ILNews

Bar foundation names 'legendary lawyer'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Fellows of the Indiana Bar Foundation have chosen Leslie Duvall as the 2011 Legendary Lawyer. On Sept. 27, Indianapolis firm Lewis & Kappes will hold a ceremony in his honor.

Duvall was a member of the Indiana Senate from 1966 to 1985. During that time, Duvall proposed a new model to rehabilitate criminals that allowed non-violent offenders a means of staying connected to their communities.

The January 3, 1983, issue of the Logansport Pharos-Tribune featured a story about Duvall’s push for community corrections. “Maximum security prisons ought to be reserved for those who society needs to be protected against,” he said.

The late Gov. Robert Orr appointed Duvall as chair of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission in 1985. As head of the IURC, Duvall halted production at the Marble Hill nuclear power plant in Madison, Ind., due to cost overruns and quality control problems.

Duvall chaired many committees for the Indianapolis and Indiana State bar associations, including those that established the Marion County Public Defender Council in 1997 and unified the Marion County courts. Duvall joined Lewis & Kappes in 1995 and is now retired.

The Legendary Lawyer Award honors individual attorneys whose careers exemplify commitment to legal ethics, community involvement, public service, and professionalism.

The event in Duvall’s honor will begin with a reception at 4:30 p.m., followed by a ceremony at 5 p.m. The Indiana Bar Foundation asks that people wishing to attend request reservations by contacting Theresa Browning at 317-269-7864, or tbrowning@inbf.org.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT