ILNews

Terms of Art: effecting viral social change

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

ArtThis column typically features attorneys who juggle artistic pursuits along with their professional duties. In the case of Indianapolis native Kenan Farrell, we find an attorney who changed course during his legal career in order to devote his talents and abilities to representing the underserved arts community. Through ardent civic involvement, inspired use of social media, community service and teaching, his efforts have contributed significantly to raising the profile of local civic arts organizations, teaching a new generation of attorneys to be “arts-minded,” and contributing to the cultural richness and appeal of our city.

There is a quote most often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”

Growing up in Indianapolis, Farrell often bristled when he heard people complain that there was “no culture” here. A creative person, he has always had an affinity for the arts. “Like many attorneys, I consider myself a writer. I’ve always been creative. I used to write poems, songs – I can get along better with creative people – I understand them,” Farrell says. The walls of his beautiful Mass Ave. office prominently feature his clients’ works.

Farrell earned his law degree in 2003 from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Upon graduation, he joined the intellectual property practice group at Bingham McHale. Irony of ironies, the law that protects creativity and cutting-edge innovation can be “very technical and dry.” Acknowledging that “there are all types of lawyers and all types of legal services that need to be done,” Farrell need look no further than his own brother – an international tax attorney who loves his work – to illustrate his point. That said, being a patent attorney “didn’t light any fires” under Farrell. A typical day as an intellectual property associate could involve meeting with a researcher to discuss his or her patent needs. With his undergraduate background in genetics, Farrell was certainly up to the task, but something was lacking.

In 2007, Farrell moved to California. He recalls that while in San Francisco, he observed local attorneys building their practices around serving the needs of painters, photographers, authors, graphic artists, web developers and other “creative entrepreneurs.” “I realized that this need wasn’t getting met in Indianapolis,” he says. Farrell returned to Indianapolis in 2009 and launched his solo practice. He now represents clients in music, film, theater, television, book publishing and the visual arts, both in the United States and abroad. He devotes his talents to empowering artists and developers in their efforts to advance and protect their works and innovations.

Farrell has a unique approach to client development, which dovetails nicely with his passion for community-building. He has long believed that Indianapolis has all the elements necessary for a Midwestern cultural haven. He explains that “[i]n Indiana, people work together, there’s a lot more collaboration.” Like many attorneys, he is in frequent contact with his clients; however, every few months, he hosts a party, providing an opportunity for his clients to network and socialize with one another. “I get to talk to my clients one-on-one all the time, but at the parties, I bring them all together, and let them talk to each other. It’s good creative energy to see a musician talk to a painter, or a writer talk to a hair salon owner,” he says.

He has even added the title of “professor” to his resume, teaching “Art and Museum Law” at the Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He says, “I recognize that I can’t do this by myself. In a class of 20 or 25 students, I know that they won’t all be arts lawyers,” but Farrell is ensuring that his students emerge from law school with an awareness of the needs of the arts community as well as critical knowledge necessary to serve those needs. Farrell also serves on countless civic boards and organizations, including Pattern for fashion industry insiders, the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library, and the Indianapolis Downtown Artists and Dealers Association. His efforts have not gone unrecognized. He has received various local awards, including in 2011 being named one of Indy’s Best and Brightest Finalists by Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc.; a Leadership in Law Up and Coming Lawyer by the Indiana Lawyer; YPCI Young Professional of the Year for 2011; and inclusion in the Indianapolis Business Journal’s Forty Under 40 for 2012.

Farrell does more than his fair share to make his beloved hometown more hospitable to the arts and to the arts community. Gone are the days of feeling unfulfilled by work. Admittedly, he adds, “Patent attorneys make a lot more money, and if that was my driving goal, I’d probably still be a patent attorney. But that’s not what I wanted.” His advice to his law students resonates equally with seasoned practitioners – “Pick an organization, and get actively involved from day one.”

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.”

– From “The Collected Works of M. K. Gandhi”

Wandini Riggins is an associate in the Indianapolis firm of Lewis Wagner LLP. She concentrates her practice in the areas of insurance coverage and immigration. She can be reached at wriggins@lewiswagner.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT