ILNews

Bar associations seek nominations for various awards

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Several bar associations around the state are accepting nominations for awards to present to members at upcoming annual meetings.

The Allen County Bar Association is now accepting nominations for the 2013 Niemann Citation. The citation was established in 2004 to honor the memory of Scott T. Niemann.

The award recognizes a bar member who exemplifies professionalism and excellence in the law, as reflected through legal work, public service and/or leadership.

Niemann practiced law for 23 years in Fort Wayne, focusing on civil litigation. In 2002, he and Martin Fletcher founded Fletcher & Niemann. Niemann died in March 2004 after battling cancer for 18 months.

Nominations are due Aug. 2, and the award will be presented at the bar association’s annual meeting Sept. 30. Nomination forms are available on the Allen County Bar Association’s website.

The Indiana State Bar Association is seeking nominations for 13 awards to be presented at its annual meeting in French Lick in October. The awards are: Civility Awards; Gale M. Phelps Award; Rabb Emison Awards; GP Hall of Fame; Outstanding Judge Award; Women in the Law Recognition Award; Trailblazer/Abriendo Caminos Award; Liberty Bell Award; Outstanding Young Lawyer Award; Affiliate Member Award; David Hamacher Public Service Award; Hon. Viola Taliaferro Award; and the Community Service Award.

More information about the awards and nomination forms are available on the ISBA’s website.

The Indianapolis Bar Association is seeking to recognize the accomplishments of a female attorney in central Indiana through its Antoinette Dakin Leach Award, named after the first woman admitted to the Indiana bar. Nominations are due July 31. More information is available on the IndyBar's website.
 

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT