ILNews

ISBA seeks mentors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

For attorneys who have practiced for a long time, it might be easy to forget what it was like right out of law school. No network – or at least nothing like the one they hopefully have a few years out; possibly no job; and possibly most important – likely no clue of what it really means to be a lawyer with little or no safety net if one does make a mistake.

While medium or large firms tend to have a formal or informal mentoring program for new associates, attorneys who have recently passed the bar but don’t have a built-in mentoring network at their firm, or have decided to hang a shingle as a solo, or prefer to have a mentor not at their firm may not have a mentor – yet.
 

mentor Kandi Hidde, left, has mentored Sonia Chen, right, since shortly after she joined Bingham McHale in Indianapolis. Chen said she appreciated just knowing Hidde is there if she needs her. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

To help them, and attorneys who have mentors at their employer but are looking for other mentors, the Indiana State Bar Association announced at the annual meeting on Oct. 15 that they will offer a structured mentoring program that would include six continuing legal education credits for the mentor and the mentee.

Attorneys who participate can receive the CLE credit either by having the ISBA pair them up, or by starting their own mentor-mentee relationship, as long as they follow the guidelines of the program and sign up through the ISBA, said Maryann Williams, director of section services for the ISBA.

Seasoned attorneys who are starting a new venture and would like guidance from someone with more experience in that area can also sign up to be paired with a mentor. However, mentors need to have at least five years of practice to sign up.

The curriculum must be completed within one year of entering into a mentoring agreement. The various requirements focus on professional development, civility, and ethics. By having mentors explain these concepts to new attorneys, the program will also affect how the new lawyers are perceived by and interact with the general public.

Specific requirements for the program – as well as the forms attorneys can fax or mail to the ISBA – are available on the ISBA’s website, www.inbar.org, under ISBA Links at the link for “Mentor Match.” Online applications will not be accepted but attorneys will get a response from the ISBA shortly after their mailed or faxed application is received, Williams said.

Within 30 days of signing the contract, the mentor and mentee will choose and report on how they will address the required topics in the coming year. Mentors will meet with their mentees at least six times in person, for a total of at least nine hours.

Activities suggested include for the mentor to introduce the mentee to the legal community and community at large, including introductions to attorneys and personnel at the mentor’s law firm and court staff; and other helpful information for the new attorney, including prison procedures, and how to get involved with local legal aid and pro bono agencies.

Mentors are also required to discuss substance abuse and mental health topics with their mentees.

To get the program started, the ISBA is seeking at least 500 attorneys as mentors and as of Oct. 21 they had about seven or eight, Williams said. Since the swearing in of new attorneys on Oct. 15, she has received seven or eight applications per day from new lawyers, and expects she’ll receive many more in the weeks to come.

She planned to start pairing up attorneys the week of Oct. 25.

She thinks more lawyers will sign up to be mentors when they learn more about the program and available CLE credit.
 

Inskeep Inskeep

“I think mentoring goes both ways,” Kenneth Inskeep, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis who was featured in the video to promote the Mentor Match program, told Indiana Lawyer.

The video, which features Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik, and retired Monroe Circuit Court Judge Viola Taliaferro, among others, is available online at http://vimeo.com/15774263.

“The best relationship is one where not only are you sharing your experience and knowledge after practicing for some period of time, but also includes the opportunity to learn what’s in the head of new lawyers as they start out,” Inskeep said. “Technology is ever evolving and attitudes are changing, so it’s helpful as a trial lawyer to stay connected to what people younger than me are thinking.”

He added mentoring is especially needed more now than ever, because lawyers aren’t as accessible to each other as they once were.

“It used to be you went to coffee shop on the town square, the lawyer hangout, and you could eavesdrop as the old codgers told tales of practicing law,” he said. “When you went to a different county, you’d get local counsel to help you because so much of it was very local and local lawyers were very connected. … Now lawyers practice in a much broader geography but have a much more narrow substantive practice.”
 

McMillian McMillian

While he has mentored a number of young attorneys in his almost 30 years of practice, starting when he was only a few years out of law school himself, one of his mentees, Jimmie “Tic Tac” McMillian, now a partner at Barnes & Thornburg who started there in 2004, called their pairing “a match made in heaven” on the video to promote the program.

McMillian said Inskeep was there for him whenever he needed help, including meetings for lunch, dinner, and the occasional late night phone call, and the help he received was very beneficial.

Another successful mentoring partnership is between two Bingham McHale attorneys in Indianapolis, associate Sonia Chen, who joined the Indiana bar in 2001 and joined the firm in 2006, and Kandi Hidde, who has been a lawyer since 1994 and joined the firm in 1999.

Like Barnes, Bingham has a program for mentors to work with new attorneys and to make sure they hit certain milestones every few months, Hidde said.

She and Chen are both in the litigation practice group and while they weren’t officially assigned to each other, they gravitated toward each other because of the cases they work on together and their similar styles of practice, which evolved into a mentor-mentee relationship they continue.

Chen said she appreciated that Hidde always had her door open to her and others in the firm who would have questions.

“Just knowing she’s there if I have a question makes a difference,” Chen said, adding that Hidde has been a helpful resource for professional and business development and with day-to-day questions she has.

Hidde, Chen, and Inskeep said the ISBA mentor program is a great idea because mentor relationships are invaluable.

“The most important thing is that each party be an eager participant,” Inskeep added. “A mentor must be willing and available to share what they have learned, while also being open to learning from the more junior person. And the less experienced lawyer needs to take the initiative to ask questions.

“One of more important things a mentor does is to be a supporting advocate for a mentee,” he added. “Oftentimes when the mentee falls on their face and you have to help pick them up and dust them off, you can then say, ‘Let me tell you a story where I did something twice as dumb, … but I’ve still been able to succeed and I believe you can too.’”•

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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT