Wanzer Financial

5th Annual REALity CLE, May 4-5: The Real Aspects of Running a Successful Law Practice

5th Annual Reality CLEA Unique Retreat for Attorneys That Drive in the Small Practice Lane as Well as Those New to the Practice of Law!

OVERVIEW:
We are excited to announce that the Reality CLE program is back for 2017 with fresh new content! Join your fellow small firm colleagues on May 4-5, 2017 at the Crowne Plaza Airport for two energized days packed with valuable information you can put immediately to use in your practice.

Affordable!
To help you manage your budget, ICLEF has again arranged a special low tuition rate for everyone, which includes lunch on the first day, refreshment break service throughout, printed and electronic materials for all sessions, 14.5 hours of CLE credit (including 4.25 hours towards ethics) and FREE parking.
____________________________________________

PLENARY TOPICS:
The Lawyer’s Compass: Character, Ethics & Trust for the Small Law Office
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 in our modern world. The Lawyer’s Compass presentation focuses your attention on the critical interplay between your character and competencies and how they combine to build trust in client relationships.  In particular, you will:
• Learn How & 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 & Actions
• Learn Professional Competencies That Will Help You Quickly Build Trust in Client Relationships
• Discover a System for Identifying & Managing the Four Expectations That Every Client Holds in Every Engagement
• Explore How We Derive Congruence, Satisfaction & Contentment in Legal Practice
• Build Your Own Lawyer’s Compass to Guide Your Efforts in Building Future Personal & Professional Fulfillment & Success

“Nuggets of Brilliance” with James J. Bell

Business Development Tool Kit For Your Practice
• Branding & Ethics
• Staying Connected with Clients & Referral Sources
• Social Media Presence – What Is Effective & Ethical?
• Dos, Don’ts, and Best Practices
• Endorsements and Testimonials

The “Business Aspects” of Practice in the Modern Digital Age
• Is Your Website ADA Accessible? Are You Sure?
• Systems for Time and Billing, including Online Billing
• Organizing the Flow of Work, Proper Use of Legal Support Staff
– i.e., not crossing the line into the unauthorized practice of law
• Client Communications
• Office Manuals

How To Effectively Use Technology In Your Practice

Things You Don’t Normally Think About, But Should
• Unexpected Medical Leaves
• Planning for Vacations
• Disaster Preparedness
• The Insurance Checklist (including Professional Liability Insurance)
• Cyber Security
• Should You Consider Expanding Your Practice?
• Planning for When You Retire – What happens next to your practice?
• E-Filing, now what?

Don’t Forget the Fundamentals!
• Business Structure and Type of Entity
• How to Share Space
• Types of Bank Accounts Needed
• Credit Card Processing
• Real Estate Issues for Law Firms
• Protecting Your Assets
• Running an Office on a Shoestring Budget – Successfully!

Golden Nuggets: Practice Ideas & Pointers of the last 12 Months
– A Reality CLE Tradition!

Plus: “Open Mike” time for sharing collective wisdom for the good of the cause
____________________________________________

BREAKOUT SESSIONS
Sessions I & II (Select Two)
A. Family Law
B. Wills, Trusts & Estate Planning
C. What Every Law Practice Needs to Know About Labor & Employment Law in Managing its Own Practice and Staff

Sessions III & IV (Select Two)
E. Criminal Law
F. Contracts Drafting, Structure and Analysis
G. Don’t Be Afraid to go to Trial!
____________________________________________

FACULTY:
Planning Team
Elizabeth A. Justice – Chair
Attorney at Law, Crawfordsville, IN

Rebecca W. Geyer
Rebecca W. Geyer & Associates, PC, Carmel, IN

F. Anthony Paganelli
Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis, IN

Frederick W. Schultz
Greene & Schultz Trial Lawyers, Bloomington, IN
_________________________________________________

James J. Bell
Paganelli Law Group, Indianapolis, IN

Ryan H. Cassman
Coots, Henke & Wheeler, P.C., Carmel, IN

Jessie A. Cook
Law Office of Jessie A. Cook, Terre Haute, IN

Kyle C. Gillaspie
Chief Staff Attorney, Indiana Court of Appeals, IN

Betsy K. Greene
Greene & Schultz Trial Lawyers, Bloomington, IN

Hannah Kaufman
Joseph Katz & Korin, PC, Indianapolis, IN

Meghann E. LaBadie
Law Office of Meghann LaBadie, LLC, Highland, IN

Richard A. Mann
Richard A. Mann, P.C., Indianapolis, IN

Jeffrey C. McDermott
Krieg DeVault LLP, Carmel, IN

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

Lora R. Mount
Voelz Law, LLC, Columbus, IN

Amy K. Nowaczyk
O’Drobinak & Nowaczyk, P.C., Schererville, IN

Kimberly S. Robinson
Law Office of Kimberly S. Robinson, Indianapolis, IN

Frederick W. Schultz
Greene & Schultz Trial Lawyers, Bloomington, IN

David L. Swider
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IN

Paul J. Unger
Affinity Consulting Group, LLC, Columbus, OH

Patrick H. Wanzer, CPA
Wanzer Financial, Indianapolis, IN
_________________________________________________

5th ANNUAL REALITY CLE
14.5 CLE / 4.25 E – Thursday & Friday, May 4-5

LIVE IN-PERSON ONLY SEMINAR
– Crowne Plaza Airport Hotel & Conf. Center, Indianapolis, IN

__________________________________________________

IBF

 

Wanzer Financial

 

We express our sincerest thanks to the Indiana Bar Foundation
& Wanzer Financial for their support of the Reality CLE program!

Posted in News0 Comments

The Court of Appeals Remands for a New Consent Hearing, Noting Trial Court Erred by Denying Mother’s Due Process Rights.

Family Law Case Review

Case: SR v. MJ
by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: Trial court erred by denying Mother her due process rights when, at the beginning of a hearing to determine whether Mother’s consent was required for an adoption of her child, the trial court did not afford Mother with her right to counsel, or to ensure that Mother was knowingly and voluntarily waiving same.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Mother and Father had Child together in 2009. Paternity was established, and orders were issued for custody, parenting time, and child support. Father was awarded custody. Mother apparently had a problematic relationship with alcohol that resulted in legal and other problems. There was some dispute about the amount of contact Mother had with Child thereafter.

In 2013, Father remarried Stepmother, who became the primary caretaker of Child. Stepmother later filed a petition to adopt Child, reciting that Mother’s consent was unnecessary due to Mother’s abandonment and failure to support. When Mother received notice of the adoption proceeding, she filed a pro se objection.

In 2015, the adoption court held a consent hearing. At the outset, Mother requested counsel. After inquiring as to Mother’s financial condition, the adoption court determined that Mother, who made $10/hr at one job and $7.50/hr at another, had sufficient income to pay for an attorney and therefore Mother had made a “voluntary choice” to proceed without counsel. The hearing proceeded. Stepmother presented her case, including testimony from Stepmother and Father. Mother made no cross-examination.

At some point during Mother’s case-in-chief and testimony, Stepmother expressed an objection that the trial court, from Stepmother’s perspective, was asking questions and participating in the hearing as though advocating for Mother. As a result, the court continued the hearing and appointed counsel for Mother.

The adoption court began the next hearing, at which Mother appeared with appointed counsel, by announcing that this was not a “new hearing,” but would pick up where the earlier hearing left off. Mother offered more of her own testimony.

After the hearing, the adoption court concluded that Mother’s consent was not necessary for the adoption, citing Mother’s insufficient contact with Child. The court later granted Stepmother’s adoption as in the best interests of Child. Mother appealed.

The Court of Appeals noted that a parent whose parental rights are subject to termination in an adoption proceeding has three rights: (1) the right to be represented by counsel; (2) the right to have counsel provided if the parent cannot afford counsel; and (3) the right to be informed of the first two rights.

The Court of Appeals disagreed that Mother had voluntarily proceeded without counsel, as she requested counsel as soon as she learned that court-appointed counsel was a possibility. And, despite finding Mother was able to afford counsel, the trial court did not afford Mother an opportunity to acquire counsel or encourage her to do so. The adoption order was reversed and remanded for a new consent hearing, for which Mother should have counsel for its entirety, absent a knowing and voluntarily waiver by Mother of that right.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: SR v. MJ

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

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 Blog, Family Law Case Review, News0 Comments

passplus-logo

PASS+ Unlimited CLE! One Year, One Low Price!

passplus-logo

 

 

 

 

 

Become a better lawyer with the ICLEF PASS+!  The PASS+ is your ticket to convenient & affordable ICLEF CLE programming!
With the PASS+ you get…

100% OFF
• Over 80 Live In-Person Seminars
Including Advanced Masters Series Seminars & National Speaker Seminars

• Over 40 Live Group Webcast Seminars
Including National Speaker Seminars

• Over 500 Video Replay Seminars

• ACCESS to ALL ICLEF Electronic Publications

Plus, 50% OFF
All ICLEF Live Individual Webcast Seminars

All ICLEF Online/On-Demand Seminars

All ICLEF DVD’s

All ICLEF Printed Seminar Materials

________________________________________

Pricing:
$ 895.00 – PASS+
$ 695.00 – PASS+ for New Attorneys (3 years or less from admission to bar)

Click here to go to the registration page.

________________________________________

FAQ’s:
Q: I purchased my ICLEF PASS+ in March, does it expire in December?
A: Yes. Your ICLEF PASS+ expires at 12:00 A.M., December 31, 2017. So, be sure to take full advantage of ICLEF’s programming throughout the calendar year.

Q: My ICLEF PASS+ is expiring, and I wish to register for a seminar after 12:00 A.M., December 31, 2017. Will you allow me to register?
A: Once your ICLEF PASS+ expires you must either purchase a new pass or pay the regular tuition to register for a program that is taking place after 11:59 P.M., December 31, 2017

Q: May I share my ICLEF PASS+ with another attorney?
A: The ICLEF PASS+ may only be used by the original, individual purchaser.

Q: We have a number of attorneys in our firm that attend ICLEF seminars. Do you have an ICLEF FIRM PASS+ program?
A: We are considering adding a FIRM PASS+, but by using the ICLEF PASS+, your firm will see substantial savings for your CLE dollar.

Q: With my ICLEF PASS+, may I attend an ICLEF Live In-Person Seminar or ICLEF Live Group Webcast as a Walk-In?
A: If space is available, Yes. We ask ICLEF PASS+ holders to pre-register for all events. If you wish to attend as a Walk-In please call or e-mail ICLEF at least 24-hours in advance of the program to make sure space is available.

Q: Will I receive notification prior to my pass expiring?
A: No. All ICLEF Pass+ holders benefits expire at the end of the calendar year. However. Look for further CLE discounts available EXCLUSIVELY to ICLEF Pass+ Holders.

Q: Will I receive a physical card indicating that I am an ICLEF PASS+ holder?
A: No. ICLEF will track your status electronically. If you purchase the ICLEF PASS+ online you will receive a receipt for your purchase, but we will not be sending you a physical card.

Q: How many Live ICLEF seminars may I attend during my 12-month ICLEF PASS+ period?
A: Once you have purchased the ICLEF PASS+, you may attend an unlimited number of programs and ICLEF hopes you take advantage of our quality and relevant CLE. This includes ALL ICLEF Live In-Person Seminars, ALL ICLEF Live Group Webcast Seminars & ALL ICLEF Video Replay Seminars (note exclusions listed in the Terms & Exclusions). We simply ask that you pre-register for each Live seminar that you wish to attend.

Q: If I do not use my ICLEF PASS+ during the year, will ICLEF provide a refund for my unused pass?
A: No. Once purchased the ICLEF PASS+ is yours. ICLEF will not refund the purchase of the ICLEF PASS+.

Click here to go to the registration page.

________________________________________

Terms & Restrictions:
A very small number of our programs are excluded from the ICLEF Pass+. Those include: 40-Hour Mediation Training Courses (Family, Civil & Crossover), Annual Elder Law Institute, Bankruptcy Advocacy Training, ICLEF Out-of-Country Trip and CLE program, ICLEF Trial Advocacy Skills College (TASC) & Indiana Law Update (Video Replays of Indiana Law Update are included in the PASS+). Keep in mind you have access to over 80 Live & Group Webcast Seminars and over 500 Video Replays.

The ICLEF PASS+ expires on 12:00 A.M. December 31, 2017.

All ICLEF Seminars are “Limited Seating” events. ICLEF PASS+ holders must pre-register to ensure a seat at the program. ICLEF Pass+ holders may only walk-in to an event on a space available basis.

Passes may not be transferred to another person, nor will refunds be given for a pass once purchased.

 

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 Comments

Court of Appeals Relied upon “Equitable Estoppel” to Affirm Trial Court Order for Husband to Support Child of Mother by Another Man

Family Law Case Review

Case: Benjamin Sheetz v. Ronnie Sheetz
by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: Mother’s husband was equitably estopped from rebutting that he is the biological father of Child, who was born during Husband’s marriage to Mother, even though all concerned stipulated that Mother became pregnant with Child by another man while Husband was in prison. Critical to the equitable considerations of the holding, Husband agreed to raise Child as his own, he did so for 12 years, and Husband instructed Mother not to contact the biological father or to initiate paternity proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Mother and Husband married in 2002. Shortly thereafter, Husband went to prison, during which Mother became pregnant by another man. Mother notified Husband of her pregnancy by another man and, after a period of anger, Husband decided the parties would raise Child together. The parties did so for another 12 years, along with having two subsequent children together of their own. Husband told Mother not to seek communication with natural father, not to initiate paternity proceedings, and not to seek child support from him.

Mother filed for divorce from Husband in 2014. Initially, Husband agreed to a support order that included Child along with the two natural children. Prior to the final hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation that Husband was not the biological father of Child, but which further recited that Mother was not waiving any right to seek child support. After the final hearing, during which the trial court was well aware of Child’s underlying circumstances, a Decree was issued that included a support order for Child. Husband appealed.

The Court of Appeals discussed extensively, and relied heavily in its conclusion, on the doctrine of “equitable estoppel.” By statute, a husband is presumed to be the biological father of a child born during the marriage, but that presumption is rebuttable by “direct, clear, and convincing evidence.” Here, Husband was plainly capable of rebutting the presumption, so the Court of Appeals relied upon equitable estoppel to preclude him from doing so. As such, the trial court’s order providing for Husband to support Child was affirmed.

Judge Najam dissented, in an opinion longer than the majority’s, arguing that Indiana does not recognize equitable estoppel as a basis for a child support order. He contended that statute and related case law provide for a child support order only in the case of a parent of a biological or adopted parent, and Husband in this case was neither.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: Benjamin Sheetz v. Ronnie Sheetz

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

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 Review, News0 Comments