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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT