ILNews

Social networking among Indiana State Bar meeting topics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Lawyers are trained not to air their clients’ dirty laundry, but an attorney defending a murder suspect posted photos of her client’s leopard-print underwear on her personal Facebook page. A mistrial and the lawyer’s termination followed, the Miami Herald reported last month.

Perhaps she could have benefited from the social media and ethics presentation at the Indiana State Bar Association annual meeting, one of an array of programs Oct. 25 and 26. The Florida lawyer’s indiscretion is an extreme case, but it’s not unique in an atmosphere where not just sharing, but oversharing, is sometimes the expectation.

“It’s kind of the culture of social media that is directed at disclosure and openness, not guardedness, and there’s also sort of a seductiveness about it,” said Don Lundberg, a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP. “But there are confidentiality obligations to clients that are really quite sweeping and almost the very nature of social media is contrary to the obligations lawyers have to maintain all information confidentially.”

Lundberg Don Lundberg

Richmond private practitioner Amy Noe will join Lundberg in presenting the ethics portion of a two-hour CLE Oct. 25 called “Finding the Borders: Advertising in Multiple Jurisdictions or by Social Network.” Noe calls herself an avid social media networker; Lundberg said he seldom uses any.

“There are cases that come up where folks do not recognize that what you’re putting out there is not necessarily private,” Noe said, even on pages where a user thinks she might be controlling access. “You can control who sees your stuff,” she said, “but you can’t control who shares your stuff.”

Noe said even seemingly innocuous comments shared online could have unintended consequences. Posting something such as “I can’t believe the crazy thing that happened in court today,” she said, could cross a line.

“You just never know if someone who sees that is going to be able to piece it together,” Noe said. But attorneys don’t lose their voice entirely where social media is concerned. “For the most part, there’s a line between talking about cases and talking about the practice,” she added.

Lundberg said the forum should be beneficial for attorneys who use social networking, even though the lines aren’t always clear.

“It could be and probably is the best course to treat it as a bright line – what happens in the office stays in the office,” Lundberg said. “But lawyers are not robots.”

The question of when social networking crosses the line into advertising, as well as advertising in multiple jurisdictions, will precede Lundberg and Noe’s presentation.

Lawrenceburg private practitioner David Lynch will join Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission General Counsel Charles Kidd for that presentation.

noe Noe

Kidd said the presentation will look particularly at media markets such as Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville that cross state lines.

“What we know is that certainly there are different approaches to advertising in the surrounding states,” he said. “Our goal really is to highlight those differences.”

Media mentoring

How a lawyer responds to a press interview can make an impression. John Tompkins, a founder of Brown Tompkins Lory & Mastrian in Indianapolis, will advise attendees on making the impression they desire.

Tompkins will put himself under the media spotlight. He’ll be interviewed by WISH-TV political reporter Jim Shella in a role-playing scenario that participants will critique in “Tips from the Trenches: Media Training & Public Access Laws,” a two-hour CLE Oct. 25. John Krull, director of the Pulliam School of Journalism at Franklin College, also will speak.

Tompkins said participants will also have a chance to hear from Shella about how he prepares for and approaches interviews. And while Tompkins will talk about the rules of professional conduct that govern pre-trial publicity and attorney interaction with the press, he will also focus on technique.

Charles Kidd Kidd

“I think attorneys commonly assume their audience is other attorneys,” he said. “We really need to be conscious of our audience.”

The presentation will be helpful, Tompkins said, for any attorneys who have dealings with the press. These days, that’s increasingly common. “It’s a very timely subject. There’s a lot more media coverage, for various reasons, of legal matters,” he said.

The session will feature a separate component on public access laws with speakers Séamus Boyce of Church Church Hittle & Antrim in Noblesville, Indiana Public Access Counselor Joe Hoage and Indiana Department of Education Chief of Staff Heather Neal.

meeting-facts.jpgNo more billable hours?

Mark Chinn is out to kill the billable hour, and he says whether attorneys realize it or not, it’s going the way of the Rolodex.

The Jackson, Miss., family law private practitioner is the author of “Dumping the Billable Hour” and is the key speaker during a three-hour CLE alternative fee summit on Oct. 25. Participants will use the information to develop best practices for alternative billing by practice area.

chinn Chinn

“It’s in much greater use than anybody realizes, I think,” Chinn said of alternative fee structures that move away from billable hours. Yet there is entrenched resistance.

“I would say the vast majority of smaller firms can’t even think of anything other than the billable hour,” he said. “How do you pay associates when you’re not judging by the amount of hours they spend, but by the amount of value they bring in. … It’s a new mindset.”

In his practice, Chinn tells clients up front what the maximum fee will be for his services, and then typically offers three options based on what can be achieved, what the client expects, and the client’s resources. If a case appears likely to settle, for instance, he may advise a client to pursue the least expensive option, but a client would still know what the fee cap would be in any circumstance.

The arrangement gives a client certainty, and it also focuses the attorney, Chinn said. “It puts pressure on the lawyer at the very beginning to very clearly define the scope of the work.”

Altman Weil’s 2012 Law Firms in Transition survey found alternative fees on the rise: 94.5 percent of firms used some form of non-hourly billing. But Chinn also saw a disconnect in the numbers. At firms of more than 1,000 attorneys, 80 percent expected alternative fee arrangements will be adopted as a standard. At firms of fewer than 100 lawyers, the number declined to 70 percent.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • google plus one
    speaking of which, it would be cool if these articles had google plus one widgets on them.

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT