Unknown to some practitioners, since 1991 the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 requires advance notice to opposing parties of document subpoenas issued to non-parties.
Research has shown that the greatest barrier to advancement for women attorneys is the work-family conflict.
Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer discusses the "Change of Judge" rule in this issue of Indiana Lawyer.
Lucas offers a few suggestions to a list created about what reporters want – and don't want – when interviewing attorneys.
With its limited docket, the U.S. Supreme Court rarely decides procedural issues, focusing instead on weighty constitutional issues or resolving split interpretations of federal statutes. This term, however, the Supreme Court has addressed several procedural issues.
Have you ever Googled “lawyer dog”? If you do, be prepared to see a limitless line of websites all featuring identical photos of the same canine seated behind his desk, along with various one-liners related to the law, dogs and just silliness.
Through the profiles in the Leadership in Law award supplement, it is our goal to introduce IL readers to the men and women behind the public and professional personas.
With this issue of IL, we begin presenting movie reviews by Indianapolis criminal defense lawyer Bob Hammerle. Bob is known to many lawyers and businesspeople for his passion about cinema and his colorful commentary about the latest shows to hit the theaters.
Jabez LaBret writes about how lawyers can control what shows up about them in online searches.
Judge David Dreyer writes a letter to Gov. Mike Pence about how to make people more legally literate.
In the first part of this column, I outlined the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration as an alternative to litigation in court and concluded that neither arbitration nor litigation is preferable in all situations. This second part provides more specific suggestions on when to use arbitration in certain high-risk, “bet-the-company” situations.
Each year, as Jan. 1 approaches and we gaze in the mirror at the after effects of the holidays … dark circles under our eyes, too many cookies and an over-abundance of cocktail parties, we set our sights on resolutions. We vow that “this time” we are going to do it! However, the statistics show that over 80 percent of us who set New Year’s resolutions will fail.
In my world of dispute resolution, one of the most basic questions is whether a particular business dispute should be resolved in arbitration or in a court of law. Like many of the questions I am frequently asked by clients, there is no simple answer that fits all occasions and situations.
Both authors of this article recently had experiences in which our clients have shown us the true emotional impact that litigation can have on a new litigant.
The 2012 elections are finally over. And while I think most people, with the possible exception of mail carriers and holiday Scrooges, are happy to have gift catalogs replace political flyers in their mailboxes, I would bet that no group is happier to see election season come to an end than the county clerks.
Unlike other books I have recently reviewed, the book “The Science of Attorney Advocacy” targets a different type of reader.
The modern fax machine was introduced in 1964 by Xerox. Fast forward to today. Unless you use a typewriter, there are no other machines in your office that have remained essentially unchanged in form and function for almost 50 years. Fax is ubiquitous, reliable, simple and cheap. Why would you want to mess that up?
I cannot imagine any professionals more obsessed with time than lawyers. While a great debate still rages as to whether the billable hour is dead, the fact remains that many lawyers continue to measure services to clients by a unit of time: the billable hour.
Up the street and around the corner from my Broad Ripple house, a yard sign caught my eye that didn’t involve the usual Democrat versus Republican political rhetoric. This simple, hand-painted sign called for the ouster of Supreme Court Justice Steven David.
If you are a woman trying to make it to the top of a law firm, can you expect a higher-ranking female attorney to take you under her wing? Do you need to undermine other women in order to advance or treat other women as threats?