IBA: Seeking to Honor Excellence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Awarding professional excellence on the bench and in the bar is the purpose of the Indianapolis Bar’s Silver Gavel and Professionalism Awards. Given annually, these awards honor two individuals whose achievements and demeanor display the best practices to which all legal professionals should aspire. Nominations are now being sought for the 2010 awards.

Created just a few years ago by the Bar’s Professionalism Committee, the Silver Gavel Award is designated for a member of the judiciary. The criteria for the award states, “Individuals whose contributions in the area of judicial professionalism set an example of insight into the demands of legal professionalism, dedication to the highest level of ethical conduct, and a vision of constant improvement of the perception judges in the public will merit strong consideration in the evaluation of nominees for the award. Significant scholarly contributions made in academic settings, creative judicial or legislative initiatives undertaken to advance the professionalism of judges, and other related types of contributions justify submission of nominations as well.”

Past recipients of the Silver Gavel include The Honorable John Tinder of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, The Honorable Ted Boehm of the Indiana Supreme Court and the late Honorable Charles Deiter.

The Professionalism Award is given to an attorney whose achievements are measured by the same criteria as the Silver Gavel Award but with emphasis on enhancing the perception of attorneys.

The Honorable James Kirsch of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Kristin Fruehwald of Barnes & Thornburg and Karl Mulvaney of Bingham McHale LLP are among the past recipients of the Professionalism Award.

Nomination forms for these awards may be found at The nomination period closes on Friday, August 5.

The awards will be presented at the Bar’s Mentors Who Matter luncheon which is scheduled for September 30 at the Conrad Hotel. Tickets will soon be on sale for $30 per person. The luncheon will also feature remarks from the newest judges to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judges Jane Magnus-Stinson and Tanya Walton Pratt.•


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?