ILNews

Family law attorney dies after battle with cancer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney Stephenie Jocham, a founder of Carmel firm Jocham Harden Dimick Jackson, died Thursday morning following a battle with cancer, the firm announced.

Jocham practiced in the areas of family law and civil litigation and was a registered domestic and civil mediator. She chose family law because of her personal experiences with divorce. Before creating JHDJ in 2008, she practiced at the former firm of Hollingsworth Jocham & Zivitz.

The Terre Haute native was active with the Indiana State Bar Association and had regularly served as a mediation training coach at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis since 2005. She earned her law degree from I.U. School of Law - Indianapolis. Jocham was a 2011 recipient of Indiana Lawyer’s Distinguished Barrister award. She was named a fellow to the Indiana Bar Foundation in 2008 and the Indianapolis Bar Foundation in 2010. She also volunteered as a court-appointed special advocate, literacy tutor, and created two nonprofit organizations – Education Initiatives International for local orphanages, and another designed to help cancer patients undergoing treatment.

Jocham was diagnosed in 2010 with sarcoma in her leg. The cancer had spread to her lungs and brain. The firm said in a statement on its Facebook page that it remains committed to fulfilling her mission by serving its clients with the highest standard of professionalism and compassion.

Update: A calling for Jocham will be held from 10 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. with funeral services taking place at 1 p.m. June 7 at Second Presbyterian Church, 7700 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis. A reception at the church will immediately follow the service. Graveside services are scheduled for 6 p.m. at West Prairie Creek Cemetery, Farmersburg, Ind.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT