ILNews

Indiana State Bar Association celebrates diversity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hundreds of attorneys and judges converged on Indianapolis recently, attending the annual meeting of the Indiana State Bar Association.

The annual conference at the Marriott and Convention Center in downtown Indianapolis offered multiple educational sessions Oct. 13-15, while the ISBA’s House of Delegates heard reports from its various committees and other related legal entities about the progress in the past year. Though no specific new or old business came up for a vote this year, the ISBA welcomed its new president and saw firsthand the culmination of attorney advertising rule revisions its leadership had approved four years ago.

This year’s theme for the meeting was “Diversity in the Legal Profession: The Next Steps,” and most of the committee reports and the conference sessions had diversity themes – such as the immigration and family law seminars, an access to justice session, and appellate practice sessions.
 

Morgan Indianapolis attorney Roderick Morgan finished his term as the Indiana State Bar Association president Oct. 15, after a year of promoting diversity within the profession. Part of his duties included an awards luncheon where he handed out honors. (Photo submitted)

At the annual presidents’ dinner, Justice Peggy A. Quince of the Florida Supreme Court was the keynote speaker. She served as the state court’s chief justice from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2010, and was a part of the court during the historic presidential election and re-count in 2000 that led to the landmark Bush v. Gore case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Like it or not, this is a diverse country and it’s getting more diverse by the day,” she said, noting that it’s important to keep the topic of diversity in regular conversations. “Diversity gets a lot of lip service, but it’s slow to happen. We all have biases and prejudices, so we must try to make sure they don’t spill over into our judging and lawyering. The only way to ensure that is to stay aware of it and attending trainings to discuss diversity.”

Echoing what Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert D. Rucker discussed at the appellate practice session earlier that day, Justice Quince said it’s important to recognize the key reasons for diversity: democracy, business, leadership, and demographics.

She said it’s important to recognize diversity in all corners of the legal community, from minorities to how non-minorities perceive diversity when it’s practiced. The Florida justice talked about a friend who’s an African-American judge, and had a black bailiff, black prosecutor, and black public defender in the courtroom.

“How do you think a white person in that courtroom might feel when their life, liberty, or property is at stake?” she asked. “That’s not diversity.”

Terre Haute attorney Jeffry A. Lind with firm Fleschner Stark Tanoos & Newlin took over as president from Indianapolis attorney Roderick Morgan, who had just finished his term as the ISBA’s first African-American president. At that same luncheon where he was installed, Lind recognized Indiana Bar Foundation executive director Chuck Dunlap and made a contribution equal to one billable hour for the IBF’s “An Hour for Civics” fundraising campaign.

That donation followed an earlier House of Delegates report from Dunlap about the past year’s financial struggles that have left the IBF in dire straights. He told bar association leaders that the historically low interest rates have hit Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts hard and created problems funding pro bono and related programs statewide.

An annual report submitted at the House of Delegates meeting shows that IOLTA income has gone from $3 million to $1.5 million in recent years, to $670,000 for 2011.

That translates into a drastic reduction in what the state’s Pro Bono Districts can operate on, according to the report. Grants totaled $1.69 million last year and for 2010 they totaled $1.57 million, and the 2011 requests of $1.41 million has been reduced to about $1 million. But only $427,000 is available to distribute from IOLTA revenues, the report shows.

Any shortfall must be addressed by the IOLTA reserve fund of $1.9 million, but the Indiana Supreme Court has set a guideline limiting use of the fund in any given year to 20 percent of the balance. The organization leadership asked Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard for permission to exceed that amount so that 25 percent of the reserve balance could be used, providing about $175,000 in additional funding. The Supreme Court approved that request.

But even with that, more money was needed and that’s when those at the ISBA meeting heard more good news for the Bar Foundation.

Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum president Linda Meier announced at the delegates meeting that the ICLEF governing board had agreed to give $100,000 to the Indiana Bar Foundation. She said the money is unrestricted, meaning it can be used on any of the IBF initiatives such as pro bono or civil education programs and services.

Though the IBF still likely faces a shortfall, it can use carry-over funding from some of the districts to help fill the hole. The IBF expects that it will request reconsideration in July 2011 if interest rates improve, but the IBF does expect some “unavoidable reductions” in personnel because of the economic picture.

The House of Delegates also made mention of revisions to Indiana Professional Conduct Rules approved by the Supreme Court, tweaking the attorney advertising rules for the first time in about a generation. The ISBA leadership had studied that issue in 2006 and sent proposed revisions to the court that year, and Chief Justice Shepard said the court had waited to announce these changes until the annual meeting where it all began.•

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT