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

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