ILNews

Evansville Bar Association honors lawyer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A longtime lawyer received the Evansville Bar Association annual award in recognition of an attorney who has elevated respect for the law, promoted freedom, or otherwise furthered the ideals for which Law Day is celebrated.

At its Law Day dinner April 24, Thomas R. Bodkin, of the firm of Bamberger Foreman Oswald and Hahn, received the James Bethel Gresham Award for his dedication to the legal practice and for his community service.

The award is named in honor of James Bethel Gresham who lived in Evansville from 1901 to 1914 and is believed to have been the first American soldier to have given his life in combat during World War I.

Bodkin is the author of 19 published articles and two book chapters on topics related to the law; currently serves on the Indiana Civil Litigation Review Board of Editors; and continually strives to mentor and encourage young attorneys to educate others through publication or lecture.

His community work includes serving on the boards of both the National Alzheimer's Association and the Greater Kentucky and Southern Indiana Chapter of the Alzheimer's Association. He has served as a member of the Citizens Advisory Counsel for the Indiana University School of Medicine - Evansville campus, and is a member of the St. Mary's Medical Center Ethics Committee and a member of the Human Research Committee for Deaconess Hospital.

He is general counsel to and a charter member of Historic Newburgh and a member of the Regional Advisory Committee for Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, among other community service.

Regarding this recognition, one attorney in his office stated, "It is against this backdrop that the Gresham Award was created: Service, honor, commitment, willingness to sacrifice, concern for the greater good over one's self, and a dedication to the community reflected by one's actions. Tom Bodkin's career has reflected all of these attributes."

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT