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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?