Legal Weapons To Combat Improper Competitive Conduct by Former Employees – Part 2

Welcome back as we continue Scott Morrisson’s insights into protecting your clients from a former employee’s wrongful competition. Scott noted last week that “Not all is lost if an employer does not have an enforceable agreement with its employees.” Those relative comments and an overview of The Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act appear at the bottom of this article. This week Mr. Morrisson shares a sampling of current legal actions pertaining to that improper competitive conduct:

Examples of Common Law and Other Claims

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
An employer/employee relationship is an agency relationship. The employee, as agent, owes the employer, as principal, a fiduciary duty. See, e.g., Potts v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., 475 N.E.2d 708, 711-12 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). Some courts have characterized this fiduciary obligation as a duty of loyalty. See, e.g., SJS Refractory Co., LLC v. Empire Refractory Sales, Inc., 952 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011); Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen, 874 N.E.2d 1065, 1070 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Davis v. Eagle Products, Inc., 501 N.E.2d 1099, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). Regardless of the nomenclature, this common law fiduciary obligation prohibits the employee from competing with his employer prematurely or otherwise competing in breach of his duty to the former employer.

Computer Trespass and Tampering
A departing employee may expose himself to potential civil and criminal liability under Indiana statutory law by unauthorized retrieval or deletion of the employer’s computer data. An employee who knowingly or intentionally retrieves information from the employer’s computer system or network without the employer’s consent commits computer trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code§ 35-43-2-3. 1

Likewise, an employee “who knowingly or intentionally alters or damages a computer program or data, which comprises a part of a computer system or computer network without the consent of the owner of the computer system or computer network commits computer tampering, a Class D felony.” Ind. Code§ 35-43-1-4. See also Meridian Financial Advisors, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 1061 (observing that given the dearth of Indiana cases interpreting the computer tampering statute, it is unclear whether Indiana courts would construe such statute so broadly to include the deletion of email).

Given the ubiquity of computers in the modem workplace and the natural temptation for soon-to-be-departing employees to retrieve and/or delete useful computer data, employers should be mindful of the computer trespass and computer tampering statutes because they can provide a basis for civil recovery. Like criminal conversion, computer trespass (Ind. Code§ 35-43-2-3) and computer tampering (Ind. Code§ 35-43-1-4) are among the class of property crimes that may serve as a basis for a claim under the Indiana Crime Victim Relief Act, Indiana Code § 34-24-3-1. Thus, treble damages and attorneys’ fees may be recoverable.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
An employee or former employee who illicitly retrieves or deletes data from the employer’s computer may be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Although the CFAA is primarily a criminal law intended to address computer hacking and other malicious interferences with computer systems, civil actions are authorized under certain instances. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).

The CFAA enumerates seven types of criminal activity relating to computers, including theft of computer data (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)), unauthorized access with intent to defraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4), and unauthorized access resulting in damage to computer (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)). The civil action provision of CFAA, which allows for the recovery of “compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief,” establishes a $5,000 minimum damages requirement as a jurisdictional threshold for most applicable violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g); See also Meridian Financial Advisors, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 1061.

Claims under the CFAA often hinge on whether the employee’s access was unauthorized or exceeded applicable authorization. See, e.g., LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009); Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7’h Cir. 2006); Black & Decker, Inc. v. Smith, 568 F. Supp. 2d 929 (W.D. Tenn. 2008).

Civil Conspiracy
“A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who engage in a concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish some lawful purpose by unlawful means.” Boyle v. Anderson Fire Fighters Assn Local 1262, AFL-CIO, 497 N.E.2d 1073, 1079 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). Lawful acts may thus become a conspiracy when they are committed in concert for an illegal purpose. Id. Indiana recognizes that “[t]here can be no doubt in this state that it is an actionable wrong to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the business of another without cause or justification and that all parties to such combination are liable for the acts illegally done in pursuance of such conspiracy and for the consequent loss sustained, whether they be active participants or not.” Fort Wayne Cleaners & Dyers Assn v. Price, 137 N.E.2d 739, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 1956). While a party cannot be liable for tortuously interfering with its own contract, the party can be held liable for conspiring with another to tortuously interfere with the contract. Allison v. Union Hosp., 883 N.E.2d 113, 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). One often sees civil conspiracy claims brought when two or more employees leave, and on occasion, when claims are made against the departing employee and new employer.

Conclusion
An employer should not rely on the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act or common law rights to the exclusion of a contractual covenant not to compete or other contractual agreements. The best way to prevent harmful competition by ex-employees is to utilize well-drafted noncompetition and related agreements. In those instances where a noncompetition agreement does not exist or is impossible to obtain (i.e., employee refuses to sign covenant not to compete), the Act, the common law, and certain Indiana statutes provide an employer with a limited measure of protection from competition by former employees, as well as additional potential remedies. Although these noncontractual claims may be more difficult for an employer to establish, they can, in certain instances, provide an employer with effective weapons to combat wrongful competitive conduct by former employees.

1 Indiana Code § 35-43-2-3 provides:
(a) As used in this section:
“Access” means to:
(1) Approach;
(2) Instruct;
(3) Communicate with;
(4) Store data in;
(5) Retrieve data from; or
(6) Make use of resources of;

a computer, computer system, or computer network. “Computer network” means the interconnection of communication lines or wireless telecommunications with a computer or wireless telecommunication device through:
(1) remote terminals;
(2) a complex consisting of two (2) or more interconnected computers; or
(3) a worldwide collection of interconnected networks operating as the Internet

Thank you to Scott Morrisson for his valuable input on non-competition agreements and claims. For a comprehensive educational session in this area, register for the Covenants Not To Compete & Trade Secrets seminar. This CLE program is available either through as a Video Replay Seminar in your area or by watching an On Demand Seminar at your own computer. Click Here to make your choice of the version you prefer.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Scott S. Morrisson, Partner, Kreig DeVault, LLP, Carmel, IN – Mr. Morrisson’s main area of practice is civil litigation and litigation analysis involving a wide range of civil litigation matters. Particular areas of focus include employment, insurance, business, corporate, construction, trademark, tort, and ESOP litigation. He also focuses on arbitration and mediation. Mr. Morrisson has served as lead counsel on numerous jury trials, bench trials, preliminary injunction hearings, court hearings, and arbitrations in state and federal courts of Indiana and throughout the country. Additionally, he represents individuals and employers in negotiating, drafting, and evaluating Employment, Non-Compete, and related agreements.

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: Elder Law: A Rock Steady Approach to Clients Challenged by Progressive Disease

Your approach to a client with age or disability challenges is crucial to their peace of mind. During ICLEF’s recent Elder Law Institute this subject received a unique type of attention. Attendees learned of Indiana’s Rock Steady Boxing program where people fight their disease with vigor. Our expert Elder Law faculty member, Scott Severns, offers candid impressions of his encounter with The Rock Steady Approach and his Top Three Aha’s:

As Elder Law Attorneys, we help our clients face a variety of challenges from disability and aging. We devise sophisticated trusts and draft other documents to enable family members to legally accomplish the important goals of and for the person in need of care. We guide clients through baffling Medicaid law and an even more baffling bureaucracy.

The way that we approach our work with a client and family can have major impact on the choices they make. When we are at our best, we strengthen the ability of the individual and family care givers to meet the challenges successfully together, preserving the values most dear to them.

Every once-in-a-while, we encounter something that startles us to a new understanding of effective help. For me, the Rock Steady Boxing program for people with Parkinson’s Disease has been such a startling–and inspiring–encounter.

Here are some questions to ask yourself as you watch the video and hear the description of this program (below). I will follow up with Severns’ Top Three Aha’s from the Rock Steady Approach.

  • Is this just another form of therapy or exercise?   What’s different about it?
  • What is the primary focus of the coaches?
  • At Rock Steady, boxers work out with others who are engaged in the same battle. How important is the “common cause?”
  • What most surprised you about Rock Steady?
  • What client(s) in your case load might benefit from a program like Rock Steady?
  • Are there aspects to the Rock Steady approach that could improve the way we counsel, represent, strategize with our clients?

Joyce B. Johnson, Executive Director, Rock Steady Boxing, offers this video with an insightful message:
Purdue Parkinson’s Disease Research and Rock Steady Gym

Severns’ Top Three Aha’s from the Rock Steady approach:
Boxers engage with their disease as a challenge, not a death sentence. By coming together with others facing similar challenge to fight back, boxers overcome isolation and depression. No boxer is written off or permitted to give up. They collaborate; they don’t commiserate.

How do we as lawyers encourage clients to engage rather than to become passive or succumb? I’m aware that I am tempted to be the “man with the answers” or even a rescuer. My most rewarding client relationships, however, are those where I’m in the client’s corner as the client meets hers or his challenge.

I have often witnessed the spiral toward isolation and depression that often accompanies a chronic degenerative disease, so I listen for what relationships and activities are and have been most meaningful in the client’s life. I can then explore how those can be maintained, enhanced or re-cast in a new setting. Staying independent and alone at home is not the ultimate goal for everyone and certainly entry to a facility that treats residents as problems is not the right alternative, either. I must be aware of the trajectory that Medicaid planning, for instance, creates. I must help family care givers to become effective advocates when facility practices or staff hit below the belt.

