Upcoming National Speaker Seminars – Something for Everyone!

ICLEF is proud to bring you the very best and brightest attorneys from around the country. Listed below are a few of our upcoming Live National Speaker Seminars. Many more will be added through out the year. Click a seminar title to go directly to the registration page.

 

Making Your Case with a Better Memory
A National Speaker Seminar Featuring Paul Mellor
6 CLE – Tuesday, February 28,  9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.
LIVE IN-PERSON ONLY SEMINAR – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
____________________________________________________________________________

Strategies for Taking Charge of Your Law Practice
A National Speaker Seminar Featuring Cynthia Sharp
3 CLE / 3 E – Friday, March 10,  9:00 A.M. – 12:15 P.M.
LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
LIVE GROUP WEBCAST – Taft Law Office, Indianapolis
LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCAST – From your home or office computer with internet access

____________________________________________________________________________

The Lawyer’s Guide to Ethical Business Development
A National Speaker Seminar Featuring Cynthia Sharp
3 CLE / 3 E – Friday, March 10,  1:15 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.
LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
LIVE GROUP WEBCAST – Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC Law Office, Lafayette
LIVE GROUP WEBCAST – Ice Miller Law Office, Indianapolis
LIVE GROUP WEBCAST  Taft Law Office, Indianapolis

LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCAST – From your home or office computer with internet access

____________________________________________________________________________

The Ethical & Malpractice Risks of Starting, Buying, Selling & Leaving a Law Firm
A National Speaker Seminar Featuring Christian A. Stiegemeyer
3 CLE / 3 E – Thursday, March 30,  9:00 A.M. – 12:15 P.M.
LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
LIVE GROUP WEBCAST – Ice Miller Law Office, Indianapolis
LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCAST – From your home or office computer with internet access

____________________________________________________________________________

Law Office Technology: Security, Cloud Computing & Disaster Planning, Plus, iPad for Litigators
A National Speaker Seminar Featuring Paul J. Unger
3 CLE / 3 E – Friday, March 31,  9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.
LIVE IN-PERSON ONLY – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

____________________________________________________________________________

How to Become a Published Author or Represent One
A National Speaker Seminar Featuring Mark Shaw, Brian J. McGinnis & Megan M. Mulford
6 CLE – Thursday, April 6,  9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.
LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCAST – From your home or office computer with internet access

____________________________________________________________________________

The Lawyer’s Compass: Character, Ethics & Trust in Modern Legal Practice
A National Speaker Seminar Featuring John E. Moore
6 CLE / 6 E – Wednesday, May 3,  9:00 A.M. – 4:30 P.M.
LIVE IN-PERSON SEMINAR – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
LIVE GROUP WEBCAST – Ice Miller Law Office, Indianapolis
LIVE INDIVIDUAL WEBCAST – From your home or office computer with internet access

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs0 Comments

Question of Marital Property Regarding Husband’s Stock Options has Potentially Broader Implications

Family Law Case Review

Case: George S. Fischer v. Jennifer M. Fischer
by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: In a case with potential broader implications, the Court of Appeals holds that an award of stock options, which was unvested on the date of filing but which vested while the divorce was pending, is not “marital property” subject to division. Whether a property interest is vested on the date of filing is dispositive.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Wife filed her petition for dissolution of marriage in October 2014. In 2015, while the divorce was still pending, stock options that Husband’s employer awarded Husband prior to the date of filing vested. At the subsequent final hearing, the trial court included the then-vested stock options in the marital estate, and ordered Husband to make a property settlement payment to Wife that was representative of Wife’s “marital share” of the stock options. Husband appealed.

The Court of Appeals emphasized the axiom of the “marital pot” closing on the date a petition for dissolution is filed. The Court acknowledged that its 1995 Hann decision left some confusion about whether stock options awarded prior to filing, but which vest while a divorce is pending, are in the marital estate. In resolution of that confusion, the Court in this case concluded that “only property that is vested in the parties on the date the petition for dissolution is filed is part of the marital pot.”

