ILNews

IBA: Nod to professionalism

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Professionalism Committee of the Indianapolis Bar Association extends a Nod to Professionalism to Assistant United States Attorney Bradley A. Blackington. Unlike those of us who do not know what a ton of pure methamphetamine looks like and may not have considered the catastrophic effects it could have in our neighborhoods and schools, Brad serves in a leadership role on the front lines of the war against drugs in our community. With over 12 years of service in the criminal division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana, Brad demonstrates daily his commitment to dismantling and prosecuting some of the state’s most significant drug trafficking organizations. He has supervised an unprecedented number of criminal investigations aimed at keeping our streets safe and free from illegal drugs. “Since 1999, Brad has led the United States Attorney’s Office in the fight against violent drug trafficking organizations. In accomplishing this demanding task, Brad has been successful in every Federal courthouse in the district. Although Brad’s conviction rate is impressive, what I find truly outstanding is his professionalism. Although criminal prosecution is inherently adversarial, Brad has always treated his opponents with remarkable courtesy. I believe this character trait reflects Brad’s commitment not only to this office, but to the legal profession he is so proud to serve.” said Joseph H. Hogsett, United States Attorney.

Most recently, Brad successfully prosecuted 27 Indiana residents engaged in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine to Hoosiers and others. Based on their criminal history, six of those defendants now face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Robert W. Hammerle, who represented one of the 27, commented, “from a criminal defense attorney’s standpoint, litigating against Brad is like dealing with a Death Star with a conscience. With few exceptions, such a legal fight usually involves your client crashing to his inevitable destruction. Fortunately, Brad’s door is always open to a resolution that gives your client a safe place to land where he can at least try to mitigate an otherwise unavoidable ghastly result.”

Brad’s commitment to representing the interests of the United States government and his professional character are similarly exemplified by his reputation with the Federal judiciary.

“This is certainly an appropriate recognition. It’s been my observation that Brad exhibits professionalism by being very well prepared for hearings and trials. He understands the strengths and weaknesses of his evidence and also has a thorough understanding of the rules of procedure and evidence. His preparation and knowledge of the rules results in his case being presented in an organized and highly professional manner. It’s a pleasure to work with him in the courtroom.” stated Chief Judge Richard L. Young.

Brad and his wife Stephanie reside with their two children in Hamilton County. Brad graduated from Villanova University School of Law where he was Case and Comment Editor of the Law Review, and from The College of William and Mary where he graduated with Highest Honors.•

If you know of someone whom you believe exemplifies one of IBA’s five standards, please e-mail your nomination to iba@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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT