Tag Archive | "Law Tips"

Law Tips: Hot Tips on How to Close the Deal to Your Client’s Advantage in Probate Mediation

Is this a feud or a crusade? How do you recalibrate the discussion to get to a reasonable value for an asset? There are sticky issues and elusive answers in any mediation. Brian Hewitt, AlerdingCastor Hewitt, LLP, is here to offer Law Tips readers his pointers gleaned from 20 years of experience in negotiating. Following are his tips on finding the sense of fulfillment your clients need in probate mediations.

Don’t Negotiate in 5′s or 10′s:
When you negotiate in 5′s and l0′s (such as in $5,000 or $10,000 increments) you will often give up ground by the end of a negotiation. Negotiate in 2′s or 3′s or 7′s and 8′s and you can grab two or three thousand dollars on each volley, especially on the last two or three volleys before a settlement.

“Invoke the Timeout”:
After the mediation has gone on for a while it is sometimes helpful to slow it down. If the other side is getting overly aggressive put them in “time out”; take a break, let them sit for a while. This can indirectly communicate you are there for the long haul or give them time to cool off if negotiations have become heated. You don’t have to announce you are invoking a timeout; just take one. This can also give your client a chance to collect his or her thoughts and take a deep breath.

Is this a Feud or a Crusade?:
Virtually every probate mediation involves either a nasty feud between long warring relatives or step-relatives or a crusade on the part of one party. Determine which it is. If the dispute is a feud, both parties have an ax to grind and an agenda that may cloud their vision and, in fact, lead to poor decision-making. If your client or your opponent’s client is simply on a crusade, you won’t change that thinking during the course of the day. Try to structure conversations and proposals that have the appearance of fulfilling whatever mandate that crusader seeks to accomplish. A crusader needs a sense of fulfillment. Find a way to provide it.

Russian Roulette:
Particularly when asset values are disputed, turn the tables on an offer. If, for example, your opponent offers you a piece of real estate as a part of an offer at a certain high value, flip the offer and offer it to them at the same value. This will quickly recalibrate the discussions so a reasonable value can be assigned to assets, the division of which is being negotiated.

I have to Have It:
In many probate mediations, there is at least one asset that at least one beneficiary “has to have”. I am consistently amazed when a beneficiary and their counsel actually announce they have to have that asset. When you announce you have to have a specific asset, you better open your checkbook. It seems like common sense that insisting you have to have a certain asset will increase the price, but many parties miss this seemingly obvious point. Instead of announcing you have to have an asset, avoid drawing attention to it. Try to get a value of that asset established for purposes of negotiation along with other estate assets so you don’t draw attention to the asset you want.

Demands are Not Offers:
Sometimes offers have been made before a mediation and sometimes they have not. At a minimum, each party should communicate their best case to the other parties before the mediation. Remember, however, a best case proposal is a demand, not an offer. It is not productive to begin a mediation that merely restates your best case or demand. That is not a negotiation and sets a horrible tone for compromise. If you want the other party to show some movement, show some movement yourself.

Beware the Condition Precedent or Subsequent:
Many final mediation agreements include either a condition precedent or subsequent. If you need to include such a provision, make sure of two things.

First, make sure that condition is a hill your client is willing to die on, because once it is made a part of the contract, a condition can be used either as a weapon or a shield.

Second, make sure the condition precedent or subsequent is carefully drafted into the settlement agreement. Unfortunately, I have seen several mediated settlement agreements fall apart later because of an unfulfilled condition or a poorly drafted one. Consider a penalty provision that increases the cost of settlement in lieu of a condition precedent or subsequent.

I appreciate Brian Hewitt providing his insights on important strengths and weaknesses to be aware of in probate mediations. Hopefully, you have some new strategies in mind as you begin solving your next communications dilemma for a client. Brian is a faculty member in ICLEF’s popular seminar, 120 Hot Tips in Estate,Trust & Probate Practice. If you could use 115 more tips, you’ll want to schedule this CLE either as an On Demand Seminar or Video Replay Seminar in your locale.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Brian C. Hewitt is a partner in the Indianapolis and Greenwood, Indiana law firm of AlerdingCastor Hewitt, LLP. He concentrates his practice in estate, death tax and business planning and representation, probate, trust, guardianship, commercial and civil litigation, the representation of financial institutions and mediation.  He is a registered civil mediator, board certified Indiana Trust and Estate Lawyer by the Trust and Estate Specialty Board and a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.

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

Are Your Clients Satisfied with Your Legal Services? Are You Sure?

By Cynthia Sharp, The Sharper Lawyer

When is the last time you asked a client if he or she was happy with your relationship? Hopefully, you have kept your finger on that pulse throughout the course of representation. Upon completion of a legal matter, you have a chance to gather information through use of a survey. Your firm’s file closing process should include sending a survey to each client. There are a number of online survey tools that can be used; however, any practitioner can begin surveying clients today by using the  template provided below.

While implementing the process takes a little extra work and you may even want to remain in blissful ignorance, your firm (and ultimately clients) stand to benefit because you have the opportunity to:

  • Improve Service - Soliciting client feedback keeps you apprised of issues that can be addressed by you to improve the client’s experience.
  • Address Concern or Complaint – The adage “If you like our service – tell others and if you don’t like it – tell us” applies particularly to law firms.  If a client indicates dissatisfaction, pick up the phone IMMEDIATELY and address the problem.
  • Compliment Staff Members - When a client praises one of your staff, pass on the compliment – publicly.
  • Remind Clients Why They Like You - As the client answers the questions, they will (hopefully) convey positive feelings – which will be reinforced during the process.
  • Ask for Referrals - Clients who like you are thrilled to pass your name onto their friends, colleagues and family members.  At the very least, the client may provide additional names for your database list.

Feel free to use the following template for your client satisfaction survey:

CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

Establishing and maintaining strong relationships with our clients is one of our paramount concerns. We rely on feedback from our clients to identify where we are strong and where we need improvement.  We would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to answer these few questions.

  • What was your first impression of the firm? Did you find the reception area and office atmosphere pleasant?
  • Were you greeted warmly by the receptionist whenever you called or visited the firm?
  • Was the attorney or staff member on time for your appointments?
  • Did you feel comfortable during your first in-person meeting?
  • Were you kept up to date on the status of your case?
  • Did your attorney answer your questions to your satisfaction?
  • Were your telephone calls returned promptly?
  • What do you believe is our firm’s biggest strength?
  • What do you believe is the area we need the most improvement on?
  • Were you ever surprised by the amount of an invoice received from our firm?
  • What are the 2 ways we could better serve you?
  • Would you recommend your friends, relatives or colleagues to hire us?
  • Are they any other comments, suggestions, complaints, or concerns you would like to voice?
  • Would you like to discuss any further issues with your attorney?  Were there unanswered questions or aspects of the matter that you don’t understand?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Cynthia Sharp (cindy@thesharperlawyer.com) is Director of Attorney Development at The Sharper Lawyer located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  As a professional CLE instructor and attorney business coach, Cindy has established a national presence as an author and speaker on topics of ethics in the context of practice management, social media and technology – lecturing extensively to law firms, bar associations and other legal organizations.

__________________________________________________________________________________

If you found this information to be useful in your practice, you won’t want to miss the upcoming CLE seminars presented by Cynthia Sharp on March 5 & 6 in Fort Wayne and Indianapolis!

Strategies for Taking Charge of Your Law Practice
3 CLE / 3 E – 2 Live Locations! Morning Seminar!

Fort Wayne - Thursday, March 5   9:00 A.M. – 12:15 P.M.
Live In-Person Only! – Grand Wayne Center, Fort Wayne

Indianapolis – Friday, March 6   9:00 A.M. – 12: 15 P.M.
Live In-Person Seminar – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast – From your home or office computer

 

The Lawyer’s Guide to Financial Planning
3 CLE / 1 E - 2 Live Locations! Afternoon Seminar!

Fort Wayne - Thursday, March 5   1:15 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.
Live In-Person Only! – Grand Wayne Center, Fort Wayne

Indianapolis - Friday, March 6   1:15 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.
Live In-Person Seminar – ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis
Live Individual Webcast – From your home or office computer

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

 

 

 

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

Law Tips: Experts and the Ethics of Scientific Evidence from Judge Chezem

Scientific evidence is an expanding and challenging field. The popularity of ICLEF’s recent seminar entitled Admissibility of Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony points directly to the value of lawyers keeping abreast of this topic. Are you aware of the ethical pitfalls lurking on the path of scientific evidence? Fortunately, our Law Tips blog readers have this opportunity to hear from Hon. Linda Chezem on the duties of the attorney in using scientific evidence. I am privileged to present her counsel for you:

The ethical duties of the attorney in the use of scientific evidence are beyond the obvious duties that apply to any evidence proffered by the attorney. The complexity of science and the general lack of science informed lawyers, judges and juries suggest that the lawyer has to consider how to choose an expert for something more than “junk science”. Assuming the science and the expert who will present the science applicable to the case at hand meet the rules of evidence and the expert’s testimony is admitted into evidence, the hard part lies ahead.

The real challenge is facilitation of the comprehension and application of the testimony favorable to the case. How should the lawyer devise adequate communication strategies so that the science is understandable yet reliable and honest? So what is the attorney’s duty? In a Note titled “Lawyer Competence and Neglect” published in 1991, Laura A. Naide states, “The concern of the legal profession regarding the issues of lawyer neglect and incompetence has grown dramatically in recent years.” Ms. Naide continues, explaining that “The issues of neglect and incompetence are closely inter-related. An incompetent attorney is likely to neglect legal matters because of feelings of inadequacy and anxiety. Courts are more likely to sanction an attorney for neglect than incompetence, however, because incompetence is extremely difficult to prove.” (Naide,L., 5 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 191 1991-1992)

An equal factor in the reluctance to characterize the lack of lawyerly or judicial scientific knowledge as incompetence is that- after all these years- some lawyers remain uncomfortable with science and with Daubert, Joiner, Kumho and the federal and state Rules of Evidence. The forests of trees sacrificed and the billions of little electrons inconvenienced by the academic and lawyerly attempts to explain the requirements for scientific evidence support likelihood of a science fear factor. One explanation for a clear reluctance to openly hold lawyers and judges accountable to understand scientific evidence they use to present to or to decide cases is that some lawyers may see themselves at risk.

The Model Rules and the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct contain the same language in this section. Rule 1.1 Competence: “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

Arguably, the phrase “thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation” includes the study and effort required to thoroughly understand the scientific issues in the case and the proper vetting of the experts. Not that there are many cases out there that address science testimony as a competency issue, however, a portent may be found in California. A proposed opinion from the California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct states that a lawyer engaged in litigation in which e-discovery is sought has an ethical duty of competence for e-discovery. The California Sate Bar would hold the lawyer responsible to recognize and take appropriate action to protect clients in e-discovery. If the e-discovery challenges presented exceed the lawyer’s current command of e-discovery issues, the lawyer must take one of three courses:

  • Take steps to acquire the necessary skills;
  • Retain technical consultants to provide the required skill set; or
  • Decline the representation.

Could this proposed opinion on the competence and use of e-discovery by a small stretch supply a rationale for competence with science evidence?
Judge Nancy Gertner, a former federal district court judge in Massachusetts, expressed her concern regarding The National Academy of Sciences’ call for change in forensic sciences in a law review commentary. “I am concerned that suggestions that focus on changes within the field of forensic science itself, rather than changes in the larger judicial and adversarial culture in which forensic science operates, are doomed to failure. It is unquestionably important to encourage the creation of a research culture – upgrading forensic science journals, developing scientific standards to guide casework, improving access to data, etc. – as the article does, but I do not believe that these efforts can succeed without parallel changes in courts and in advocacy.” (UCLA Law Review at http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/58-3-S.pdf)

Judge Gertner entered an order that was intended to require lawyers and judges to more carefully consider the admission of expert testimony. As she addressed the proper consideration of scientific testimony she stated: “The NAS report suggests a different calculus– that admissibility of such evidence ought not to be presumed; that it has to be carefully examined in each case, and tested in the light of the NAS concerns, the concerns of Daubert/Kumho case law, and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” (Full order below.)

The real concern is not that the record is devoid of judicial disapproval or concern about the competent use and presentation of scientific evidence; it is that that client pays the costs of bad science in the courts. The many errors found by the Innocence Project in criminal cases call attention to the science testimony failures. Sometime the order on the post-conviction relief will note the ineffective assistance of counsel in the use of the testimony. Usually, there is no disciplinary sanction for incompetence or at least the sanction is couched in terms other than in competent presentation or rebuttal of scientific evidence. There is no comparable Innocence Project, a true facts type project for civil cases. Once the civil case is done, the practical likelihood of any remedy for the client is none.

The solution is not more lawyer discipline but recognition of the need for lawyers and judges to remedy their science aversions. Instead of catching a horse of scientific injustice, the legal profession should not get out of the barn. Science and the need for rules of evidence have come a long way since Frye.

Thank you for stopping in at Law Tips. Let us know if there are any topics, or specific faculty, you would like to see included in the future. I want to express appreciation to Judge Chezem for bringing her valuable knowledge on the ethics of scientific evidence to our readers. The training she provides as a member of the faculty for ICLEF’s Admissibility of Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony covers additional relevant topics, such as, choosing an expert witness and preparing the expert report. This seminar is available at your convenience as an On Demand Seminar, Click Here. Setup your personal viewing as your calendar allows. It only takes a few clicks.

_________________________________________________________________________________

FULL ORDER:

ICLEF presentation by Hon. Linda Chezem, The Duty of the Attorney in Using Scientific Evidence:
Order issued by Judge Nancy Gertner, a former federal district court judge in Massachusetts:

Case 1: 08-cr-1 01 04-NG Document 45 Filed 03/10/2010 Page 1 of 3
Case 1: 08-cr-10104-NG Document 45 Filed 03/10/2010 Page 2 of 3

…of the processes used in the forensic science disciplines are … not based on a body of knowledge that recognizes the underlying limitations of the scientific principles and methodologies for problem solving and discovery …. [S]ome of these activities [encompassed by the term "forensic science"] might not have a well developed research base, are not informed by scientific Knowledge, or are not developed within the culture of science.

NRC 2009- 1-3

While the report does not speak to admissibility or inadmissibility in a given case, it raised profound questions that need to be carefully examined in every case prior to trial: “1) the extent to which a particular forensic discipline is founded on a reliable scientific methodology that gives it the capacity to accurately analyze evidence and report findings and (2) the extent to which practitioners in a particular forensic discipline rely on human interpretation that could be tainted by error, the threat ofbias, or the absence of sound operational procedures and robust performance standards.” NRC 2009 S-7.

The Report noted that these fundamental questions have not been “satisfactorily dealt with in judicial decisions pertaining to the admissibility” of evidence. Id. To be sure, the court’s treatment of this evidence relates directly to the adequacy of counsel’s treatment. See, e.g.

Sturgeon v. Quarterman, 615 F. Supp. 2d 546, 572-573 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (defense counsel’s failure to prepare a witness to testify about the unreliability of eyewitness identifications prevented defendant from presenting testimony that would have called into question the only direct evidence against him and was ineffective assistance of counsel warranting habeas relief); Richter v. Hickman, 578 F.3d 944, 946-947 (9th Cir. Cal. 2009) (en bane) (defense counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate forensic investigation with respect to blood spatter, serology, and pathology comprised ineffective assistance of counsel warranting habeas relief). See also United States v. Pena, 586 F. 3d 105 (1st Cir. 2009 affirmed) the court’s decision not to hold a Daubert hearing on fingerprint testimony where counsel offered no expert or evidence. Affirmed.

In the past, the admissibility of this kind of evidence was effectively presumed, largely because of its pedigree– the fact that it had been admitted for decades. As such, counsel rarely challenged it, and if it were challenged, it was rarely excluded or limited. But see United States v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D. Mass. 1999) and United States v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2D 104 (D. Mass. 2005) .

The NAS report suggests a different calculus — that admissibility of such evidence ought not to be presumed; that it has to be carefully examined in each case, and tested in the light of the NAS concerns, the concerns of Daubert/Kumho case law, and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This order is entered to accomplish that end.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 8, 2010

NANCY GERTNER, U.S.D.C.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
Hon. Linda L. Chezem is a Professor and Adjunct Professor with Purdue University and Indiana University School of Medicine as well as a former Indiana Appellate Court Judge. She resides in Mooresville, IN. Judge Chezem provides a glimpse at her background: For example, I served as the judicial scholar in residence to the Arizona Supreme Court working in the Judicial Education Division for a semester. Much of my work has been to provide education about underage drinking and impaired driving. The impaired driving assessments (for 15 states) that I chaired are an evaluative mechanism that has been consistently supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I surveyed judges and prosecutors to determine their continuing education needs and responses to science content in their education and piloted educational materials with success. I also teach law students, graduate students and lawyers about ethical and legal issues in alcohol research. As a result of an appointment to the Indiana Toxicology Advisory Board, I created a Forensic Science Ethics Class.

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: A Professional’s Advice on Clarity, Compassion & Confidence in the Courtroom, Part 3: Great Speeches

“In addition to learning from the great legal orators, there is much to be learned from great speeches in art, politics, and business. They share many common qualities that lawyers should adopt as they develop their storytelling and engagement skills.”

It’s a pleasure to continue our Law Tips series offering words of wisdom from David Mann on the skills of storytelling for litigators. If you missed his persuasion and/or voice tips, you will want to keep paging down for those two previous blogs below. As we wind up this festival of communication, here are some illustrative examples of good speech techniques with comments from our storytelling coach:

Great Speeches

Mastery of Images. All the great speakers rely heavily on images to convey their ideas. Martin Luther King inspired generations of followers through his images of freedom, not his data on injustice. A picture truly is worth a thousand words, and remember that pictures can be painted with words too. Use images as often as facts to make a lasting impression through metaphors, analogies, and images of the future.

Mastery of Moment. Great speeches are memorable over time because of how well they exist in the present moment. When Marc Antony addresses the hostile romans in Julius Caesar, he cleverly uses a simple repetitive device to persuade them to his point of view. When President Reagan addressed the nation after the shuttle disaster, he made the moment his own through a very personal appeal.

Mastery of Style. Skilled orators know that the sound is every bit as important as the words. So they consciously use parallelism, antithesis, anaphora, and many other rhetorical devices to “package” their ideas in a way that makes far more impact that the raw idea alone ever could. President Kennedy didn’t deliver a long lecture on civil service; instead he uttered the far more potent phrase, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

When President Obama was campaigning, he often roused audiences with a series of questions that all ended with “Yes we can.” These devices work, and all lawyers should master them if they want to be persuasive with a jury.

Rhetoric in Great Speeches

Ronald Reagan, Shuttle Disaster Speech, 1986 (excerpts)

As eulogist and fellow mourner:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this mourner pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.

As representative of America’s feelings

For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we’re thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, “Give me a challenge, and I’ll meet it with joy.” They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us.

As a wise, caring father

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle’s take-off. I know it’s hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.

Rhetoric of the rule of three, metaphor and antithesis in Shakespeare’s writing of Marc Antony’s funeral oration for Julius Caesar:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

Where better to end this Law Tips series than with Shakespeare! I have enjoyed learning about storytelling from David Mann and appreciate his contributions to the Law Tips blog. His advice on communicating with clarity, compassion and confidence can serve us all well.

There is an opportunity for you to earn CLE credits through Mr. Mann’s ICLEF training.  Enroll for our On Demand online presentation of the Advanced Skills of Storytelling and Persuasion for Litigators seminar through our website by Clicking Here.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About our Law Tips faculty participant:
David Mann is a speaker, trainer, and professional actor/director. He has a specialized focus on persuasive presentation for lawyers, and he is on the faculty of NITA (National Institute for Trial Advocacy) and Loyola School of Law.  A professional theater artist for over two decades, David has performed or directed for many recognized theatre companies.  He has written and performed five critically acclaimed one-man shows, and he is a recipient of a Bush Artist Fellowship for Storytelling.  David is a graduate of Northwestern University, and the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art.  If you have questions for David or would like to inquire about his coaching, contact him at david@davidcmann.com. For speaking engagements go to the Professional Education Group at proedgroup.com.

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