ILNews

IBA Frontlines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reappointment for Hon. Anthony J. Metz

According to a press release from the court, United States Bankruptcy Judge Anthony J. Metz of the Southern District of Indiana, a member of the Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors, has applied to be reappointed by the United States Court of Appeals to a new 14 year term when his current term expires on November 14, 2011. Comments are invited from the public and the bar as to whether Judge Metz should be reappointed. Those comments should be in writing and sent by March 1, 2011 to: Collins T. Fitzpatrick, Circuit Executive, 219 S. Dearborn St., Room 2780, Chicago, IL 60604.

Baker & Daniels Promotes Eikenberry

Baker & Daniels LLP has announced the promotion of Shawna Meyer Eikenberry from associate lawyer to counsel. Eikenberry practices with the construction and real property litigation team from the firm’s downtown Indianapolis office. Eikenberry, who joined Baker & Daniels in 2004, graduated magna cum laude from both Butler University in 1996 and the Indiana University Maurer School of Law–Bloomington in 1999.

Auction to be Held at Former Law Firm

An auction for office furniture and supplies from the now-defunct firm Tabbert Hahn Earnest & Weddle LLP will be held on Saturday, February 5 at 9 a.m. For more information, including a listing of available items, please go to www.steffengrp.com.

What’s Up at the Statehouse?

Hear an update on pending legislation and get to know Indiana legislators at the IndyBar’s fifth annual seminar, “The Importance of Lawyer-Legislators in the Indiana General Assembly,” which is hoted by the bar’s Senior Counsel Division. Attorneys who are state senators and representatives will lead a lively discussion during the luncheon on Tuesday, March 8, from noon to 1:30 p.m., at the Hyatt Regency, 1 S. Capitol Ave. This event is being offered for 1.5 hours CLE credit. For more information and to register, go to www.indybar.org

Save the Date for TRAC

Mark calendars now...The Racing Attorney Conference (TRAC), a joint effort between the IndyBar and the North Carolina Bar Association, is returning to Indy on April 13 and 14, 2011. TRAC 2011, which will be held at the Conrad Indianapolis, will include topics on celebrity representation, non-profits and foundations, state and local governments and an in-depth focus on SAG/AFTRA, as well as multiple opportunities for socializing and networking. Visit www.racingattorneys.com for more information and registration details.

Job Seekers and Employers: Check out the IndyBar Job Bank!

Did you know that the IndyBar hosts a full job bank online at www.indybar.org? View open positions, advertise for employment opportunities and even post a resume if you are a job seeker looking for employment. Only IndyBar members are able to post resumes and IndyBar members get a seven day advanced viewing of all open employment opportunities.

Get a Head Start on 2011 CLE Requirements with the Litigation Skills Series

Don’t miss the 2011 Litigation Skills Series! This series is designed to hone your skills on each component of the trial process with practice pointers and advocacy tips from experienced trial lawyers. Get all of your annually required CLE credits, including 1 hour of ethics, at these one hour luncheon CLEs at the IndyBar. This is a great opportunity to network with litigators and judges, and by registering for the full series, you save $40! For more information and registration, go to www.indybar.org.•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT