ILNews

IndyBar: Straight Talk Straight from the Top

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Members of the current IndyBar Board of Directors discuss their roles, responsibilities and also offer advice to those considering serving on the board in 2015. Today’s edition features Magistrate Jason Reyome of Marion Superior Court and Thomas Barnard of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, who both serve as At-Large board members.

Here’s what they had to say about their position on the board and what others considering nomination should expect.

“Wallflowers need not apply”

Magistrate Jason Reyome, Marion Superior Court

Board position: At-Large Member

Board member: 5 years

IndyBar member: 17 years

What does an At-Large member do?
 

reyome-jason-iba.jpg Reyome

I attend monthly board meetings, meetings of the members and I also try to attend as many section events as I can. As Board Liaison to the Criminal Justice Section and the ADR Section, I offer a direct line of communication to the board for the sections I serve. Generally, I work to further the IndyBar mission: to serve our members, promote justice and enhance the legal profession.

Describe the board in a few words: Extremely organized, efficient and effective.

What piece of advice would you give to those considering joining the board?

I would share a modified version of the advice I was given when first asked to serve: Wallflowers need not apply. The current board members are active and engaged. Service on the board can be a lot of work, but it is well worth it. IndyBar staff and our executive director are fantastic. Let them help you. If you have questions, ask. If you have ideas, develop and share them.

Why should someone want to be on the board?

The applicants selected will have the opportunity to collaborate and develop lifelong friendships with some of the most interesting and talented people in the Indianapolis legal community.



“Go for it!”
Thomas Barnard, Partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Board position: At-Large Member

Board member: Two years

IndyBar member: 34 years

What does an At-Large member do?


barnard-thomas-iba.jpg Barnard

Prepare for, attend and participate in monthly board meetings, as well as respond to interim issues involving board consideration (such as potential amicus briefs and legislative proposals).

What will you miss most about being on the board?

Witnessing and being a part of the collective intelligence and wisdom of the IndyBar staff and board members. All of us, as members of IndyBar and the Indiana Bar in general, should be proud of the diligence, sincerity and creative tenacity of this board. Without exception, I have departed each board meeting feeling enriched, having heard some of Indiana’s most respected judges, attorneys and executive staff share ideas and insights. I have been particularly impressed with the leadership and inclusiveness of the board, where difficult issues facing the legal profession, bar organizations and the general public are addressed with the benefit of experience, intelligence and compassion. Every board member’s viewpoint is respected and valued, and this culture encourages

iba-board-sidebar082714.jpg

 productive discussion. In addition, board members are constantly invited to think outside the box and consider cutting edge technologies, embrace new perspectives on service delivery and strive for new and increasing value for IndyBar members.

What piece of advice would you give to those considering joining the board?

Go for it! The board contains a unique combination of history, innovation and stability. You will value your time on the board, and the board will value your time.

Why should someone want to be on the board?

Where else can you witness a nationally renowned executive staff assist some of our state’s leading judges and attorneys discuss and take positions on some of the most pressing issues affecting our beloved profession? If you want to make a positive difference in your own practice while also enriching the lives of fellow attorneys, there is no better place to start.

Any other info you’d like to share about Board of Directors?

I am very fortunate to have fostered and deepened friendships through my board experience.•

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT