Lawyers tee off for annual event

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Bar Crawl

Bar Crawl is Indiana Lawyer’s new section that will highlight bar association news around the state. We try to include bar association news and trends in our regular stories, but we want to include more news from specialty and county bars. If you’d like to submit an update about your bar association or a photo from an event your bar association has hosted to Indiana Lawyer, or if you have questions about having your bar association news included in the newspaper, please send it to Rebecca Berfanger,, along with contact information for any follow up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

The Hamilton County Bar Association hosted its annual Judges and Lawyers Golf Outing Aug. 25 at Fox Prairie Golf Course in Noblesville. Players of all skill levels participated in the 18-hole scramble-format tournament and enjoyed dinner, camaraderie, and prizes after golf.

Bar Crawl 1 Eric Douthit, from left, Bob Becker, Jane Merrill, Bruce Bittner, and Gordon Byers stop and pose for a group photo during Hamilton County Bar Association’s annual Judges and Lawyer Golf Outing. (Photo submitted)

The team of attorneys John Terry, Russ Cate, Ollie Schierholz, and Kevin Klausing won this year’s event. Noblesville City Court Judge Greg Caldwell, and attorneys Andy Barker, Jeff Meunier, Mark Hurt, and Harry Sauce finished second. Attorney Jim Crum won the closest to the pin contest.

“The event is open to any Indiana judge, lawyer, or law student so be on the lookout for next year’s event,” Klausing, an attorney at Campbell Kyle Proffitt in Carmel and an organizer of the event, said via e-mail. “We welcome participation from lawyers and judges throughout the state.”

To learn more about next year’s event, contact Klausing at•

Bar Crawl 2 Bruce Jones, from left, Mike Frischkorn, Neal Ziliak, Andre Miksha, and Karl Hadley attempt to figure out the break on their upcoming putt at Fox Prairie Golf Course. (Photo submitted)

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?