ILNews

IndyBar Green Legal Initiative Recognizes 27 Firms, Legal Departments for 2013

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The IndyBar Go Green Committee, a sub-committee of the Young Lawyers Division, has released its list of Green Legal Initiative firms for 2013. Now in its second year, the program recognizes legal businesses, including law practices, legal departments, courts, agencies, legal support services and other members of the community that have committed to engaging in environmentally responsible business operations.

Recognized for Outstanding Achievement in 2013 is Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP, which has not only adopted green practices in its office but has also appointed a Sustainability Coordinator and Sustainability Team to assist in carrying out and evaluating its Sustainability Policy within the firm.

All Green Legal firms will be honored at the upcoming Indianapolis Bar Association & Foundation Recognition Luncheon on Nov. 14. For more information about the Go Green Committee and the Green Legal Initiative, visit indybar.org/resources/go-green.

2013 Green Legal Firms

Congratulations to these Green Legal Firms!

Green Legal Initiative Members:

Cantrell Strenski &  Mehringer LLP

Cohen & Malad LLP

Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic

Mitchell & Associates

Robinson Wolenty & Young LLP

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

MillerMeyer LLP

Certifying Members: One Leaf (15-30 Points)

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP

Indiana Court of Appeals

Hoover Hull

Wishard Health Services/Eskenazi Health (Legal Affairs)

Certifying Members: Two Leaves (31-45 Points)

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aranoff LLP

Frost Brown Todd LLC

Indianapolis Bar Association and Foundation

Kightlinger & Gray LLP

Popcheff & Dinn LLP

Rolls Royce

Wanzer Edwards PC

Certifying Members: Three Leaves (41-60 Points)

Bowen & Associates LLC

Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

Drewry Simmons & Vornehm LLP

Harrison & Moberly LLP

Nelson Law Group, LLC

Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP

Richard A. Mann PC

Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP
 

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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT