ILNews

DTCI: Pennell receives ADTA President's Award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Stephen R. Pennell, former president of DTCI and partner in the Lafayette firm of Stuart & Branigin, received the President’s Award for Outstanding Service to the ADTA at the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys’ annual meeting in Hawaii.
 

pennell-15col Stephen R. Pennell, former president of DTCI (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

ADTA President Frankie Colon Pagan presented the award in recognition of Steve’s efforts during his year as president. As chair of the long-range planning committee, Steve helped to develop and to begin implementation of the first long-range plan in the history of the ADTA. Among the achievements of Steve and the committee were the approvals of the ADTA mission statement, the scheduling of a series of webinars covering deposition practice, and the enhancement of the mentoring program.

Association of Defense Trial Attorneys invites only one attorney per million population in each community to become members. The mission of the ADTA is to select as members the best defense trial attorney in each community, to promote quality networking and referral opportunities, and to provide outstanding educational programs which improve the trial skills of its members while maintaining a balance of activities for family participation.•

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