The Court of Appeals also suggested that, because these stock options were not a marital asset, they should be considered as Husband’s income for child support calculation purposes.

The trial court’s order, including that the stock options are in the marital estate, was reversed and remanded.

[This case would seem to have implications for a variety of other property interests that can vest while a divorce is pending, such as pensions, year-end employee bonuses, beneficiary trust interests, real estate remainder interests, etc. – MRK.] 

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: George S. Fischer v. Jennifer M. Fischer

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

James A. Reed and Michael R. Kohlhaas of Bingham Greenebaum Doll represent clients in a wide spectrum of relationship transition and wealth planning matters, including premarital agreements, estate planning, cohabitation, separation, divorce (especially involving high net worth individuals and/or complex asset issues), custody, parenting arrangements, adoption, and domestic partnerships. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, a multidisciplinary law firm serving regional, national, and international clients, is the fourth-largest law firm in Indiana. The firm’s main practices include corporate, property, litigation, labor, government law, and personal services law. Visit the firm’s website at www.bgdlegal.com.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Family Law Case Review0 Comments

Trump’s Negotiation Skills – Good or Bad?

Notes on Negotiations
By Marty Latz, Latz Negotiation Institute

President Donald Trump considers himself an expert negotiator. Is he? And if so, does his business negotiation experience necessarily translate to being a great negotiator as president, either with Congress and/or with our international allies and adversaries?

Let me give a great legal answer to both questions – it depends. I recently re-read his book “The Art of the Deal” and have followed Pres. Trump for years. And he has certainly completed a lot of business deals and profited substantially from many of them.

But just getting a deal done – and even profiting greatly from it – doesn’t mean you negotiated a super deal. Nor does it mean you’re an effective negotiator. You might have substantially overpaid for some commercial real estate in 2002, paying well over market value, and still have profited from the strong real estate market going forward.

Likewise, you might negotiate a fantastic partnership deal only to see it fail due to unrelated business issues.

So how can we evaluate Pres. Trump’s negotiation abilities as president on NAFTA, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Middle East Peace Negotiations, an Obamacare Repeal/Replacement Plan, and the list goes on?

Watch and track these factors, which also apply to how we should evaluate and learn from our own negotiation successes and failures.

1. To what extent did he satisfy his goals and interests?
We have a documented record of Pres. Trump’s promises. Of course, these were campaign promises, so perhaps they included a lot of hyperbole.

Even so, they provide data points on our ability to evaluate his negotiation skills and success.

For example, how much will the Trump healthcare proposal – once unveiled – achieve his stated goals of lower costs and better healthcare while ensuring no one loses insurance? How much of his plan will Congress pass relative to the original core components of his proposal?

What about his plan to negotiate with Mexico to pay $10-$20 billion for a new wall?

Great negotiators also recognize, explore and creatively satisfy parties’ mutual interests, which may be neither stated nor obvious.  Super aggressive negotiators often ignore these “win-win” elements.

Of course, we can’t rely on partisan self-reporting for these answers. There is too much political self-interest involved. But non-partisan expert organizations track these quantifiable facts and interests.

2. How much better is the deal than his alternative/Plan B?
Leverage is largely based on how well your deal (Plan A) stacks up to your best alternative, or Plan B. The better your Plan B, the stronger your leverage. And vice versa.

One mark of expert negotiators is how much better their negotiated deal is than their Plan B. Let’s say Company A’s first offer to buy my company is $25 million and Company B’s several offers have culminated in a “best and final offer” of $26 million.

A good negotiator can get Company A to offer over $26 million.  A great negotiator will get Company A to offer substantially over $26 million. The more over $26 million, the better the negotiator. The bigger the difference between your Plan A and B, the stronger your negotiation abilities.

Another mark of an expert negotiator is the ability to impact your counterpart’s perception of your Plan B (or their Plan B, an equally powerful element of leverage), without losing credibility that can affect your future negotiations.

A great negotiator can sell an average product for a lot to someone who’s not very interested in it.

What should we track here? Will Pres. Trump’s new NAFTA (or elimination of NAFTA) or other trade negotiations, like his recent withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, provide better economic and employment results than the status quo going forward?

The status quo going forward is our Plan B – and his deals will be Plan A. These deals can and should be measured, again, based on objective data and facts from non-partisan expert organizations.

3. How do his results measure up to objective benchmarks?
Market value. Precedent. Tradition. Experts’ opinions. Cost and profit margins. Professional standards. These independent objective standards should be used to evaluate Pres. Trump’s deals.

How much below the current market can the Trump Administration drive the drug prices Medicare pays pharmaceutical companies by empowering the U.S. to negotiate them (assuming he can negotiate successfully with the Republicans in Congress, who have opposed this for years)?

Pres. Trump has called the Iran Nuclear Deal a horrible deal and says he wants to renegotiate it. One reason he calls it horrible is that it might allow Iran to restart its nuclear weapons program in 10 years. How far can Pres. Trump extend that moratorium, based on this precedent?

What do Bureau of Labor Statistics experts conclude about the number of manufacturing and other jobs created due to his negotiations with corporate titans and threats of tariffs and public shaming?

And how do independent academic negotiation experts evaluate his skills and results? There has been a lot of negotiation research in the last forty years on what works and what doesn’t. Is Pres. Trump employing proven strategies, or not?

Of course, we may not know the answers to these questions for some time. History may be the ultimate judge.

Latz’s Lesson:  Stay tuned – we can all learn from Pres. Trump’s negotiations. They may even determine his success or failure as President.

______________________________________________________________________

Marty Latz is the founder of Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation training and consulting company, and ExpertNegotiator, a Web-based software company that helps managers and negotiators more effectively negotiate and implement best practices based on the experts’ proven research.  He is also the author of Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What You Want (St. Martin’s Press 2004). He can be reached at 480-951-3222 or Latz@ExpertNegotiator.com

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Negotiation/Mediation Blog0 Comments

Grandparent Visitation Act Does Not Benefit Other Extended Family

Family Law Case Review

Case: In Re: the Grandparent Visitation of G.S., J.S. v. M.S.
by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: The Grandparent Visitation Act does not confer upon a trial court the authority to order visitation between a child and members of the child’s extended family other than the child’s grandparents.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Mother and Father married in 2002, had one Child, and divorced in 2014. Father committed suicide in 2015.

After Father’s death, Mother curtailed the time that Child spent with Father’s mother (“Grandmother”). Mother also had an increasingly acrimonious relationship with other members of Father’s extended family. Mother and Child relocated to Tennessee for Mother’s employment, after which Grandmother filed a petition for visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted Grandmother’s petition, awarding her a visitation schedule with Child of one day per month for at least six hours, and overnights during the summer months. The order also included a telephone access provision. Most pertinent to this appeal, the order further expressly provided that there could be no conditions or restrictions placed on whether other extended family members could participate in visitation time exercised by Grandmother. Mother appealed.

Reviewing the trial court’s order, the Court of Appeals construed the terms of the order involving other extended family members as being a de facto visitation schedule in favor of extended family other than Grandmother. Since the Grandparent Visitation Act was implemented in derogation of the common law, it is to be construed narrowly. And, since it applies on its face only to Grandparents, the trial court’s inclusion of visitation related terms that benefit other extended family members was error.

The trial court’s visitation ordered was reversed as to the extended family members.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: In Re: the Grandparent Visitation of G.S., J.S. v. M.S.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

James A. Reed and Michael R. Kohlhaas of Bingham Greenebaum Doll represent clients in a wide spectrum of relationship transition and wealth planning matters, including premarital agreements, estate planning, cohabitation, separation, divorce (especially involving high net worth individuals and/or complex asset issues), custody, parenting arrangements, adoption, and domestic partnerships. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, a multidisciplinary law firm serving regional, national, and international clients, is the fourth-largest law firm in Indiana. The firm’s main practices include corporate, property, litigation, labor, government law, and personal services law. Visit the firm’s website at www.bgdlegal.com.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

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