ILNews

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 explained.legal-education-facts.jpg

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.•

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