Law Tips: Trying Cases in a World of Media Overload: Adapting to the Audience’s Expectations.

Welcome back to our Law Tips discussion by Tony Paganelli on issues a trial lawyer can encounter in today’s world of media overload. Last week Tony provided pointers on preparing your client for the litigation process. (If you missed that article, it’s below.) In this week’s blog he takes the case to the judge and jury. Mr. Paganelli believes that even though TV and movies create an image removed from real life litigation, there are ways a trial lawyer can adapt successfully in the courtroom. I’m pleased to provide to our Law Tips readers his insights on adapting to the audience’s expectations:

Although a lawyer can (hopefully) communicate in advance with a client in such a way as to condition him or her to understand that lawsuits in real life are far removed from what they see in the movies or on TV, a lawyer has no such opportunity with a judge or jury. To a large extent, a lawyer must adapt to meet those expectations as much as possible in hopes of winning a case. Put simply, Johnnie Cochran and the cast of CSI have ruined it for the rest of us. Fortunately, there are many ways to create a polished and sophisticated impression without breaking the bank or distracting from the message that you want to convey on your client’s behalf. The two main areas where these issues come into play are courtroom visuals and “theatrical” performances of counsel.

First, lawyers must decide whether theirs is a case that lends itself well to multimedia presentations, and whether their judge and courtroom are good candidates for such presentations. If the answers to these questions are “yes,” then it is worth considering using these tools to enhance a courtroom performance.

While certain courtroom animations and computerized visual effects can be cost-prohibitive for many lawyers, and in addition to being complicated to use in a courtroom and temperamental to the point of being unreliable, recent advances in technology have made impressive-looking presentations both easier to use and less expensive than in the recent past. In fact, Microsoft PowerPoint, that staple of meetings and conferences, is both powerful and flexible enough to allow lawyers to quickly and easily create impressive visuals to use in a courtroom, either to project and emphasize exhibits, or to emphasize key points made in oral arguments. Most lawyers already own the software as part of the Microsoft Office suite that they use daily as they run Word, Excel, and Outlook. The hardware is almost equally accessible. Most lawyers either have or can borrow a laptop computer. Similarly, most law firms have a projector and screen and, if not, they can be rented inexpensively or purchased in many cases for a onetime investment of less than $1,000.00. Several books are available to help. Lawyers use these tools to create polished and impressive (and persuasive) visuals, including Cliff Atkinson’s Beyond Bullet Points, Jerry Weissman’s Presenting to Win, Christopher Ritter’s Creating Winning Trial Strategies and Graphics, and Slide:ology by Nancy Duarte.

In the area of courtroom demeanor, the solution is equally achievable. Contrary to popular belief, judges and juries do not expect (or want) lawyers to be blow hards or bullies. Rather, studies show that jurors sympathize with witnesses who are badgered and are put off by arrogant and pretentious trial lawyers. What they want you to show, however, is sincere passion for your client’s case and poised, polished presentation. Standing at counsel table and reading your examination questions or your closing argument in a monotone from your legal pad places you in a stark (and unfavorable) contrast from the actors and actresses they see going through the same motions in the movies, and from the celebrity lawyers whose cases are covered on the news.

Even in an era where jurors have seen hundreds of fictional closing arguments and cross-examinations, their expectations of how a lawyer should act in a courtroom will be met by a well-dressed and groomed (but not flashy) lawyer who appears prepared, organized, and confident, who advocates passionately and confidently (but not obnoxiously) for his or her client’s cause.

Here, like in most aspects of litigation, there is no substitute for simple preparation. A well-prepared lawyer will naturally be confident-and therefore appear confident-as he or she presents a client’s case. Argue with passion and conviction, but don’t pound the table theatrically or turn on the crocodile tears. You won’t be perceived as a movie star, but rather as a bad actor. Put another way, don’t bury your emotions-they can be a powerful tool for communicating your client’s message. But at the same time, don’t manufacture emotions because you think that’s what your audience wants to see. That insincerity will backfire every time.

Movie stars and famous lawyers with unlimited budgets have certainly made it harder for the rest of us to look good in comparison. But with some planning it’s still possible to manage your client’s expectations of what a lawsuit looks like and how a trial lawyer acts so that you won’t fall short in your client’s eyes when your case takes longer than 44 minutes (not counting commercials) to get from first meeting to trial. At the same time, with just a little work you can put on a case that’s (almost) worthy of a Hollywood production without compromising your client’s interests or blowing your litigation budget.

Break a leg!

I want to express our appreciation to Tony Paganelli for his candid advice on real-life trial work in today’s media world. Perhaps you’re interested in the CLE presentation where Mr. Paganelli brings a sharper image to these pointers. There are opportunities for you to hear his presentation from the Federal Civil Practice seminar either as a Video Replay seminar at various locations around the state or as an On Demand seminar, available anywhere, anytime.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Tony Paganelli is the principal of the Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis. Before leaving to found his own law firm in 2013, Tony was a litigation partner for several years with one of the largest law firms in the United States. Tony is an experienced trial lawyer with nearly 20 years of experience representing people and companies of all sizes in courtrooms across the United States. He also advises businesses on a wide range of issues, including employee relations, contracts and transactions, regulatory compliance, and intellectual property issues.

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs, Law Tips0 Comments

Law Tips: Trying Cases in a World of Media Overload: “Why Can’t You Be More Like Tom Cruise or Johnnie Cochran?”

What’s a good way for a lawyer to address the client who complains that she is being too nice to the opposing counsel?   Is there any way to explain the process of litigation before possible disappointments develop? Our faculty participant, Tony Paganelli, Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis, discusses these and other related issues that are growing more common in his CLE presentation: “Trying Cases in a World of Media Overload.” He has agreed to share with Law Tips readers a sampling of his insights from over 20 years as a trial lawyer:

More often than not, lawyering is the art of managing expectations-those of your clients and those of the courts. Because much of what we do as lawyers goes on behind the scenes, our clients only real glimpses into what we do every day comes from meetings, conference calls, depositions, and increasingly infrequent court appearances where clients actually attend in person. In our age of 24/7 television and always-on internet, the popular media replaces meaningful interaction between attorney and client to form the world’s perception of what we do and how we do it. This is not a good thing. Almost universally, the public’s perception of dispute resolution, as presented by movies, television shows, and the media, is one of a system that is much faster, flashier, and more simplistic than what really goes on in a lawyer’s day-to-day practice of law. This makes lawyers’ lives much more difficult.

For example, depending on the type of case and the venue, lawsuits can take from one to three years to make their way through the court system. During this period, months often go by with little or no activity. Under normal circumstances, clients would have a difficult time understanding this “hurry up and wait” system of project management, but when they see cases proceeding from start to finish in the course of a two-hour movie, or even a sixty-minute television show (with commercials!), they sometimes blame their lawyers for mismanagement, procrastination, laziness, or all of the above.

Similarly, the trials the public sees on the news and in movies apparently involve parties with infinite litigation budgets, especially when it comes to expert witnesses and courtroom presentation tools. After the O.J. Simpson trial, which much of America watched on television in real-time, people came to expect reconstruction videos, computer animation, and endless parades of forensic expert witnesses. What the public does not see are the bills that come afterward. Estimates place the fees incurred by Mr. Simpson in his case almost 20 years ago at well over $10 million.

The public also expects cases to resolve in dramatic courtroom clashes as lawsuits move quickly toward a speedy trial. This is to be expected-cross examination makes for much more dramatic television than a 10-hour long mediation, even though well over 90 percent of lawsuits are resolved by settlement or pre-trial motion, rather than trial. News accounts only cover settlements to the extent that they are announced in press releases or news conferences that are often ignored. The riveting news coverage is in the form of courtroom testimony, and even that is highly edited to focus only on the 30 seconds of dramatic sound-bite each day in ten hours of otherwise undramatic testimony.

The result for real-world litigants is an anticlimax: parties sometimes feel they have been denied their “day in court” or, worse, that their lawyer has “sold them out” by encouraging them to take a quick settlement instead of putting in the work needed to try a case. Similarly, clients accustomed to the “lawyer as gladiator” image presented in movies and television shows are unimpressed by (and sometimes suspicious of) lawyers they perceive as being too friendly with their opposing counsel, and by depositions or cross-examinations that seem tedious, weak, and emotionless.

The Solutions: Managing Your Clients’ Expectations
As in many things, the magic bullet to bridge the expectations gap between fiction and reality is communication. Lawyers should talk with their clients early and often about what should be expected in the course of a lawsuit. The three most important areas in which to set and manage client expectations are time, money, and resolution.

First, at the outset of a lawsuit lawyers should help clients understand how cases make their way through the courts to resolution, and that lawsuits are resolved by settlements an overwhelming majority of the time. At the same time, lawyers should explain that lawsuits typically proceed in fits and starts, punctuated by periods of intense activity followed by lulls that can last months. One effective tool to help lawyers communicate this aspect of litigation to clients, and also to help lawyers manage their cases, is the simple timeline. A printed timeline, provided to a client at the beginning of a case, can be a powerful tool for managing clients’ expectations and conditioning them to the fact that lawsuits are marathons, not sprints. The timeline can also serve as an agenda for periodic status update meetings and calls.

Second, another part of a lawyer’s case management job is to make sure his or her clients understand that everything in a lawsuit costs money. From expert witnesses to jury consultants to accident reconstructionists, the people who add the “sizzle” to a lawyer’s trial presentation are expensive. Any budget that a lawyer prepares for a client must account for these costs and explain to the client that they are not included in the lawyer’s fee, if that is the case. Again, if you can project expenses onto the timeline, your client can see not just how much money the case will cost, but also when (and why) fees and costs will be incurred.

Finally, clients must understand that lawyers are not gladiators. As all good lawyers know, yelling and bullying are seldom the most effective tools for advocacy. However, this may be the most difficult misperception to overcome but the concept of “you’ll be hearing from my lawyer!” is so deeply ingrained into our collective psyche. People expect, and pay, their lawyers to fight their battles for them, so they want to see at least a little bit of hand-to-hand combat on their behalf.

Make no mistake, there is a time and a place for firm, aggressive conduct. The reluctant, dishonest witness must be dealt with and the foot-dragging opposing counsel must be held to task. A lawyer arguing his or her client’s case in a courtroom should not merely read notes from a legal pad, but should plead the client’s case with appropriate passion and zeal. But there is no place in litigation for belligerence, bullying, or needless antagonism. Indeed, judges are becoming increasingly unforgiving of such conduct, insisting on civility from all counsel and litigants.

So how does the lawyer explain himself to the client who complains that he is being too nice to the opposing counsel? How does she respond when the client asks why she didn’t get tougher in the deposition? Again, the answer comes from communicating with your client in advance and setting reasonable client expectations. For example, if you worry that your client will perceive you as weak if you agree to routine continuances and extensions of deadlines, during your first discussion of the lawsuit timeline you can explain that it is typical for both sides (and the court) to need more time to respond to a request or a motion, and that events are often rescheduled through no sinister motive, but rather just because the process of a lawsuit is dynamic. Evidence gets discovered, motions get filed, and other things happen that can’t be predicted in advance. Explain that you might need a continuance or extension yourself at some point, and objecting to the other side’s request may haunt you later when you need the same courtesy.

Moreover, you can explain to your client that objecting to routine and reasonable requests to adjust the timeline will be counterproductive because they will likely be granted over your objection, and you will look petty and unreasonable to the judge for making the objection.

By the same token, explaining to your client in advance, for example, that depositions are fact-finding interviews, and not opportunities to embarrass or belittle opposing witnesses, might help your client understand a seemingly meek questioning technique. A client who knows in advance that the goal of a deposition is to put a witness at ease and encourage him to talk will be satisfied with something less than an inquisition.

Are your client communication methods similar to these? Are you now thinking of a few improvements? Hopefully, this review had a tip or two to help you in the future. I appreciate Tony Paganelli sharing his experience on managing clients’ expectations. And, there’s more!   His timely advice continues next week here on Law Tips when he steps into “Adapting to the Audience’s Expectations.” Come back to see what he has to say about how to create a polished and sophisticated impression without breaking the bank or distracting from the message.

Meanwhile, there are opportunities for you to hear Mr. Paganelli’s presentation from the Federal Civil Practice seminar either as a Video Replay seminar at various locations around the state or as an On Demand seminar, available anywhere, anytime.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Tony Paganelli is the principal of the Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis. Before leaving to found his own law firm in 2013, Tony was a litigation partner for several years with one of the largest law firms in the United States. Tony is an experienced trial lawyer with nearly 20 years of experience representing people and companies of all sizes in courtrooms across the United States. He also advises businesses on a wide range of issues, including employee relations, contracts and transactions, regulatory compliance, and intellectual property issues.

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs, Law Tips0 Comments

Law Tips: Fire Suppression and Alarm Systems – How Much Blame Do They Merit in Fire Litigation?

…Fault allocation, underlying events, owner’s responsibilities, cause of the explosion, liability picture, contractor’s employment, design and installation, damage differentiation problems, local jurisdiction standards….What are the unique issues in each fire litigation case?

Today we are welcoming to Law Tips Thomas J. Jarzyniecki, Jr., Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, Indianapolis. TJ is chair of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group and routinely deals with the issues of fire-related property damage and fatalities. He warns practitioners about the tendency to put all the blame on fire suppression and alarm systems when litigating fire cases:

There are several types of fire suppression and alarm systems in wide use in the United States. Most jurisdictions have laws, codes, or some type of regulations that govern the requirement for such systems in new construction, as well as the design parameters for systems being installed. Often states adopt, in whole or in part, relevant portions of the National Fire Protection Association (“NFP A”) rules applicable to such systems. The NFP A may be adopted as part of a building code or fire code of a given state, but even if not specially adopted it is recognized in the industry as authoritative on minimum standards of care based on years of testing and experience.

NFP A 13 (and its subparts) provides the standard for installation of Sprinkler Systems and NFP A 25 provides the standard for the regular inspection, testing and maintenance of waterbased fire protection systems. These two standards cover the majority of sprinkler systems in use today. Other portions of the NFPA address particular hazards (storage of flammable liquid or aerosols) and the various means of providing fire protecting beyond water (foams or dry chemicals). In all, the NFPA providers the starting point for analyzing the performance or lack thereof for any litigation wherein the adequacy of a suppression system or alarm system has been called into question.

Fire suppression devices come in a variety of shapes and sizes. From a single hand held fire extinguisher, to the restaurant hood system, to large wet or dry sprinkler systems all the way to specialized industrial fire suppression systems for large industrial machinery or equipment. These various devices and systems are somewhat unique on the fire litigation landscape since they are never the initial cause of a fire or explosive event but they often times may end up receiving all the blame.

Another consistent feature of cases wherein some shortcoming of an alarm or suppression system has been raised is involvement of multiple players regarding the system. Often the system has been in place for a substantial period of time and the original designer, installer or maintenance company have long since departed. In addition, there is invariably other equipment or items involved that can significantly impact the effectiveness of the fire suppression system. For example, the restaurant hood and associated filters must be regularly cleaned to allow the suppression system the opportunity to perform adequately. Another example involves the warehouse that ends up stacking storage too high or too dense, reducing the effectiveness of the suppression system.

In the final analysis, spread of fire cases present some unique challenges but a thorough investigation of the involved suppression or alarm system and the underlying event itself, will provide plenty of available defenses applicable to the claim. The cause of the fire or explosion will still be of great significance to a jury and must be factored into the liability picture and analysis. The scope of an alarm or suppression system contractor’s employment will also play a significant role where an existing poor design or installation is attempted to be foist upon the last company to touch the system. While owners can rely to a degree on the fact that they “hired an expert” to perform work on the involved system they cannot by so doing, turn a blind eye to their own responsibilities and duties as identified by statute, ordinance, codes or standards.

A complete understanding of the applicable codes and standards from the local jurisdiction to universally accepted standards, like the NFPA, will allow you to gain an advantage during the course of discovery, especially during expert depositions. Evaluating how your state will handle some of the thorny fault allocation issues and damage differentiation problems can greatly assist in defending these types of claims and assess your client’s true exposure

Thanks to TJ Jarzyniecki for his contribution to Law Tips. TJ’s CLE presentation during the Litigating Fire Cases seminar delves into a thorough discussion of other important issues, such as, types of systems and alarms, potentially responsible parties, fault allocation and damages. Litigating Fire Cases is available anytime, anywhere as an On Demand Seminar and available statewide as Video Replay Seminars.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Thomas J. Jarzyniecki, Jr., Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.  TJ Jarzyniecki is a senior partner and the chair of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group.  He has extensive experience dealing with fire-related matters. TJ routinely handles subrogation cases dealing with fire-related property damage and fatalities. He also uses this knowledge to handle product liability cases relating to the defense of fire suppression system installation and the defense of fire suppression system inspectors.  Mr. Jarzyniecki serves as Co-Chair of the Indiana chapter of the National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP) and is an active member of the organization.

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Tips, News0 Comments

Law Tips: What Do The Courts Say About An Inherited IRA?

Recently Tom Yoder, ICLEF Bankruptcy Law expert, brought his usual scintillating discussion of cases to ICLEF’s 36th Annual Indiana Law Update. The case of Clark v. Rameker, 134 S. Ct. 2242 (2014) is an example of the issues he raised for the attention of practitioners inside and outside the bankruptcy area. His analysis of this case and the path it took from Bankruptcy Court to District Court to U. S. Supreme Court points out how an inherited IRA might have an unexpected end. Be sure to read to the end for the “Yoder Closing.”

Debtor’s mother created a traditional IRA and named Debtor as the beneficiary. After Debtor’s mother passed, Debtor inherited the account. When Debtor and her husband filed for Chapter 7 relief, they alleged the IRA, totaling about $300,000, was excluded from their bankruptcy estate by virtue of the exemption afforded “retirement funds” under § 522(b )(3)(C). The Bankruptcy Court denied the exemption on the basis that an “inherited” IRA is not a “retirement fund.” The District Court reversed, feeling the account was close enough to qualify for the exemption since the funds were originally accumulated for retirement purposes. The 7th Circuit reversed the District Court, noting substantial differences between traditional IRAs and the inherited variety.

Since creating a split in the Circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor agreed with the 7th Circuit’s analysis, focusing primarily on the differences between inherited and traditional IRAs. For the purposes of this case, contributions to traditional IRAs are tax -deductible, but not to inherited IRAs. A withdrawal from a traditional IRA before the account holder reaches the age of 59 ½, is subjected to a ten percent penalty. Once an account holder dies, and the funds are transferred to a beneficiary, the IRA becomes an inherited IRA. If the account is inherited by a person other than the owner’s spouse, the IRA funds may not be “rolled over” into an existing IRA, but instead, must be considered an inherited IRA.

Accordingly, the Court held inherited IRAs do not fall under the “retirement funds” exemption. Justice Sotomayor noted there are three significant differences between the characteristics of a traditional IRA, the “quintessential retirement fund,” and an inherited IRA. First, an inherited IRA, as opposed to a traditional IRA, cannot be contributed or added to regularly over time. Second, account holders are required to withdraw money from inherited IRAs at specific times regardless of whether they qualify as retirement distributions; hence, the Debtor here chose to withdraw yearly distributions over the last ten years. Finally, an account holder of an inherited IRA may withdraw the entire account balance without penalty before the age of 59 ½. Traditional IRAs, of course, are subject to a withdrawal penalty if the account holder is younger than 59 ½.

These aforementioned differences led the Court to conclude inherited IRAs do not fulfill the Code exemption’s intent to help support and protect a debtor’s needs by providing for the future. As elegantly worded, Justice Sotomayor ruled that allowing an inherited IRA to be considered a “retirement fund” under the applicable exemption would shift the Code’s purpose in providing a “fresh start” into a “free pass.”

The Court was not persuaded by Debtors’ statutory construction arguments otherwise, finding Debtors’ arguments contravened the exemption statute’s express language and purpose. Justice Sotomayor ruled “retirement funds,” under normal usage, refers to setting money aside for retirement, not for the benefit of someone else at a later date. Accordingly, she found it contrary to logic for funds deposited in a traditional IRA to be withdrawn, transferred to someone else, and then considered “retirement funds” simply because the funds originally started out as such. Even if an individual uses the inherited IRA for retirement purposes, it does not mean that inherited IRAs have the same legal characteristics as a traditional IRA.

In Tom’s discussion at the Indiana Law Update he provides the following background and personal comment about the decision in Clark v. Ramecker:

“Don’t get fooled by the difference between federal exemptions and state exemptions in this instance. 70% of the states, including Indiana, have opted out of the federal exemptions. However, while the federal exemption exempts retirement funds, the Indiana exemption exempts retirement plans. I am here to tell you that there is no difference as far as I’m concerned between those two concepts. So, the way this case came out is going to be the way I say it will come out if it ever becomes an issue in Indiana. For those of you who do estate planning, if you are dealing with an inherited IRA, if your clients have to file for bankruptcy the IRA will not be exempt”……..Says Yoder.

The Yoder presentation on key bankruptcy issues accompanies other enlightening sessions of the 36th Annual Indiana Law Update. If you haven’t already had the opportunity to attend this year’s seminar, Click Here for On Demand or Video Replay Seminars near you.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Thomas P. Yoder is a partner with law firm of Barrett & McNagny LLP in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and concentrates his practice in the areas of business bankruptcy, creditors’ rights and general insolvency matters. He is a Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy. He has also written and lectured extensively on bankruptcy and insolvency-related topics and is a co-author of Bankruptcy- A Survival Guide for Lenders (First ed. 1997; Second ed. 2008), published by the American Bankruptcy Institute and winner of the ABI’ s Outstanding Publications Award (1997).

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Tips, News0 Comments