IBA: It's Safe to Ask for Help

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Whether you are a sole practitioner or an attorney in a 200 attorney law firm, you have probably had a question at some point in your career that you struggled to answer – or perhaps you simply wanted a second opinion. Members of the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Senior Counsel Division Executive Committee have walked in those shoes, and as a result they offer a Safe Ask program.

The purpose of the Safe Ask program is to provide an option for IndyBar attorney members to seek confidential guidance and information from members of the IndyBar’s Senior Counsel Division (SCD) online or by phone. The sole goal of the program is to assist IndyBar members in providing high quality and ethical legal services to their clients.

“I recently fielded a Safe Ask from a young lawyer who had been put in a very tough spot by another member of his firm. He was very appreciative of the ability to talk confidentially with someone about the situation and praised the program,” said Jeffrey Meunier, a member of the Senior Counsel Division and Safe Ask Panel Member.

Since the practice of law is an art, there is usually no one “best” method to resolve a legal issue. Therefore, the assistance given by members of the IndyBar’s Senior Counsel Division should be considered as a recommended approach and not as a guarantee that it will obtain the desired results. Users of the program are advised to exercise their independent judgment in deciding upon their course of action.

Meunier noted, “Though we don’t get a high volume of calls, it is obviously provides an extremely valuable service.”

All communications remain confidential to the extent there is not a violation of the Rule of Professional Conduct (see Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct). To utilize the Safe Ask program IndyBar members simply telephone or e-mail a member of the Safe Ask panel. If e-mailing, please type IBA Safe Ask in the subject line of the e-mail. Those serving on the panel are Raymond Good, John Herrin Jr., Paul Kortepeter, Claire Lewis, John Render, Robert York, and Jeffrey Meunier. The full listing with contact information may be found on the IndyBar website,

If there is a concern about a Rule 8.3 violation, attorneys are encouraged to instead address those concerns to the highly capable members of the Indiana State Bar Association Ethics Committee.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well