Yonally: Young Lawyers Section creates connections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

The Young Lawyer Section of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association is made up of 250 attorneys who have been practicing law for less than 10 years and who are committed to advancing the mission of the association. ITLA offers invaluable opportunities for professional growth, networking, and education for all trial attorneys, but the benefit of ITLA membership is especially great for young lawyers. In the past year, the Young Lawyer Section has organized several social events, including lunches and happy hours, which provide young attorneys with an opportunity to network and build camaraderie with their peers. In addition to these events, the Young Lawyer Section also maintains an active e-mail listserv that provides an ideal forum for asking questions, sharing experiences and ideas, and obtaining feedback from both our peers and our more experienced colleagues. ITLA also offers young attorneys opportunities to become more politically active and involved in the legislative process, to attend CLE sessions focused on issues facing young attorneys, and opportunities to mentor and be mentored as we move through the early years of practicing law.

yonally Yonally

Recently, the ITLA Young Lawyer Section awarded an outstanding young attorney with the 2010 Max Goodwin Young Lawyer Award. This award is presented to a member of the section who exemplifies civility and professionalism and who contributes to advancing Indiana law in a positive direction for Indiana consumers. This year, Tara Wozniak Worthley from Valparaiso was selected as the award recipient from a group of accomplished young lawyers. Since being sworn into practice in 2005, Tara has devoted her professional career to representing injured patients and consumers of the state of Indiana. She has been involved in numerous medical malpractice trials and has been instrumental in several appeals and a petition for rehearing to the Indiana Supreme Court. Tara has also participated in writing amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the ITLA Amicus Committee. Outside of work, Tara is active in her community and volunteers her time with the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Central Indiana. Tara is an associate attorney with Langer & Langer and was inducted in 2010 as one of newest members of the ITLA Board of Directors.

The section has an exciting agenda for 2011, including continuing to provide social events and CLE opportunities, developing an organized mentoring program, assisting ITLA in its legislative efforts, and working together on a community service project. The Young Lawyer Section looks forward to building on the momentum of 2010 in the coming New Year!•

Indianapolis lawyer Amanda Yonally serves as chair of the ITLA Young Lawyers Section. The opinions expressed here are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."