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?
Judge Dreyer comes up with a way to cure court budget woes and provide reality TV.
In this column, basic tips for preventing legal malpractice claims and other risk management strategies will be explored. Here are this author’s Top Ten client screening suggestions.
Indiana lawyers will have a unique opportunity to participate in a civic education program that will cast a national spotlight on our state and legal community. The 2013 National High School Mock Trial Championship will be held in Indianapolis May 9 to 11.
A letter in response to editor Kelly Lucas’ editorial on whether women in the law can have it all.
The Indiana Shorthand Reporters Association explains its concerns with a recently announced pilot project in courts involving video transcripts.
Federal rule amendments take affect Dec. 1 of each year after a lengthy, time-consuming process of transmittal from the Judicial Conference to the Supreme Court and then to Congress. This coming December, for the first time in many years, there are no amendments on the horizon for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, or Federal Rules of Evidence.
Attorney and mediator John Van Winkle discusses the difficulties that occur when mediation confidentiality provisions collide with long-established contract common law.
While I am sure this writing could be deemed just another one that promotes civility, and while I am sure that there is a long list of ethical rules that promote that, too, I cite none here. I simply say this: Stop the (to use a football phrase) “unnecessary roughness.” I am hereby throwing a “flag on the play.”
Just minutes before attending my first session of the second day of the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in Nashville, Tenn., I began to receive a flood of emails and tweets on my phone about an announcement which would completely change the lives of an estimated 1.4 million immigrant youth, commonly called “Dreamers,” across the country and between 21,000 and 29,000 immigrant youth in Indiana.
Last week was a difficult one for those covering the news to avoid taking sides. The constitutionality of several very important issues – including the Arizona immigration law and the Affordable Care Act – were ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States.
My seat at the recent Indiana Supreme Court Bar Admission Ceremony provided a perfect vantage point to witness the mix of emotions young lawyers feel when they have the opportunity to present themselves for the first time to members of the state’s highest-ranking courts.