New disciplinary commission members named

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has appointed three new members to the Disciplinary Commission. Trent A. McCain of Merrillville, Andi M. Metzel of Indianapolis, and Nancy Cross of Carmel will each serve a five-year term. They replace Tony Zappia of South Bend, J. Mark Robinson of New Albany, and Sally Zweig of Indianapolis.  

The commission also elected the following new officers: R. Tony Prather of Indianapolis as chairperson, Maureen Grinsfelder of Fort Wayne as vice-chairperson, Catherine Nestrick of Evansville as secretary, and Andi M. Metzel as treasurer. The court announced the July 8 appointments in a press release Aug. 15.

Trent A. McCain practices law in Northwest Indiana and Chicago and is the principal of McCain Law Offices. His firm focuses on permanent and catastrophic personal injury, medical negligence, and civil rights cases. McCain is a past president of the James C. Kimbrough Bar Association, and a current member of the Indiana State, Illinois State, and Chicago bar associations; the Illinois and Indiana trial lawyers associations; and the Chicago Inn of Court.

Andi M. Metzel is a partner with Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff in Indianapolis. She negotiates resolutions in complex business, personal, and transactional disputes and is actively involved in land use, development, and strategic consulting for businesses seeking to invest and grow in Indiana. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels appointed her to serve on the Indiana State Employees' Appeals Commission. In 2010 she was elected to serve as a member of the American Bar Association House of Delegates.  Metzel has served on the Indiana State Bar Association’s Legal Ethics Committee and board of governors. She also served on the board of directors for the Indianapolis Bar Association.

Nancy Cross is a senior partner at Cross Woolsey and Glazier. Cross’ practice focuses on family law, including domestic litigation, mediation, and appellate work. She is a certified family law specialist, a certified mediator, and has been a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers since 1993. A fellow of the Indianapolis Bar Association, she also has served as a member of its board of managers.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.