ILNews

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 www.indybar.org. 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.•

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT