In assessing workplace violence situations, there are clearly certain occupations where the risk of aggression is higher. Even though the risk of workplace violence exists in many different vocations, there are some proactive approaches that employers can and should use to minimize the risk.
The annual meeting of membership and the Board of Directors will take place Nov. 21-22 at the Monroe Convention Center in Bloomington.
Considering the clear prohibition against expert contingency fee agreements expressed by the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct and the overwhelming authority from other jurisdictions, it is likely courts in our state will adopt a rule excluding contingent expert testimony, should the issue arise.
My DTCI board term is about to expire. It has been particularly rewarding to lend a voice from the northwestern part of the state as a member of the board of directors. Thus, I want to take the opportunity to reflect upon many grateful memories of being on the DTCI Board of Directors.
A slight and modest modification to the medical review panel statutes, modeled after procedures used by other states, could remedy the problem raised in cases involving defendants from a breadth of practice areas.
Jordan Slusher of Kightlinger & Gray, chair of the DTCI Young Lawyers, reported that 22 golfers enjoyed the Young Lawyer three-hour outing at TopGolf in July.[/caption]
Most pharmacies’ legal and financial exposure is not with the diversion of controlled substances (e.g., stealing, selling or dispensing drugs without a legitimate medical purpose); it is instead with the tedious, prosaic record-keeping requirements that often go neglected.
New jury research shows jurors often use the cognitive heuristic of “anchoring and adjusting” to assist their task. In other words, jurors look for an anchor that provides a starting point for the value they may assign to an injury, and they adjust the value from that anchor depending on the evidence. Although the value may be adjusted, the anchor strongly influences the outcome.
Who among us has not had a client who elected not to bring a lawsuit against another party for fear of never being able to collect a judgment? Perhaps worse, we are sure many of us have pursued a case for a client all the way to trial or judgment, only to have the opposing party seek bankruptcy protection at the 11th hour. Fortunately, Indiana law provides an underused opportunity to earn protection and security for your clients when faced with the uncertainty of whether a case is worth pursuing for fear little or no recovery.
Every lawyer must answer The Clash’s Mick Jones’ question, “Should I Say or Should I Go?” many times, in one context or another.
As this year’s graduates prepare to take the July bar exam, I cannot help but think back to when I was taking the bar and preparing to begin my legal career. A daunting task, certainly. But with the support of many in the Indianapolis legal community, I got through it with only a few bumps and bruises. And I learned a lot along the way. For the developing young lawyer, this article offers some practical guidance to help you continue growing professionally.
In many instances, a policy-limits demand results in a discussion between defense counsel and the policyholder about the policyholder’s desire to settle the lawsuit to avoid the risk of personal exposure and/or to avoid the emotional stress of litigation. But what if the policyholder does not want to settle the lawsuit? What if the policyholder wants her day in court? What if the policyholder is willing to risk personal exposure? What should defense counsel and the insurance company do if they believe the case should be settled?
DTCI Young Lawyers gathered for Happy Hour in the private pub room of The Tap in downtown Indianapolis on June 5. The event, hosted by Exponent, an engineering consultant firm, was a hit!
The Sedona Conference was delighted to be cited in David Beach and Ryan Cook’s timely article “DTCI: The Scope of Discovery Standard — Is It Time for an Update?” (May 29, 2019). Indeed we agree that the explosion of information and information sources and the rapid technological advancements have markedly changed the complexity of discovery.
Attorneys engaged in defending workers’ compensation claims in Indiana may occasionally encounter a situation in which a claimant chooses to maintain claims in multiple states arising out of the same incident or injury. Potential issues in practice may arise where injured workers pursue claims in multiple states, implicating res judicata and collateral estoppel concerns.
DRI will hold its annual meeting in New Orleans beginning Oct. 16. DRI has planned a week of spectacular keynote speakers, cutting-edge CLE presentations and plenty of networking events just for you.
Indiana implemented the scope of discovery standard in what is now the first paragraph of Ind. Trial Rule 26(B)(1), a standard with which we are all familiar. It has remained unchanged since, despite advances in technology have changed the landscape in which it functions.
Americans have a tendency to attribute almost any wise advice to Abraham Lincoln. While many of these attributions are questionable, one piece Lincoln actually wrote was a document titled “Notes on the Practice of Law.” The “Notes” are remarkably relevant to today’s practice.
As with any contractual agreement, the importance of shifting or transferring risk in the unfortunate event of either bodily injury or property damage loss is imperative. The importance of transferring risk in construction cases cannot be overstated since the damages are often significant and catastrophic.
Is being an attorney as exciting as it looks on TV? I’m sure as lawyers, we have all heard one version of this question or another. Usually, I say, “Nah, television makes everything seem more dramatic.” I definitely watch shows that depict lawyers with a healthy dose of eye-rolling. My 2019 practice of law, however, started off with a story fit for television.