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

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT