ILNews

Nov. 17-18 DTCI conference speakers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hon. Steven David is the featured luncheon speaker on Nov. 18. Justice David served as the elected circuit court judge in Boone County from 1995 through his appointment to the Indiana Supreme Court. He has testified before the Indiana General Assembly and the United States Congress on juvenile law and national security issues, respectively, and he has collaborated extensively with other agencies on juvenile law issues. He is also a recipient of the coveted Robert Kinsey Award.

Jane Bockus, a partner in Cox Smith in San Antonio, will speak on Women in Trial Practice. She has more than 30 years of experience as a trial lawyer and has been first chair in dozens of jury trials in a wide range of cases. In the last ten years, her practice has focused primarily on pharmaceutical product defense.

Peter Obremskey will join Robert Wagner in presenting Persuasive Courtroom Tactics. Obremskey practices in the areas of personal injury, products liability, medical malpractice, and civil litigation. The Indiana Trial Lawyers Association has awarded him the Lifetime Achievement Award, and he was also selected one of the Top Ten Attorneys by Best Lawyers in Indiana.

Linda Pence, a partner with PenceHensel, began her legal career with the U.S. Department of Justice in 1974. Her topic at the DTCI meeting will be Persuasive Motions Practice in the Courtroom. Pence has gained extensive experience in the investigation, prosecution, and defense of corporations and individuals in a wide range of white collar criminal matters.

Matthew Schad will be presenting on Effective Use of Technology for Persuasion in and out of the Courtroom. He graduated cum laude from the Florida State College of Law. He served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the Republic of Panama and became the chief Army military prosecutor for U.S. Army South.

John C. Trimble is managing partner of Lewis Wagner and a former president of the DTCI. In 1999, Trimble received the Fred H. Sievert Outstanding Defense Bar Leader Award from DRI. He is currently chair of the DRI Public Policy Committee. He defends catastrophic and complex cases, insurance coverage disputes, and professional liability matters, and also enjoys a part-time practice as a mediator.

Hon. Nancy Vaidik, who earned her law degree from the Valparaiso University School of Law, will speak on Persuading on Appeal. Before her elevation to the appellate court, Judge Vaidik served as a trial court judge in Porter County. Before then, while in private practice, Judge Vaidik specialized in civil law, including domestic relations, probate, government law, and general litigation. In 1985, she founded the Porter County Sexual Assault Recovery Project, and from 1990 to 1992 was the attorney for Caring Place, Inc., a shelter for battered women.

Robert Wagner, partner in Lewis Wagner, will join Peter Obremskey in presenting on Persuasive Courtroom Tactics. Wagner has been listed as one of Indiana’s top 15 “Distinguished Barristers of 2008,” as an Indiana “Super Lawyer,” and as one of the Top 50 Attorneys in Indiana. At the national level, he was named one of The Best Lawyers in America in 2005 -2011 in the field of personal injury litigation.

G. Michael Witte, who will address the DTCI on Ethics for Civil Lawyers, is the executive secretary of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Witte was the first Asian-American to serve as a judge in Indiana. He received both his B.A. and J.D. degrees from Indiana University, served as president of the Indianapolis law school’s alumni board in 2009, and was honored in 2008 by the I.U. Alumni Association as its Distinguished Asian Alumnus.•

For additional information on the 2011 Annual Conference, go to www.dtci.org and click on “Events.”

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT