ILNews

DTCI awards nominations invited

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Defense Trial Counsel’s Annual Meeting will be held Nov. 17-18 at French Lick Resort. One of the highlights of the meeting is the presentation of the “Defense Lawyer of the Year,” the “Diplomat of the Indiana Defense Trial Counsel,” and the “Outstanding Young Lawyer” awards. The DTCI Awards Committee is now receiving nominations for the 2011 awards. The deadline for nominations is Oct. 1.

“Diplomat of the Indiana Defense Trial Counsel” indicates members of the Indiana bar who, in the judgment of the officers and directors of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, have distinguished themselves throughout their careers through outstanding contributions to the representation of clients in the defense of litigation matters and, therefore, have been designated recipients of the award, Diplomat of the Indiana Defense Trial Counsel.

The “Defense Lawyer of the Year” award shall be presented to a licensed lawyer who, in the opinion of the Awards Committee, as approved by the board of directors, has promoted the interests of the Indiana defense bar since the last annual meeting of the DTCI, in a most significant way in the fields of litigation, legislation, publication, or participation in local, state, or national defense organizations.

The “Outstanding Young Lawyer” award shall be presented to a member of the Defense Trial Counsel, less than 35 years old, who has shown leadership qualities in service to the Indiana defense bar, the national defense bar, or the community.

Nominations for these three awards may be submitted to the committee’s chair:

Libby Valos Moss

Kightlinger & Gray

151 N. Delaware St., Suite 600

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-638-4521

Fax: 317-636-5917

lmoss@k-glaw.com

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