ILNews

IBA: Magnus-Stinson Named Chair of Nominating Committee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

magnus-stinson-jane-mug Magnus-Stinson

The nomination period has begun for the 2013 Board of Directors of the Indianapolis Bar Association, and the Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has been appointed to chair the effort. Judge Magnus-Stinson, a former member of the Board and the 2012 recipient of the Hon. Paul H. Buchanan Jr. Award of Excellence will lead a diverse committee of active members in selecting a slate of officers for the coming year.

Joining Judge Magnus-Stinson on the committee are Carl Butler, Frost Brown Todd; Phil Isenbarger, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, Martha S. Hollingsworth, retired; Hon. James S. Kirsch, Indiana Court of Appeals; Jennifer Lukemeyer, Voyles Zahn Paul; and Sally Zweig, Katz & Korin.

Self-nominations for the board are encouraged, as are nominations of colleagues. The following vacancies exist for the coming year and must be filled by an attorney member:

1st Vice President (serves one-year term and will automatically assume the office of President-elect in 2014)

Secretary (two-year term, 2013 and 2014)

At-Large Member of Board of Managers (five positions, each two-year terms, 2013 and 2014)

Letters or the nomination form found on the IndyBar’s homepage at www.indybar.org should be forwarded to the Bar office by July 23, 2012. The Nominating Committee will select a slate of nominees, which reflects our geographic, ethnic, minority, gender and practice area diversity while recognizing leadership and service to the Indianapolis Bar Association.

IndyBar members wishing to seek election outside the nominating process may file a petition ballot which is now available at the bar office. To be valid the petition must be filed by July 23, 2012, and must contain the signatures of at least 50 attorney members of the Indianapolis Bar Association.•

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT