ILNews

Lucas: Another year older and, hopefully, wiser

Kelly Lucas
March 13, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigAs they say, time flies when you are having fun. I’ve found that it also seems to stampede past when you are very busy. Both have been the case for the staff of the Indiana Lawyer. But time moves on, which is a good thing, and with this issue of the paper Indiana Lawyer turns another year older.

It is done without fanfare – the only telltale sign is that the paper’s Page 1 “odometer” rolls over to a new volume number. With this issue of the paper we begin our 24th year.

An anniversary is a time to reflect, and I am happy to say that it has been a good year for the Indiana Lawyer. Sure, we face many of the challenges universally experienced by print media, but our loyal readers have kept us strong while our digital presence has continued to grow. I thank you for that.

The newspaper welcomed two “new to us” but otherwise very experienced reporters to our staff in 2012. Dave Stafford and Marilyn Odendahl each came to IBJ Media from daily newspapers where they have spent the majority of their careers, and both have hit the ground running covering Indiana’s legal community. The resourcefulness and creativity that they, along with managing editor Jennifer Nelson, show with each new issue and in our IL daily email continues to enable us to bring you both in-depth print reporting and breaking news. Inspiration can certainly be found in working with good people.

Indiana Lawyer hosted six successful CLE programs in 2012, and a debt of gratitude is owed to the lawyers who lent their professional expertise in the areas of ethics, immigration, sports law, employment, intellectual property and federal civil practice to make that happen. I hope that those of you who have attended one or two of these programs in the past have found the content valuable. For me, the opportunity to meet lawyers who I might not otherwise have an occasion to spend time with is priceless.

In early 2013, the newspaper launched a second news email – Lawyers on the Move. This email brings readers the names and faces of peers who are making a move, serving in a new professional or volunteer capacity or are receiving a well-deserved recognition. It is a quick read delivered to your desktop, phone or tablet and designed to keep you in-the-know. Check it out or, better yet, sign up for this free email at www.theIndianaLawyer.com.

Volume 23 of the Indiana Lawyer represented my first full year as editor and publisher of this newspaper. While covering a state the size of Indiana with a small but mighty staff is not without its challenges, we can do it because of the many lawyers who are willing to share their valuable time and insights with us. We’ve revived our Spotlight sections this year to bring greater emphasis to people and legal happenings in all regions of Indiana, and the support of the bar association directors around the state has been invaluable in that process.

Indiana Lawyer’s relationship with the Indianapolis Bar Association and the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, whose newsletters appear regularly in this publication; the columnists and contributors who so willingly share their interests and legal expertise; the advertisers who see IL as a valuable vehicle to reach legal practitioners; and last, but certainly not least, our readers, who we wouldn’t exist without, continues to strengthen. As I’ve said before, let us know how you think we are doing. Submit your news, On the Move announcements, and letters to the editor. It’s why we’re here.•
 

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
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