ILNews

Indiana State Bar Association launches wellness committee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Incoming Indiana State Bar President C. Erik Chickedantz is asking lawyers to get active as part of a new statewide initiative to promote health and personal well-being in the legal profession.

Chickedantz has appointed Donald R. Lundberg, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and former executive secretary of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, as chairman of the bar’s new Standing Committee on Wellness. Terry L. Harrell, executive director of the Supreme Court’s Judges & Lawyers Assistance Program, will serve as vice chair.

“There is something about lawyering that is especially stressful, and for many of us, our commitment to an active lifestyle is the first to go amidst pressures at work and busy schedules," Chickedantz said. “With the State Bar spearheading healthy activities at lawyer functions, we aim to educate the legal community about ways to incorporate healthy lifestyle changes.”

The new committee will encourage positive lifestyle changes such as increased physical activity, healthier eating and tobacco cessation.

“The ISBA is committed to lawyers – not just lawyers as law-practicing automatons, but as real people who need to feel good about themselves,” Lundberg said. “We hope the Wellness Committee will be a catalyst for a new focus on a healthy legal profession and a resource for lawyers to stand out as leaders for healthier communities where they live and work.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2008 Indiana had the second highest cigarette-smoking rate in the country. The CDC also reports that in 2009, only eight states had obesity rates higher than Indiana’s.

The committee will officially kick things off at the ISBA Annual Meeting in French Lick with a 5K Run/Walk on Oct. 21. To find out more about the ISBA’s wellness initiative and for a schedule of upcoming activities, contact the ISBA at 1-800-266-2581.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT