Search Results for 25

The Lawyer’s Compass: Character, Ethics & Trust in the Modern Legal Practice, May 25

AN OVERVIEW FROM YOUR PRESENTER, JOHN MOORE:
Lawyers are different. Our role in society in general, and the legal system in particular, places great responsibility in our hands. Our ethical rules call upon us to exercise that responsibility in a manner that differentiates us positively. Despite this opportunity, our profession suffers from ever declining levels of public perceptions of our value to society and trustworthiness. At the same time, technology and competition threaten professional opportunities.

Our future success and fulfillment resides in  learning how to  expand trust and confidence in each of us as a practitioner and in our profession in general. Doing so requires a comprehensive review how each of us can harness the power of trust, the key driver in successful relationships, to enhance  our personal and professional lives.

The Lawyer’s Compass focuses your attention on the critical interplay between your character and competencies and success in building trust in client relationships. In particular, you will:

* Learn How and Why Trust is the Primary Driver of Success In the Attorney/Client Relationship & in Your Practice
* Discover How Your Character is Derived from Your Values and Actions
* Identify Your Individual Personality Type & How This Guides Your Actions Daily
* Walk-through a Comprehensive Review of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to Uncover its Inherent System of Values & Aspirations
* Learn Professional Competencies That Will Help You Quickly Build Trust in Client Relationships
* Explore How We Derive Congruence, Satisfaction and Contentment in Legal Practice
* Build Your Own Professional Compass to Guide Your Efforts in Building Future Persona & Professional Fulfillment and Success
* Take an Opportunity to Reflect on How to Become “The Aspirational Lawyer”
______________________________________________________
NATIONAL SPEAKER:
John E. Moore

Law Offices of John E. Moore, III, PLLC, Vero Beach, FL

John Moore is a faculty member of the Professional Education Group and is one of those people who you just enjoy spending time with. He is passionate about his life, his work and the help that he can provide to lawyers from all areas of practice. He is a high energy, funny, smart and talented teacher. John’s knowledge is practice-proven. He is a principal in the Law Offices of John E. Moore, III in Vero Beach, Florida, where he maintains an active estate planning practice. He is also an actively licensed CPA.

Moore’s experience profile includes tenure with Arthur Andersen LLP, and service as an official of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development and the Government National Mortgage Association, as well as time in private practice with a large law firm in Washington, D.C. and as managing partner of a small firm in Florida.

John’s enthusiasm for the law reaches well beyond his office door. He was the 2010 recipient of the Florida Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in the 19th Judicial District. He personally provided more than 1,500 hours of pro bono services, and oversaw about 1,000 hours on various projects. Moore received his undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame and his law degree from the University of Virginia.

______________________________________________________

6 CLE / 6 E / 6 Applied Professionalism Credits*
Wednesday, May 25   9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.
LIVE GROUP WEBCASTS
*Applied Professionalism Credit is only available by attending the Live In-Person Seminar at the ICLEF Conference Facility.

Posted in Sale/Featured Items0 Comments

Products Liability Cases – Feb. 25

The Indiana Product Liability Act is the exclusive mechanism to evaluate claims of personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by products. The Act’s unique statutory regime selectively borrows concepts from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A, and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, and it rejects strict liability concepts for claims of design and warning defects. The Act also significantly alters prior Indiana common law governing product liability actions. This seminar will explore these features of the Act, and will address opportunities and procedural mechanisms for early resolution of product liability actions, including the narrowing of issues through motion practice, tailored case management orders, and efficient discovery practices designed to control and reduce costs.

FACULTY:
Dean T. BarnhardBarnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis
Joseph R. AlbertsDow AgroSciences, Indianapolis
Mathew Scott Winings, Cummins, Inc., Indianapolis

______________________________________________________________

PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES
3 CLE – Wednesday, February 25, 2015   1:15 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.

Live In-Person Seminar
– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

Live Individual Webcast
– From Your Home or Office Computer

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

 

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

ICLEF Contributes $2500 to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation

ICLEF is pleased to announce a contribution of $2500 to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation in support of the Neil E. Shook Scholarship Fund.  The Indianapolis Bar Foundation website lists the Neil E. Shook Scholarship as being available to 2nd year Robert H. McKinney School of Law students who exhibit the following characteristics: 1. academic proficiency; 2. interest in creditors’ rights and bankruptcy law; 3. financial need; 4. exceptional leader­ship skills; 5. demonstrated commitment to excellence; 6. proponent of civility in the legal profession.

We are delighted to be able to provide financial support to this important scholarship fund.

Click here if you would like to make a donation to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 Comments

Family Law Case Review 2/25/11

Case: Stephanie L. Cotton v. Charles C. Cotton

Case Summary by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham McHale LLP

HELD: To comply with the Indiana Trial Rules and Due Process, the summons served with a petition for dissolution of marriage must include a clear statement to the Respondent of the risk of default for failure to appear or otherwise respond.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Husband and Wife married in 2002. In March 2009, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Wife was served with a summons and copy of the petition, but she did not appear personally or by counsel, nor did she respond to the petition. Husband continued to live in the marital residence for five months after filing, leading Wife to believe that the parties were working on reconciliation and that Husband was not pushing finalization of the dissolution.

However, in September 2009, Husband and his counsel attended a final hearing. Wife had not appeared personally or by counsel, and she received no notice of the final hearing. In Wife’s absence, and following only Husband’s testimony, the trial court defaulted Wife and entered a final dissolution decree that included an award of joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ son, and divided the marital estate. Wife subsequently learned of the Decree, hired counsel, and filed a T.R. 60 motion to set aside the Decree, which was denied. Wife appealed.

On appeal, Wife contended that the Decree was void because it was entered without personal jurisdiction over her, due to insufficiency of process; specifically, the summons used by Husband included language to Wife that she “may personally appear” and that “[y]ou must appear before the Court if directed to do so pursuant to a Notice, Order of the Court, or Subpoena,” but no language articulating a risk of default for doing nothing. In reviewing the summons, the Court of Appeals summarized the applicable law of insufficiency of process, and concluded: “We hold that due process requires that, at a minimum, a respondent in a dissolution proceeding be notified of the risk of default for failure to appear or otherwise respond.”

In this instance, the subject summons presented Wife with the option of appearing or responding to the petition, but did not provide notice to her that the trial court could take further and final action without further notice to her. The Court of Appeals added, “the command of Trial Rule 4(C)(5), grounded in due process, is that the respondent in a dissolution proceeding must be given notice in a ‘clear statement’ of the risk of default for failure to appear or other respond . . . ” Concluding that the subject summons did not comply with Trial Rule 4(C)(5), or the Due Process Clause, the dissolution decree was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: Stephanie L. Cotton v. Charles C. Cotton

Posted in Family Law Case Review0 Comments

Having trouble logging in?Visit our Support section.

Subscribe

Contact Us

ICLEF
230 East Ohio Street
Suite #300
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: 317-637-9102
Fax: 317-633-8780
E-mail: iclef@iclef.org