ILNews

IBA: Bar Leaders Sought for Board Service

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It’s already that time of year, when attention turns to nominating the Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors slate. Because Indybar members are the greatest resource in identifying future leaders, a request for nominations has been issued. Each Indybar member is encouraged to submit the name(s) of any Indybar attorney member for nomination to any of the following offices:

1st Vice President (serves one-year term and will automatically assume the office of President-elect in 2013)

Secretary (two-year term, 2011 and 2012); and

At-Large Member of Board of Managers (five positions, each two-year terms, 2011 and 2012)

ABA Delegate (one-year term, 2011).

The Nominating Committee will endeavor to choose a slate of nominees, which reflects the Indybar’s geographic, ethnic, minority, gender and practice area diversity while recognizing leadership and service to the Indianapolis Bar Association. Serving on this year’s Nominating Committee are Chair George Plews of Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, Hon. Cale Bradford of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Hon. Annie Christ-Garcia of the Marion Superior Court, Ryan Gardner an attorney at law, Doug Hill of Hill Fulwider McDowell Funk & Matthews, Mary Panszi of Lewis Wagner LLP and Steve Peters of Harrison & Moberly LLP.

In 2009, the Nominating Committee received over 30 letters of interest. A number of goals for the 2011 Board have already been identified and will include the widening of member services, enhanced communications with members regarding the programs and activities available through the Indybar, and the enhancement of the image and awareness of the Indybar and its members in our metropolitan area.

Nominations should be forwarded to Indybar Nominating Committee, 135 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204, email jarmstrong@indybar.org, or fax 317-269-1915. They must be received by September 1, 2010.•

ADVERTISEMENT

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