IBA: Twentieth Bench Bar Conference Features In-House Counsel Track

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While litigators and judges have long sung the praises of the IndyBar’s annual Bench Bar conference, opportunities for transactional attorneys have historically been more limited at the event. It’s appropriate, then, that the 20th Anniversary of the Bench Bar Conference is being celebrated by welcoming even more Indy practitioners to the table with the addition of programming designed especially for in-house counsel.

The 2013 Bench Bar Conference, to be held June 13-15, at the Mariott Downtown in Louisville, Ky., offers a total of 18 different CLE sessions, with five of those sessions included in the new In-House Counsel Track developed by the 2013 Bench Bar Conference Committee. The committee is chaired by the Hon. Robert Altice and Annie Christ-Garcia of Marion Superior Court.

“The IndyBar recognized what seemed to be an underserved segment of the bar and dedicated itself to providing programming that was not just oriented to attorneys that practice in law firms, but programing geared for attorneys that practice the widest of spectrums, ‘in-house’ for clients whose needs are as varied as the law itself,” says Andy Klineman, Senior Legal Counsel at the Buckingham Companies and member of the Bench Bar Conference Committee. “But what is more, the programming, while substantive and contemporary, is really the impetus for getting away from the daily routine and provides an outlet to share ideas with others who have the same professional perspective.”

Well suited for both in-house and transactional attorneys within firms, the In-House Counsel Track covers a wide variety of topics and represents some of the most innovative programming during this year’s conference. See below for a sneak peek of the track programs and register online for the conference at

“Under Attack!” Handling Physical and Cyber Threats in the Workplace

Speakers: Lynn M. Gagel, Associate General Counsel, Roche Diagnostics; John Trimble, Partner, Lewis Wagner LLP (Moderator); Sam Laurin, Partner, Bose McKinney & Evans; Peter Beering, Beering Enterprises, Inc.; Anne Cowgur, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister; and Former Marion Superior Court Judge Ruth Reichard

Join us to learn what all attorneys, whether in private practice, government, judiciary or in-house, should know about how to respond swiftly to the imminent threat of workplace violence or cyber sabotage by disgruntled or mentally ill customers, clients, employees, or other members of the public.

Learn how to assess the level and urgency of the threat, obtain protective or restraining orders, create internal procedures for emergency events, how to combat against Internet-based attacks or misinformation, and how to advise clients on key security issues. Our panel of experts will also discuss the legal liabilities faced by businesses to their employees, guests, and customers for injuries caused by attackers.

Indiana Employment Law Esoterica: Ten Things (and more) Every Indiana Employer Needs to Know, But Probably Doesn’tiba sponsors

Speaker:Paul Sinclair, Partner, Ice Miller LLP

Do Indiana employers have to allow female employees to breastfeed at work? Do Indiana employers have to allow employees to bring guns to work? Can Indiana employers require their employees to quit smoking as a condition of employment? Get answers to these and many more important questions as we explore Indiana Employment Law Esoterica: 10 Things (and more) Every Indiana Employer Needs to Know, But Probably Doesn’t.

The Clownfish and the Sea Anemone: The Keys to a Symbiotic Relationship

Panel: Andy Klineman, General Counsel, The Buckingham Companies; Kris Altice, General Counsel, Shiel Sexton Co., Inc.; 2 other GCs/in-house; Drew Miroff, Partner, Ice Miller LLP, Moderator

The panel of in-house counsel will discuss the various ways that outside counsel can and do add value to their clients, as well as essentials to an effective outside counsel relationship.

Is This a Privileged Communication?

Speaker: Doug Richmond, Esq., Managing Partner, AON Risk Services Professional Services Group, Chicago, Ill.

Attend this interactive session as we explore the fundamentals and nuances of the attorney/client privilege and its application in the corporate counsel setting, including issues such as who is the client(s), what communications are privileged (or not!), who holds and may waive the privilege, how to ensure your intended communications are afforded the most protection as possible and many other issues.•


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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues