ILNews

Indianapolis Bar Foundation Honors Distinguished Fellows

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-fellows-sidebarEach year the Indianapolis Bar Foundation honors individuals for their dedication to the law by bestowing on them the designation of Distinguished Fellow. This small but select group is chosen by the Directors of the Indianapolis Bar Foundation to become Distinguished Fellows as a result of their significant contributions to the legal profession and to our community.

Nominated by a committee of Bar Foundation board members and active contributors, the 2011 Class of Distinguished Fellows includes the following members of the Indianapolis legal community:

David A. Adams, Bingham McHale LLP

Nicholas F. Baker, The Hastings Law Firm

Reynold T. Berry, Rubin & Levin PC

Tracy N. Betz, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Carl W. Butler, Frost Brown Todd LLC

Andrew L. Campbell, Baker & Daniels LLP

Marie D. Castetter, Foley & Abbott

Sonia S. Chen, Eli Lilly and Company

Hamish S. Cohen, Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Aaron J. Dixon, Ice Miller LLP

Peter H. Donahoe, Donahoe Irvin PC

Andrew R. Duncan, Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook

Kristin P. Dutton, Bingham McHale LLP

David A. Given, Baker & Daniels LLP

Kathleen I. Hart, Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP

Kena S. Hollingsworth, Hollingsworth & Zivitz, PC

David E. Kress, Benesch

Susan E. Krohne, Pedcor Investments, LLC

Aubrey G. Kuchar, Kightlinger & Gray LLP

Shannon D. Landreth, Bingham McHale LLP

Nicholas W. Levi, Kightlinger & Gray LLP

Marc G. Lopez, Attorney at Law

Robin M. Lybolt, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Heather H. Macek, Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Anna Muehling Mallon, Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP

Brent D. Mosby, Exact Target

Kenneth J. Munson, Bingham McHale LLP

Jennifer Richter, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman, PC

James E. Rossow Jr., Rubin & Levin PC

Charles P. Schmal, Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP

Justine Overturf Singh, Fifth Third Private Bank

Natalie M. Snyder, Cross Woolsey & Glazier PC

Dana E. Stutzman, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman, PC•

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. 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