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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT