ILNews

IBA: Nod to Professionalism

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

cline-lance-mug.jpg Lance Cline Cline Farrell Christie & Lee
pinnick-jon-mug.jpg Jon Pinnick Schultz & Pogue LLP

The Indianapolis Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Professionalism seeks to promote positive images of lawyers throughout the Indianapolis community and within our bar. To this end, we acknowledge local practitioners who exemplify professionalism and civility. At the recommendation of a Marion Superior Court Judge, the Committee extends a Nod to Professionalism to Jon Pinnick of Schultz & Pogue and Lance Cline of Cline Farrell Christie & Lee for their exceptional professionalism and advocacy in a complex and lengthy medical malpractice jury trial.

According to Mr. Cline, attorneys should focus on three tenets of professionalism at trial: (1) The golden rule – and be serious about this; (2) Remember we are all officers of the court – we have equal responsibilities to the court, its staff, and opposing counsel; and (3) Preparedness for trial. Mr. Pinnick echoes these sentiments and stresses that preparedness of counsel is “everything.”

This past August, Mr. Cline and Mr. Pinnick embodied each of these tenets of professionalism during an complex and lengthy jury trial involving over 20 witnesses, most of whom were expert witnesses. Both attorneys earned the trust of their peers, the jury, and the court through their preparedness, professionalism, and civility to each other. Despite arguing disputed evidentiary questions, both attorneys remained calm and respectful throughout the litigation. The judge commented that both Mr. Pinnick and Mr. Cline handled evidentiary objections professionally, direct and cross examination of witnesses professionally, and made their arguments to the bench or to the jurors and did not argue with each other or lose their professionalism or civility throughout the two-week jury trial. The judge commented that she wished that she could have videotaped this trial to play to young or inexperienced attorneys to demonstrate that attorneys can be professional and respectful of each other and still represent their client.

The jury expressed to the judge how much they enjoyed both attorneys and wondered if all attorneys were as competent, professional, and civil as Mr. Pinnick and Mr. Cline. Both attorneys embodied the ideals of professionalism and civility and as a result eight citizens/jurors left with a positive imagine of attorneys in the Indianapolis community. This trial demonstrates that attorneys who conduct themselves with civility and professionalism are the most effective advocates for their clients.

The Standing Committee on Professionalism compliments attorneys Jon Pinnick and Lance Cline for their exemplary example of professionalism and civility at its best.•

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT