ILNews

State bar considering animal law section

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Bar Association is seeking input from members on the possible addition of an animal law section.

The idea of adding an animal law section had been discussed in the past, but nothing ever came of it. Rebecca Huss, professor at Valparaiso University School of Law, contacted the bar association about trying to see if there was any interest in starting the new section.

Huss, who was named guardian/special master of the dogs in the civil forfeiture case of NFL quarterback Michael Vick, said 16 state bar associations already have similar sections and the American Bar Association has an animal law committee.

Animal law is growing across the country and it's better for Indiana to join with the other bar associations in the beginning as opposed to waiting, Huss said.

"We don't want to be the last ones setting up a section," she said.

The animal law section would provide members a forum to discuss legal issues, how to educate clients, and talk about laws in Indiana and how to interpret them. Huss emphasized that the section would be diverse and inclusive, and that many people may not realize they practice animal law, such as someone who works with trusts or prosecutors working on animal cruelty cases.

The first step in adding the section is to determine whether there is enough interest. If there is, the next step is to form a committee and create bylaws and a newsletter. The last section added to the state bar was construction in 2004.

Maryann Williams, director of section services at the ISBA, said she's already received several emails from interested attorneys. If you'd like to see the bar association create an animal law section, contact Williams at mwilliams@inbar.org. She said the bar association will be gauging the level of interest for about three months.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT