ILNews

Leadership in Law 2013: David P. Lynch

Associate, Amy Noe Law, Richmond Capital University Law School

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

david-lynch01-15col.jpg (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

David P. Lynch is as comfortable helping clients feed their farm animals while discussing legal matters as he is sitting in a courtroom or at a conference table. All he asks is that they let him know what is best for them, he jokes, so he wears the right shoes. David has a knack for making his clients feel at ease and comfortable. He had his own practice before recently joining Amy Noe Law. David also regularly takes cases knowing he may never be paid and never seeks credit for helping with these matters. He also knows quite a bit about fireworks law – he works as legal counsel and consultant for his family’s fireworks import business. David is active in the Indiana State Bar Association, participating in five committees.

Would a world without 24/7 technology be a good or bad thing?
I was an archaeologist before I went to law school, and I have always romanticized the past. Good thing!

You deal with fireworks as legal counsel for your family’s business. What is your favorite firework?
There’s nothing like Yung Feng’s Nishiki Kamuro shells. Huge, dense, perfectly symmetrical.

If you could go back in time, “when” would you go to and what would you do?
I would like to see how ceramic technology and ornamentation developed in the late prehistoric period in eastern North America (probably around 1200 AD) as agriculture began to allow more sedentary existence and establishment of more-or-less permanent villages. 

What’s the most important thing your mentor has taught you?
She’s taught me quite a lot, but the most important thing is that I don’t have to pretend to be someone that I’m not to be a good lawyer and a leader in my community. 

If you could take a sabbatical from the law for a year to work your fantasy job, what job would you choose?
I would like to work at a restaurant specializing in molecular gastronomy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT