ILNews

IndyBar: Nominations Open for 2014 IndyBar Board of Directors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Service on the IndyBar Board of Directors provides a valuable opportunity to play a crucial role in the success and future of your local bar association. The nomination period for the 2014 Board of Directors of the Indianapolis Bar Association has now begun with Christine Hayes Hickey of Rubin & Levin PC appointed to chair the effort.

Hickey, a past president of both the Indianapolis Bar Association and the Indianapolis Bar Foundation, will lead a committee of members in selecting a slate of officers for the coming year. Joining Hickey on the committee are 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; and Bryan Strawbridge, Krieg DeVault LLP.

Letters of interest or the nomination form found at www.indybar.org should be forwarded to the Bar office by September 16, 2013. Letters of interest or nomination forms submitted to the nominating committee on your own behalf are encouraged, as well as nominations of colleagues.

The following vacancies exist for the coming year and must be filled by an attorney member:

• 1st Vice President (serves one-year term and will automatically assume the office of President-elect in 2015)

• Treasurer (two-year term, 2014 and 2015)

• At-Large Member of Board of Managers (five positions, each two-year terms, 2014 and 2015)

• American Bar Association Delegate (two year term, 2014 and 2015)

The Nominating Committee will select a slate of nominees that reflects our geographic, ethnic, minority, gender and practice area diversity. Previous leadership experience with the Indianapolis Bar Association and/or the Indianapolis Bar Foundation is preferred.

IndyBar members wishing to seek election outside the nominating process may file a petition ballot which is now available at the bar office. To be valid, the petition must be filed by September 16, 2013 and must contain the signatures of at least 50 attorney members of the Indianapolis Bar Association.•

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT