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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT