ILNews

IndyBar: Headliners to take the podium at IndyBar Applied Professionalism Course

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

No more final exams. The Indiana Bar Exam is a fuzzy memory. The final piece of the puzzle will come in a required Applied Professionalism Course offered by the Indianapolis Bar Association on Thursday, April 24.

Newly minted attorneys are required to take this course on professionalism and civility within their first three years of practice. The IndyBar’s Young Lawyers Division has assembled a stellar group of presenters who will make the day-long program both engaging and interactive, with breakout sessions catering to both large- and small-firm practitioners.

Registration is available now at indybar.org/events for the April session. Space fills up quickly. The course can also be taken for six hours of ethics credit instead of the APC credit.
 

iba-apcphoto-15col.jpg A sold-out crowd absorbed wisdom imparted by speakers during the “If I Knew Then What I Know Now” session at the Spring 2013 Applied Professionalism Course.

The sessions will be held at the IndyBar Education Center from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The cost is $75 for IndyBar Members and $150 for Non-Members.

Distinguished speakers piloting the sessions will include: Hon. Tim A. Baker, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana; and Hon. Denise K. LaRue, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, will lead a discussion on professionalism and civility in a sometimes-uncivil world.

Alan A. Bouwkamp, Newton Becker Bouwkamp Pendoski PC; Margaret M. Christensen, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP and M. Kent Newton, Newton Becker Bouwkamp Pendoski PC, will speak on the Top 10 Reasons You Meet the Disciplinary Commission.

Chuck P. Schmal, Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP and Brian K. Zoeller, Cohen & Malad LLP, will speak on the role that support staff plays in the success of an attorney’s career.

“If I Knew Then What I Know Now” will feature a panel discussion to include Kevin P. McGoff, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP and Marci A. Reddick, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

A. Scott Chinn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP and Amanda L. Shelby, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, will share tips on how to survive in a large firm while Commissioner Jason G. Reyome, Marion Superior Court and Patrick J. Olmstead Jr., Patrick Olmstead Law LLC will tackle the small firm angle.

Presentations on trust accounts and IOLTA and on the Judges’ & Lawyers’ Assistance Program also will be part of the agenda.

Attorneys in their first three-year educational period must take a six-hour Applied Professionalism Course, according to Admission and Discipline Rule 29 and the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education. Participants must attend this course in its entirety to receive Applied Professionalism Course credit.•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT