ILNews

IndyBar: Moberly to Lead Indianapolis Bar Association in 2016

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association’s Nominating Committee has announced the selection of the Hon. Robyn Moberly of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana as the 2016 President of the Indianapolis Bar Association. Currently the Treasurer for the bar, Judge Moberly will serve as the association’s First Vice President on the 2014 Board of Directors.
 

Moberly Robyn Moberly

Judge Moberly became Indiana’s first woman to be appointed to the federal bankruptcy bench when she began a 14-year term on the bankruptcy court in November 2012, replacing Chief Judge Anthony Metz III, who retired. Prior to her appointment, she served as a judge in Marion Superior Court since 1996. Judge Moberly earned her B.A. from Indiana University and her J.D. from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

Jimmie McMillian of Barnes & Thornburg LLP was named to a two-year term as Treasurer. In addition to previous service on several bar committees, McMillian currently serves on the Board of Directors as a Vice President.

Phil Isenbarger, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, was nominated to serve as the Indianapolis Bar Association’s delegate to the American Bar Association.

Five At Large Directors were also selected. Chosen to serve through 2015 were Takeena Thompson, Cohen & Malad LLP; Kelley Johnson, Cohen & Malad LLP; Marc Rothenberg, Marion Superior Court; Colleen Powers, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman PC; and Kathleen Hart, Riley Bennet & Egloff LLP.

As determined by previous nomination, the 2014 Board of Directors will be led by Jeff Abrams, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP. John Trimble, Lewis Wagner LLP, will be President Elect.

The Nominating Committee was chaired by the Christine Hickey of Rubin & Levin PC. Joining Hickey on the committee were Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana; Hon. Robert Altice, Marion Superior Court; Scott Chinn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Kelly Scanlan, Wilson Kehoe & Winingham; Bryan Strawbridge, Krieg DeVault LLP; and Holly Wanzer, Wanzer Edwards PC.

The 2014 Board of Directors will be formally installed at the Indianapolis Bar Association and Foundation Installation Luncheon, to be held in January 30, 2014.
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT