ILNews

State bar honors 2 judges at annual meeting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Bar Association honored two Court of Appeals judges at its annual meeting Oct. 20 in French Lick.

The bar presented the David Hamacher Public Service Award to Chief Judge Margret G. Robb and the Women in the Law Recognition Award to Judge Melissa S. May.

The Hamacher award, sponsored by the state bar’s Appellate Practice Section, honors high moral character and ethical standards, service to the community and peacemaking qualities. The Appellate Practice Section recognized Robb’s dedication to the practice of law, her commitment to and participation in continuing legal education programs at the state and national level and her many contributions to community service.

May’s award honored her dedication to helping women advance in the legal profession.

May is an Elkhart native who earned her law degree from Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis in 1984. She practiced law in Evansville for 14 years before her appointment to the appeals court in 1998. She is currently the Presiding Judge of the Fourth District.

Robb was appointed to the appeals court in July 1998.  She holds a bachelor’s and master’s in Business Economics from Purdue University, and graduated Magna Cum Laude from IU School of Law-Indianapolis. She is a graduate of the Graduate Program for Indiana Judges. In 2011, her court colleagues elected her as the first woman chief judge in the court’s 110-year history.

The state bar’s annual meeting concludes Oct. 21 with the Randall T. Shepard Award Celebration.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT