ILNews

Rising bar association memberships linked to jobs and social activities

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A boost in membership rolls at some bar associations around the state is credited to the changing employment landscape in the legal community. People are joining the organizations because they are getting jobs or because they want to network to get future jobs.

The Evansville Bar Association has recorded a surge in new memberships, increasing its size by 10 percent in 2013 alone. Susan Vollmer, executive director of the bar association, attributed the growth to a wave of new hiring by law firms in Vanderburgh County. All the big firms and many smaller offices have added attorneys.

“It’s kind of amazing what we’ve had this year,” Vollmer said.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, the association has added 156 lawyers. A third of those, 55, have joined since Jan. 1, 2013, bringing the organization a record membership of 550.

In Indianapolis, the Marion County Bar Association continues to add members as well. TaKeena Thompson, president, believes the group’s increased visibility and activities, rather than an uptick in hiring, have inspired more lawyers to join.

The MCBA had almost ceased to exist. Regular meetings were often canceled, few social events were offered, and even getting a response from the association was difficult.

New leadership in 2012 brought in more energy and revitalized the organization. The MCBA has upgraded its website, gotten on social media, and introduced a variety of events such as the “coffee chats,” which enable members to meet informally with Marion County judges.

“We want to give something back to our members,” Thompson said. “We want our members to feel that they are getting something from the organization.”

Like the Marion County Bar Association, the Allen County Bar Association has concentrated its efforts on offering its members more continuing legal education courses and social activities. This has kept the current membership steady at roughly 700.

In Bloomington, the Monroe County Bar Association has had new interest from students at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

President Joyce Jewell believes the students are motivated to join not only so they can network with attorneys but also because some want to stay in Bloomington after they graduate.•

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