ILNews

IndyBar: Let’s Get Ready to Rumble: IndyBar to Host Election Law Debate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

chinn-scott-bw-iba.jpg Chinn
bock-bill-bw-iba.jpg Bock

Introducing first, in this corner, we have Bill Bock, hailing from Kroger Gardis & Regas, representing such heavy hitters as the United States Anti-Doping Agency. And his opponent, a partner of the Faegre Baker Daniels firm, is Scott Chinn, legal advisor to Indy political stars and public officials alike.

These two heavyweights of the Indy legal community will square off in a head-to-head debate on one of the most hotly contested topics of our day: election law. Keeping the fight clean will be Brian Bosma, partner at Kroger Gardis & Regas and Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives.

Catch this clash of the titans on Friday, September 6, at the Columbia Club as the IndyBar Government Practice section hosts “Head to Head: The IndyBar Election Law Debate.” Designed to highlight the vastly differing opinions on this polarizing topic while showcasing legal professionalism, Bock and Chinn will debate various election law issues, including the Voting Rights Act, voter identification laws, redistricting and early voting.

Members of both sides of the political aisle will have the opportunity to continue the conversation at a complimentary reception to immediately follow the debate, which includes 1.0 General CLE Credit. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to see a fun and open examination of these hot-button issues, as well as a chance to be reminded that legal professionalism is still going strong. Register online at www.indybar.org.•

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT