By Brandon Milster
Like most of you out there, I followed the United States as they progressed through the first round of the World Cup and to a disappointing end in the first match of the knock-out round. Also like most of you out there, I have not watched one single soccer match since the last World Cup in 2006. I guess I would call myself a fair-weather-fan or a band-wagon-jumper, but I’m guessing I’m not the only one out there.
I know that soccer is, arguably, the most popular sport in the world, and I’ve heard all the stories about the riots and blatant criminal acts that take place after a big win or disappointing loss around the world. The fact is, however, that soccer will just never be that popular in the U.S. Sure, the Nation tunes in for those couple of matches the U.S. plays every four years, and everybody gets a little bit of “soccer fever,” but the irrefutable truth is: no one really cares. Living in such a professional-sports-rich country, there just simply isn’t room for another “major” sport. The NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB simply draw too many fans, recognition, and, most-importantly, revenue for soccer to ever be mentioned in the same breath.
Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way discounting how talented our (and the rest of the World’s) players are or how much athleticism and endurance it takes to play one match. All I am saying is that soccer is a day late and a buck short when it comes to professional sports in the U.S. Maybe someday that will turn around or maybe someday the U.S. will win the World Cup, but right now, all we have is a mediocre team playing a mediocre sport. Let’s not hold our breath.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Frequently Asked Questions About Our Firm
By Carol Dillon
We often get the same preliminary questions when taking a new case or talking with a new client, regardless of the type of case and client. Therefore, here are some of our answers to frequently asked questions:
1. Will you or an associate be working on this case?
Answer: This question is obviously posed to one of the partners. The answer is a partner and associate work on every case, but the client is almost always charged for only one attorney’s time. Every case at Sweetin & Bleeke is assigned to a Partner and an Associate. Whether the Partner or Associate does the majority of the work on the case largely depends on the type of case. However, if the Associate primarily handles the file, every major pleading and correspondence to the client or opposing counsel (i.e. formal status reports) go through the Partner before it goes out the door. That is, the Associate may draft the pleading or correspondence, but the Partner reviews it and discusses it with the Associate to make sure everyone is on the same page. We also have scheduled meetings to roundtable cases, particularly high-exposure cases, to get the input of all of the attorneys in the office. If the client wants a Partner or Associate to do a particular part of the case, the client has every right to specify that.
2. What areas of the State do you practice?
Answer: Because Indianapolis is the central part of Indiana, we cover the entire State. The longest travel time in the State is to Evansville, IN, which can take anywhere from 3-4 hours. It takes approximately 2 hours to reach either the eastern or western border of the State, and approximately 3 to 3.5 hours to make it to the northern tips of the State. While there are good attorneys to be found in Fort Wayne, South Bend, and Evansville, most Indianapolis attorneys cover every part of the State.
3. How many attorneys are in your office?
Answer: We have 8 attorneys. Two partners, four associates, and two Of Counsel. To see more information about our attorneys, check out their profiles.
4. What is the turnaround time on transactions?
Answer: It depends (isn’t that everyone’s favorite stock answer from an attorney?). It really does depend. While it is certainly possible to give the client an accurate time frame for a particular case or task, it really does depend on opposing counsel, the venue, and the judge. A case that seems very straight forward and simple can be assigned to a judge or particular court that loses filings, post-pones hearings, and takes forever to issue an order; or you can have an opposing counsel that creates a battle over the minutest of details. On the other hand, a case that may seem like it will require a lot of discovery and pre-trial motions can be done quickly if opposing counsel is not adversarial and the judge is efficient. While we are happy to give time estimates (as well as cost estimates), there are just too many factors that we cannot control that can affect how a case proceeds.
We often get the same preliminary questions when taking a new case or talking with a new client, regardless of the type of case and client. Therefore, here are some of our answers to frequently asked questions:
1. Will you or an associate be working on this case?
Answer: This question is obviously posed to one of the partners. The answer is a partner and associate work on every case, but the client is almost always charged for only one attorney’s time. Every case at Sweetin & Bleeke is assigned to a Partner and an Associate. Whether the Partner or Associate does the majority of the work on the case largely depends on the type of case. However, if the Associate primarily handles the file, every major pleading and correspondence to the client or opposing counsel (i.e. formal status reports) go through the Partner before it goes out the door. That is, the Associate may draft the pleading or correspondence, but the Partner reviews it and discusses it with the Associate to make sure everyone is on the same page. We also have scheduled meetings to roundtable cases, particularly high-exposure cases, to get the input of all of the attorneys in the office. If the client wants a Partner or Associate to do a particular part of the case, the client has every right to specify that.
2. What areas of the State do you practice?
Answer: Because Indianapolis is the central part of Indiana, we cover the entire State. The longest travel time in the State is to Evansville, IN, which can take anywhere from 3-4 hours. It takes approximately 2 hours to reach either the eastern or western border of the State, and approximately 3 to 3.5 hours to make it to the northern tips of the State. While there are good attorneys to be found in Fort Wayne, South Bend, and Evansville, most Indianapolis attorneys cover every part of the State.
3. How many attorneys are in your office?
Answer: We have 8 attorneys. Two partners, four associates, and two Of Counsel. To see more information about our attorneys, check out their profiles.
4. What is the turnaround time on transactions?
Answer: It depends (isn’t that everyone’s favorite stock answer from an attorney?). It really does depend. While it is certainly possible to give the client an accurate time frame for a particular case or task, it really does depend on opposing counsel, the venue, and the judge. A case that seems very straight forward and simple can be assigned to a judge or particular court that loses filings, post-pones hearings, and takes forever to issue an order; or you can have an opposing counsel that creates a battle over the minutest of details. On the other hand, a case that may seem like it will require a lot of discovery and pre-trial motions can be done quickly if opposing counsel is not adversarial and the judge is efficient. While we are happy to give time estimates (as well as cost estimates), there are just too many factors that we cannot control that can affect how a case proceeds.
Friday, June 4, 2010
My First Jury Trial
By Jeb Crandall
I recently completed (and won) my first jury trial serving as first chair. It was a great experience and a case that I will never forget. Here is a brief summary of the facts and trial action:
On 5/15/04, Joseph Flannary approached Margarete Martin in her driveway after Mr. Flannary was informed by his renter (who lived two doors down from Ms. Martin) that she had stolen the renter’s newspaper and forced her way into his house. Mr. Flannary had experienced a long history of Ms. Martin causing problems for his renters. During the argument between Ms. Martin and Mr. Flannary, Ms. Martin raised a pair of hedge shears above her head in a threatening manner. In response, Mr. Flannary extended his arms to protect himself from the impending blow. As a result, Mr. Flannary made contact with Ms. Martin and she fell backwards onto the pavement, rendering herself unconscious.
Plaintiff identified her treating physician as her expert, who initially opined that Ms. Martin’s current ailments and pains were a result of the incident with Mr. Flannary. However, upon cross examination, the physician significantly retracted his statements and conceded that he could not with any confidence provide a causal relationship between Ms. Martin’s current complaints and the incident that occurred on 5/15/04.
Defendant identified Dr. Robert Baker, a dynamic orthopedic expert, who confirmed that none of Ms. Martin’s complaints could be related to the incident with Mr. Flannary with any certainty. Instead, Ms. Martin’s ailments were most likely the result of aging. (She was 78 at the time of the incident.)
The case was tried for three days in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s allegations that he was the aggressor and instead produced witnesses to impeach Ms. Martin’s credibility following her testimony that she was a peaceful person and did not get involved in arguments or altercations. Counsel for defendant drove this point home when Ms. Martin actually struck defense counsel in anger during cross examination and even stated, “I’m gonna get you for this!” within earshot of the jury. This was the nail in the coffin.
The jury returned a verdict in which fault was allocated 49% to Mr. Flannary and 51% to Ms. Martin. Based on the allocation, the court entered judgment for the defendant.
I recently completed (and won) my first jury trial serving as first chair. It was a great experience and a case that I will never forget. Here is a brief summary of the facts and trial action:
On 5/15/04, Joseph Flannary approached Margarete Martin in her driveway after Mr. Flannary was informed by his renter (who lived two doors down from Ms. Martin) that she had stolen the renter’s newspaper and forced her way into his house. Mr. Flannary had experienced a long history of Ms. Martin causing problems for his renters. During the argument between Ms. Martin and Mr. Flannary, Ms. Martin raised a pair of hedge shears above her head in a threatening manner. In response, Mr. Flannary extended his arms to protect himself from the impending blow. As a result, Mr. Flannary made contact with Ms. Martin and she fell backwards onto the pavement, rendering herself unconscious.
Plaintiff identified her treating physician as her expert, who initially opined that Ms. Martin’s current ailments and pains were a result of the incident with Mr. Flannary. However, upon cross examination, the physician significantly retracted his statements and conceded that he could not with any confidence provide a causal relationship between Ms. Martin’s current complaints and the incident that occurred on 5/15/04.
Defendant identified Dr. Robert Baker, a dynamic orthopedic expert, who confirmed that none of Ms. Martin’s complaints could be related to the incident with Mr. Flannary with any certainty. Instead, Ms. Martin’s ailments were most likely the result of aging. (She was 78 at the time of the incident.)
The case was tried for three days in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s allegations that he was the aggressor and instead produced witnesses to impeach Ms. Martin’s credibility following her testimony that she was a peaceful person and did not get involved in arguments or altercations. Counsel for defendant drove this point home when Ms. Martin actually struck defense counsel in anger during cross examination and even stated, “I’m gonna get you for this!” within earshot of the jury. This was the nail in the coffin.
The jury returned a verdict in which fault was allocated 49% to Mr. Flannary and 51% to Ms. Martin. Based on the allocation, the court entered judgment for the defendant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
