ILNews

Chinn: On the Bus

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottI knew from the time I was 10 years old that I wanted to be a lawyer. I remember being on the school bus one day and a tumbler clicking in place in my head to that effect as I watched the soybean field roll by from the window. I don’t recall there being a specific trigger for my decision – it was probably caused by the latent effects of watching endless Perry Mason reruns and my parents’ sincerely held belief that fairness is the most important civic virtue and one desperately desired by those without means or power. Lawyers were able to deliver that fairness.

Having made up my mind, I never questioned that I would actually become a lawyer. I assumed – and probably correctly for the times in which my opinions were formed – that it was up to me. If I worked hard and was smart enough, the rest of the tumblers would fall into place, unlocking my opportunity and a bright future doing what I wanted to do. Beyond my ability to know or understand at that time, macroeconomic forces likely encouraged (or at least made probable) my matriculation through the professional prerequisites.

You know the punch line. The macroeconomic forces have changed. Most graduating law students are not getting the law jobs they went to law school for or are not getting law jobs at all. Probably because of the economic downtown of the past several years, forces of globalization, and market pressures that are altering the actual and perceived need for lawyers by clients, the demand for lawyers is down in the United States. As a consequence, law school applications are down sharply over the past two years. The latter point is probably a reasonable and natural response to former point. But as the pipeline of lawyer capacity shrinks under the weight of those market forces, we’re left with an overcapacity of law school graduates now – those recent graduates that can’t find jobs as well as longer practicing lawyers displaced by the economic downturn.

You probably already knew all this. The question is what, if anything, we are going to do to help. We members of the professions, we members of the Indianapolis Bar Association, we lawyers. I suppose there is a choice. One possibility is laissez faire observance of the problem of unemployed and underemployed lawyers as an unfortunate matter that will correct itself in time. Another is action to assist unemployed and underemployed lawyers in getting a leg up on their current circumstances by spending time and resources finding and creating opportunities for them to perform meaningful legal work – work that will permit their careers to grow, even if more slowly than they had originally hoped.

You can probably guess my suggested choice. I say, let’s get everybody on the bus and work to letting them off at better stops. The IndyBar already offers resources that can assist unemployed and underemployed lawyers. Here are five – all described on the IndyBar’s website – www.indybar.org:

Use the IndyBar’s Free Document Library – forms available for contracts, criminal law, family law, proceedings supplemental, real estate, wills and estates and even specific court forms.

Visit the IndyBar Job Bank – post your resume, review available positions posted by employers, and consult the PDF entitled “Lawyers In Transition” which was put together by the IBA Standing Committee on Professionalism.

Take advantage of IndyBar Networking Opportunities – monthly lunches, Bench Bar, section meetings, IBF Trivia Night, and more.

Attend very low-cost Continuing Legal Education to stay up on the profession and meet new lawyer contacts.

Sign up for the IndyBar Lawyer Referral Service – an economical way to attract more clients to your practice.

We also realize that challenging times require innovative measures, and the IndyBar intends to do more. Recently, the IndyBar Executive Committee commissioned a task force to come up with additional resources and programs for unemployed and underemployed lawyers in our community. It has begun its work and soon will be in position to report its findings and recommendations to the IndyBar Board for implementation. So, please stay tuned on this issue.

Let’s be candid, this is a huge elephant that we have to eat one bite at a time. But every interaction and offer of assistance, no matter how seemingly small, probably makes a difference in the long run. As I have done before, let me again encourage those of you in position to do so to reach out to those who need your assistance, your advice, and your counsel.

We’re on this bus together.•

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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT