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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT