoinette Dakin Leach Award.

One Symposium presenter, Jim Dimos, partner at Frost Brown Todd, stated that he “enjoyed having the opportunity to participate in the conference. It was well done and I hope that the Division feels it was successful – from my perspective it certainly was.” Frank Law owner Leona Frank reflected that the Symposium “was amazing. The program descriptions did not do justice to the level of speaker and the phenomenal content.”

WLD’s goal in presenting the Symposium was to provide thought-provoking educational programs and an arena for area lawyers to come together to establish new relationships and strengthen existing ones. Thanks to the contributions and support of the dedicated members of the Symposium Planning Committee, the WLD Executive Committee, the IndyBar staff, the Symposium Sponsors, and the myriad of speakers, WLD’s goals were met and exceeded.•

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