Boxers are “boxers,” not “Parkinson’s victims.” Family members and friends are “corner-men” rather than guardians, spokespersons or even care givers.

In counseling, what words do I use to refer to and describe my client? My client’s corner-men? Can the documents I draft be better-worded to enhance self-image of the client and the “better angels” of family members’ character?

Coaches are encouragers, accommodating each boxer’s limitations while focusing on their strengths. Coaches help each boxer discover and enhance capacities that the boxer may not have even known s/he had.

When we meet with clients with diminished capacity, how well do we accommodate limitations without emphasizing them, and help the client recognize and build upon what is strong in him/her? Even more challenging, we’ve all had experiences where family members’ manner of speaking treats the client with mental or physical impairment as a problem, rather than a person with deep values and strengths. I have to remind myself at times not to talk over a client with dementia, to ask questions scaled to the client’s capacity-to involve the client in decisions to the extent possible. Sometimes I simply keep my eyes focused on the client and ignore the interruption of a family-member who seeks to take over the conversation from the client.

By modeling deference and true concern for the views of the client with an impairment, we can sometimes help everyone discover the right relationship to meet their challenges together.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I appreciate the support of Law Tips from Scott Severns and Joyce Johnson. Their Rock Steady Approach is definitely inspirational. You may hear their CLE presentation by registering for the Elder Law Institute at your convenience through ICLEF’s On Demand programming. Also available is our 2015 Advanced Elder Law Seminar,  a Masters Series Seminar, August 14-15 at the Canyon Inn at McCormick’s Creek State Park in beautiful southern Indiana.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participants:
Scott R. Severns, Partner, Severns Associates, P.C., Indianapolis
Known by many in Indiana as the “Father of Elder Law,” Scott Severns is a founding member and Past President of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. His professional career has focused on legal and health care issues that confront older adults and people with disabilities. A Past President of the National Citizens’ Coalition for Nursing Home Reform and a former policy analyst for United Senior Action, he has successfully lobbied for nursing home reform laws and was a primary architect of Indiana’s home health care legislation known as the CHOICE program. He is a regular faculty member for the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, the American Bar Association, and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys.

Joyce B. Johnson, Executive Director, Rock Steady Boxing, Indianapolis
Joyce Johnson leads the RSB team as its Executive Director. She has more than 30 years experience managing organizational change and growth. Johnson was Vice-President of the Greater Educational Opportunities Foundation. She is the editor of “Key Things Parents Should Know about Education in Indiana,” published in 2004.

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 Blog, Law Tips, News0 Comments

Law Tips: Collaborative Law, Part 3: The Future

Welcome back to our Law Tips series featuring Claire Emswiller Short’s practical insights on Collaborative Law. As a closing for this topic, she has a discerning look at the future:

Is Collaborative Law divorce what mediation was 15 years ago? Will it spread throughout the country and permeate into other areas of law for alternative dispute resolution? There is certainly a possibility.

To grow in Indiana, in the family law arena and beyond, the challenge lies in getting enough professionals interested, trained and actively educating their clients about the option of a Collaborative Law divorce. While it is believed by many to result in better outcomes for all parties when conducted successfully, there may be some attorneys and professionals who simply are not willing or not able to make such a paradigm shift in their own professions.

Fortunately, in family law practice, there seems to be no slowing down the continued stream of young professionals coming through the area. With the divorce rate in Indiana teetering between 49% and 50% the supply of work is pretty steady and rarely ends after the final decree. Exposure to the collaborative commitment to civility and cooperation and it’s process for achieving that from a client will not be difficult for a new professional to accept and embrace. They are not deeply invested with years of experience in the traditional models and the shift into collaborative practice will not be a dramatic overhaul of what they have become familiar. The challenge will come in the permeation into other areas of law and disputes.

One of the reasons that family law has been the medium for the Collaborative process is because the interactions between the clients are not done at arm’s length-and more than likely, there is going to be some sort of a continued relationship or interaction between the parties. That creates incentive and motivations for the required commitment to civility and cooperation of the process. Further, many of the interests align between the individual parties, so it is easier to find common ground on the important issues.

Labor/employment, family and partnership business disputes and restructurings, healthcare conflicts and construction claims may be other areas that could benefit from a Collaborative Law approach. Another area of law where there are similar characteristics is in estate and trust administration/ litigation, though the main challenge in this area of law is one of the most demonstrative examples of the type of challenge that would require a more collective effort by practitioners and professionals in the legal arena.

Trust/estate litigation can be a substantially costly endeavor for an individual, non-business entity, as is usually the party in these matters, and often, wronged parties are not financially able to address disputes. The inhibiting expenses come from the same sources as in divorce cases, just often on a multiplied scale depending on the number of family members involved: Mainly discovery/information gathering and valuation of assets.

For example: Decedent dies with an adult brother, and three adult surviving children. Decedent owned and operated a business that owned land, buildings, merchandise, services, and several other complicating factors for valuation and his brother was his second in command. Decedent leaves a will dividing his entire estate (including his business) equally to each child and to his brother. However, disputes arise about what would be considered an equal division, operation of the business, etc. and each party hires his own counsel. That is five attorneys who are each conducting his or her own discovery, communication, settlement negotiations, etc., with four other attorneys. Not to mention that if the dispute involves the valuation of assets, you have five different appraisals for each type of asset involved in the dispute (land expert, business valuation experts, and asset valuation experts).

So either the parties go ahead with traditional litigation and spend most of the estate assets on litigation expenses that may or may not save the business or, do nothing. And, because of the disputes, mistrust and discord that emerges, the business is unable to continue and the relationships between the parties and respective families are ruined.

This would be a perfect scenario for a Collaborative Law process. The parties could agree to hire one set of neutral experts, while discovery and information gathering could be streamlined and done more efficiently. The focus could remain on the true issues at hand with the option of addressing family rivalries and side disputes that may really be fueling the impasse that often standstills progress towards settlement. It will most likely save the future relationship of the parties as well as effectively preserving the estate assets.

The biggest challenge for growth in areas like estate/trust litigation comes back to enticing professionals in that area to make that shift and to be trained, but on a more difficult level. Here, since the repeal of the Indiana Inheritance Tax and the large exception amount reached for Federal Estate Tax, the stream of newly practicing attorneys into this area has slowed. There just simply is not as much work to go around to support a purely trust and estate practice. This means that those in this area are likely very invested in the old model in which they have probably been practicing in for a long time. It would be a tough transition to change this kind of professional’s mindset but surely not impossible

Again, the key is to educating practitioners, the judiciary, and the public of the advantages and possibilities surrounding this type of method. That is more likely to be achieved by the profession as a whole, not by individual practice areas.

Many thanks to Claire Emswiller Short for this intriguing look inside the ripening Collaborative Law arena. If you are interested in Claire’s CLE presentation on Collaborative Law, ICLEF still has a few Video Replay Seminars of, “Epic Change: The Evolution of the Legal Profession.” Simply Click Here and we’ll guide you through the easy steps to enroll.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Claire Emswiller ShortEmswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, PC, Indianapolis, is a third generation attorney, following in the footsteps of both her grandfather, Byron Emswiller, and her father, Kent Emswiller. She practices in the areas of estate planning, estate administration, estate/trust litigation as well as family law. Her family law practice includes divorce, post-decree modification, paternity, child support/custody, premarital agreements and she is a trained Collaborative Law professional. She also is devoted to assisting families or individuals develop plans and solutions for the care of family members who are aging, or have special needs, such as in the mental health or substance abuses areas. She  has substantial experience with guardianship proceedings and long term planning in trusts and adoptions.

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: Collaborative Law, Part 2: The Ground Rules

Some believe that Collaborative Law is a part of the epic changes in the legal profession being witnessed across the country. Claire Emswiller Short employs this process in her daily practice. She’s providing her insights on this new approach to conflict resolution in our latest Law Tips series. This week Claire takes you inside the workings of Collaborative Law, looking at the ground rules:

The Collaborative Participation Agreement
The Participation Agreement is the key to the Collaborative divorce. This Agreement specifies the guidelines for the process; the most important being that if the process breaks down, both attorneys must withdraw and any neutral experts utilized are also no longer able to participate. This includes any and all work products. The Agreement also spells out provisions regarding the exchange of information and confidentiality between the attorneys and clients.

The Agreement serves many implicit purposes as well. First, it keeps everyone vested in the interest based negotiation model. The attorneys are able to be advocate and discuss possible solutions freely and so are the clients. Impasse and breakdown do occur. But knowing that any progress that has been made, information exchanged, or settlement decisions reached will be lost if a party digs in his or her heels, can be a powerful tool to get parties to reevaluate and rethink disagreements.

The Agreement also makes it clear that each client must voluntarily disclose all relevant facts. If it is discovered that either party has attempted to hide assets or withhold information, then this also results in both attorneys and all experts being forced to withdraw.

The Meetings
The real work in a collaborative divorce is done during a series of meetings in which the two parties and their respective counsel meet together to discuss each party’s interests as it pertains to the resolution issue at hand. This means that everyone is in the same room, there is no neutral mediator, and the discussions are centered upon an Agenda that has been distributed and agreed upon before the meeting begins.

The amount of meetings and length of each one depends on the facts of the case and the needs of the parties involved. The meetings can be organized by topic or each set to a specific time period, whatever seems to work best for the individuals.

Preparation/ Goals and Commitments
The most important aspect of these meetings often takes place before they occur. It is imperative that the attorney prepares his or her client before these meetings. The attorney should make sure the client has a clear understanding of what his or her interests truly are concerning a particular issue and to consider what the opposing party’s interests or thoughts may be.

This requires more than simply going down the laundry list and determining the assets, debts and respective incomes of the parties. The attorney needs to guide his or his client through determining the end-game goals-“where do you want to be at the end of this process?” “What do you want your life to look like?”

Yes, it is important to address immediate issues regarding household bills and temporary parenting schedules, but it is up to the attorney to keep the client from getting hyper-focused on these immediate details and constantly redirect them to consider the big picture like the stability of their children or long-term financial security.

Ground Rules and the Agendas
Because there is an Agenda for each meeting, everyone is aware of what will be discussed. This eliminates the stick of dynamite that blows up a settlement negotiation because the information was a surprise to one party or a sensitive fact is brought up that has limited relevancy to the specific issue being discussed. Each party is prepared for the issues being addressed. There is no room to get off topic or bring up irrelevant facts because the attorneys have made clear that meetings are to follow the Agenda. Side topics that arise must be tabled to the next meeting so that they can appear on that meeting’s Agenda with plenty of prior knowledge.

Another major difference in the Collaborative divorce as opposed to traditional methods is the Agenda which can assist in containing a common but very volatile difference. Indiana is a no-fault divorce state, meaning that courts are permitted to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the respondent has committed a breach of the marital contract. While there are several benefits to this concept, it does substantially limit what history or information about the family is considered relevant.

Every divorce lawyer has a story of how the settlement negotiations blew up in the final moments over an old sofa or a Christmas CD. The issue is rarely about the worthless item the parties so suddenly find themselves unable to part with; it is usually an underlying hurt, distrust, or disappointment that has no place for discussion in a traditional settlement negotiation, so a spouse redirects those emotions into something completely unrelated.

In the Collaborative divorce, if a similar impasse occurs and the attorneys feel that there is something deeper creating the problem, then it can be put upon the Agenda as something that needs to be addressed or discussed. For example if an affair is involved, often the party that was cheated on just needs an opportunity to express his or her hurt, disappointment and anger and just have the other party hear them. However, by having it on the Agenda, both parties are prepared and they know it will be coming. So, no dynamite explodes and the attorneys can properly prepare each client for the discussion. The situation can be controlled, directed and hopefully productive in achieving a successful settlement.

Neutral Experts
Another unique aspect of a Collaborative Law divorce is that in this process only neutral experts are used. Meaning that instead of each party hiring his or her own experts to support positions and obtain more difficult information, the parties and attorneys agree on what neutral experts are needed and who will fulfill those roles. These types of experts include financial professionals, mental health professionals, and or child specialists.

Please note that these professionals MUST also be trained in the Collaborative Law Process and also must sign the Collaborative Participation Agreement (See Part 1.) signaling that if the parties decide to default to litigation, the experts must also withdraw along with the attorneys initially involved.  

We’ll break here until next week’s segment when Ms. Short returns to share her views on the future of Collaborative Law. Meanwhile, if you are interested in Claire’s CLE presentation on Collaborative Law, ICLEF has a few Video Replay Seminars of, “Epic Change: The Evolution of the Legal Profession.” Simply Click Here and we’ll guide you through the easy steps to enroll.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Claire Emswiller ShortEmswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, PC, Indianapolis, is a third generation attorney, following in the footsteps of both her grandfather, Byron Emswiller, and her father, Kent Emswiller. She practices in the areas of estate planning, estate administration, estate/trust litigation as well as family law. Her family law practice includes divorce, post-decree modification, paternity, child support/custody, premarital agreements and she is a trained Collaborative Law professional. She also is devoted to assisting families or individuals develop plans and solutions for the care of family members who are aging, or have special needs, such as in the mental health or substance abuses areas. She  has substantial experience with guardianship proceedings and long term planning in trusts and adoptions.

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

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