ILNews

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.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT