Indiana State Bar Association to produce more CLE

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On Jan. 17, the board of directors for the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum bid farewell to four board members. Three were Indiana State Bar Association delegates; one was the Indiana Bar Foundation delegate.

But leaders from all three organizations say it’s nothing personal – no bad blood, no hard feelings.

“This is not anything we sprung on them at the last minute or anything, this is the result of discussions that have been going on informally for at least two years,” said ICLEF president Mark McNeely.

ISBA president C. Erik Chickedantz explained that the change in ICLEF’s board leadership is not an acrimonious split.

chickedantz-erik-mug.jpg Chickedantz

“I don’t think there’s a dispute, a rift or anything like that,” Chickedantz said. “I think both boards have decided we’re not going to be as connected as we were in the past.”

Changing priorities

Last fall at its annual meeting, the ISBA board voted to change its policies to allow sections and committees of the state bar more freedom to produce their own CLE programs.

mcneely-mark-mug.jpg McNeely

Until October 2011, the ISBA had an unwritten policy, Chickedantz explained, requiring sections that produce CLE programs that were three hours or longer to first offer the opportunity to produce the program to ICLEF. “If ICLEF wanted to, they took it over, and if they didn’t, the sections did it on their own,” he said.

With the policy change, sections and committees no longer have to give ICLEF the first shot at producing CLEs that are three hours or longer.

Chickedantz said the state bar also previously had an unwritten policy that in its publication Res Gestae, it would not accept advertisements from ICLEF competitors. That also changed in October.

Scott King, program director for ICLEF, said the state bar did inform ICLEF leadership of the impending change.

“That surprised us, and quite frankly, we were disappointed to see they wanted to move into CLE in that fashion,” King said.

New relationship

In January, the state bar announced it had hired a new CLE director, an indication of the state bar’s intention to produce more of its own CLE programs, McNeely said.

“They issued a letter to us in September saying we are competitors at this point, and it’s hard to have competitors be on your board of directors,” he said. Since that time, ICLEF had planned to eliminate those board positions.

“And in October, we gave them the opportunity to do this gracefully, and they declined,” McNeely

Carissa Long, assistant director of communications for the ISBA, said that the state bar felt that until ICLEF changed its bylaws, the state bar delegates had a fiduciary duty to attend ICLEF board meetings.

Charles Dunlap, executive director of the Indiana Bar Foundation, said he understood the rationale behind ICLEF removing the foundation’s delegate to the board.

“We haven’t taken this as a slap in the face,” he said, adding that ICLEF is housed in the same building and is the bar foundation’s largest tenant. “From our standpoint, this didn’t really affect our relationship.”

King said he could not predict how the ISBA’s decision to produce more of its own CLE would affect ICLEF revenue. The two organizations, King said, have not shared in profits or revenue and are financially independent of each other.

“Obviously, we’ll still support ICLEF. They are the primary CLE provider in the state of Indiana, and I’m assuming they’ll continue to be,” Chickedantz said.•


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. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well