ILNews

Family law attorney to receive national award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For doing pro bono work and for promoting pro bono work among others in the legal community, an Indianapolis attorney has learned she will receive a national award at the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco in August.

A Marion Superior judge, a pro bono plan administrator, and others who have worked with or otherwise witnessed Patty McKinnon’s pro bono efforts nominated her for the Edmund S. Muskie Pro Bono Service Award, which recognizes members of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section.

Attorney Michael Brown of Kightlinger & Gray in Indianapolis confirmed McKinnon would receive the award. He had asked Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer for a recommendation because of the judge’s work with equal access to justice issues, and the judge suggested McKinnon.

Included with her nomination for the honor to the Law and Public Service Committee of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section were examples of her work encouraging other attorneys to take on pro bono cases.

For instance, Brown said, the committee was particularly impressed with a family law how-to DVD she helped organize.

In spring 2006, McKinnon approached the Indiana Bar Foundation and Indiana Continuing Legal Education Foundation with the idea to create a family law DVD for attorneys who were unfamiliar with the practice area who still wanted to help.

Filming took place in fall 2006, and the DVDs were distributed to pro bono plan administrators around the state in 2008.

Brown said a California attorney who is also a member of the ABA section expressed an interest in creating a similar DVD for that state’s pro bono efforts.

Plan administrators in Indiana have also expressed how helpful it has been to have the DVD for pro bono attorneys as a reference during family law cases.

McKinnon’s recommendation was one of seven nominations from around the country, and the only one from Indiana. Brown said McKinnon was chosen out of a list that included bar association presidents and others who were involved in their communities’ pro bono efforts by leading legal organizations.

“In the end, the committee wanted to recognize someone who was doing it on her own,” he said. “Patricia’s work in trying to help people who find themselves in a situation where their domestic relationship is deteriorating, but they can’t afford a lawyer to help them, fit the section’s current theme of” equal justice for all, particularly indigent and homeless people, Brown added.
 

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. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT