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. 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