ILNews

Solo and Small Firm Conference puts focus on future of law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 400 lawyers gathered this month in one of the largest conferences ever for Indiana solo and small-firm attorneys.

With a focus on “The Future of Law” and highlighted by a healthy dose of ethics and a look at coming changes and challenges, the Indiana State Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Conference at the French Lick Resort drew the second-largest crowd in the event’s history, organizers said.
 

mckinnon McKinnon

“The nature of this conference is, I think, distinct in several ways. One, collegiality – there’s a sense of friendliness that’s not typical in large lawyer meetings,” said Warsaw attorney Paul D. Refior. “The fact that they provide a lot of options – there are four (presentations) to choose from every session – that allowed us to go to things that pertain to our practices.”

Refior also carried away materials from other sessions he wasn’t able to attend. “That’s going to be the gift that keeps on giving,” he said.

Conference planning committee vice chair Patricia McKinnon said featured speakers Indiana Justice Mark Massa and Jim Calloway tailored their remarks to the challenges solo and small firm lawyers face. Massa, for instance, talked about the need to sweat the small stuff, using real-life examples such as a lack of postage or insufficient fees dooming filings.

“It was very startling, but also something the audience needed to hear,” McKinnon said.

Calloway, a popular returning speaker who directs the Oklahoma Bar Association Management Assistance Program, offered a candid but optimistic assessment of the future of law in light of competition from online do-it-yourself services such as LegalZoom.
 

 

solo-massa-15col.jpg Indiana Justice Mark Massa spoke to more than 400 lawyers at the Indiana State Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Conference earlier this month in French Lick. (Photo submitted)

“The future is very bright for lawyers willing to embrace the future,” Indianapolis attorney Stephen Terrell said of Calloway’s presentation. He said Calloway’s message included a need for lawyers to express to clients the value that their services add and the assurances that come with legal representation.

“People will still need to talk to a live human being,” McKinnon said of her takeaway from Calloway’s remarks. “They need you because you can provide advice.”

On speaking your mind

With Greenwood attorney Patrick Olmstead, Terrell presented one of the most-talked-about sessions, “Crash Course: The Intersection of Legal Ethics and the First Amendment.” The session focused on attorney speech and what’s considered actionable by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission under one of the tightest rules in the nation.

Terrell said Indiana’s Professional Rule of Conduct 8.4(g) appears to be unique compared to other states, in that it defines as misconduct words or conduct “in a professional capacity” manifesting bias based on race, gender, religion and other factors that also include the vague qualifiers “socioeconomic status or similar factors.”

“We’re almost fostering a situation where, as a lawyer, if someone writes a letter to you and you don’t like it, you file a disciplinary action,” Terrell said. A novelist and host of an Internet legal talk show, Terrell said the rule gives him pause to wonder in those activities, “Am I acting in my legal capacity?”

Olmstead said the session ended with more questions from attorneys than he and Terrell had time to answer before the following program started.

“People don’t know where the lines are,” Olmstead said of attorney speech. Regarding the vagaries of the “legal capacity” and “similar factors” language, he said, “I don’t know when you stop being a lawyer.” He said other states’ rules limit 8.4(g) to matters concerning the administration of justice, for example.

After investigating the question, Olmstead’s said, “To my knowledge, I could not find another state that has an 8.4(g) written like ours.”

“What I struggle with and have had people call me about is wordsmithing,” he said. In communicating with opposing counsel, for instance, “Now you’ve got to walk on eggshells and you’ve got to figure out if you’ve said anything that would upset someone,” he said. He cited discipline orders such as In the Matter of Vincent M. Campiti, 937 N.E.2d 340 (2009), and In the Matter of Joseph B. Barker, 55S00-1008-DI-429.

Terrell said lawyers have a duty to point out problems in the justice system, but they also put themselves at risk when they do. About 20 years ago, Terrell successfully defended an attorney who faced a discipline case for writing a truthful letter critical of a judge.

“Now, today, I don’t know how many lawyers would do that,” he said. “That’s the real danger of some of these rulings that are coming out. … That’s why I think it’s a really important discussion to have.”

What’s new?

News laws taking effect July 1 were the focus of some sessions Kevin Willis of Indianapolis found particularly useful in his first year as a solo practitioner. This wasn’t his first trip to the conference, though; he’d gone last year as a law student.

“I attended the traffic law update and the criminal code update sessions,” Willis said. “Those apply directly to my practice.”

A new law requires licensing and registration of mopeds and scooters with engines smaller than 50 cubic centimeters, for instance. Another will allow scooter riders and motorcyclists to proceed through a red light after two minutes when traffic has cleared. That’s yielding to cyclists who said their lighter weight compared to cars didn’t trip some street sensors that control traffic lights.

Willis said presenters at the conference also did a good job of keeping it light. McKinnon and Disciplinary Commission attorney Chuck Kidd had fun with an ethics presentation that riffed on the game show “Let’s Make a Deal,” offering up what Willis called “ridiculously stupid prizes.”

“It was just great to see people can make fun of themselves and ease the tension,” he said.

This year, students from Indiana University Maurer School of Law, IU McKinney School of Law and Valparaiso University Law School attended the conference. It gives them an opportunity to network and work on elevator speeches, McKinnon said.

McKinnon, who chairs the planning committee for next year’s conference, said work has already started on lining up speakers and programs for the 2015 gathering that also will be held in French Lick the first weekend in June.

“Anybody that’s involved in any aspect of general practice or family law should attend this conference. They’re missing out if they don’t,” Willis said.•
 

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 have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT