ILNews

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 www.indybenchbar.org.

“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.•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT