ILNews

IndyBar: Road Mapping with 2015 IndyBar President John C. Trimble

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Engage. Invest. And Get on Board.

The nominations for IndyBar’s 2015 Board of Directors are now open, and it’s up to you to help determine the future of your local bar association! We talked to next year’s president, John C. Trimble of Lewis Wagner LLP, to get a roadmap of what board members can expect from board participation in 2015.

Q: What can members who join the Board of Directors expect next year?

Trimble: New board members can expect a fun and fast-paced year in which all of us as board members focus on bringing maximum value to our members. This will begin with a getaway weekend in French Lick where we will talk about what we will need to do in 2015 to make our organization sizzle. Our direction in 2015 will be dictated by our strategic plan, and we will review that plan at our retreat.

Our “theme” for 2015 will be “engagement.” We will need to be engaged, and we will want to engage our members and engage attorneys who have not yet joined us.

Q: What are some of the best parts about being on the board?

Trimble: The best part of being on the board is getting to know really fine lawyers and judges from all areas of practice. You will make some friends and referral sources for life.

Q: What type of person should consider joining the board?

Trimble: Only reliable people should apply.  The IndyBar leadership needs board members who will make a priority to attend meetings, events, and luncheons and bring others. We need people who will do what they commit to doing and who are willing to agree to commit to the work of engaging members.

Q: What are the expectations you have for board members next year?

Trimble: We expect board members to attend board meetings, events and luncheons and to encourage others to do so. We also expect them to support the Indianapolis Bar Foundation through a personal contribution and participation in IBF events. With respect to engagement, we hope and expect board members to recruit new members and help us retain existing members.

Applications for nominations can be found at indybar.org and will be accepted through Aug. 29. Following the nomination period, the 2015 Nominating Committee, chaired by Phil Isenbarger, will interview applicants before presenting the slate for 2015.

Fast Facts

• Any IndyBar member can be nominated and self-nominations are accepted and encouraged.

• The 2015 Selection Committee is: Phil Isenbarger (Committee Chair), Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP; Hon. Cynthia J. Ayers, Marion Superior Court; Rebecca W. Geyer, Rebecca W. Geyer & Associates PC; Richard J. Thrapp, Ice Miller LLP; Robert W. York, Robert W. York & Associates

• The Board of Directors typically meets once a month throughout the year.

• Positions available in the coming year are: 1st Vice President, Secretary and At-Large Member (five openings for at-large members)

• The term for 1st Vice President is one year. The 1st Vice President will automatically assume the office of President-elect in 2016.

• The term for Secretary and At-Large Members is Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2016.

• Applications for nomination are available online at indybar.org

• IndyBar members wishing to seek election outside of the nomination process may file a petition ballot that is available at the bar office. The petition must be filed by Aug. 29 and must contain the signatures of at least 50 attorney members of IndyBar.•
 

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT