Law firms strut their mutts, names

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A handful of law firms made their way to the Indianapolis Humane Society's annual Mutt Strut on Sunday, showing off some clever team names and getting some exercise with their pets.

Unofficial figures show that about 4,000 pet owners came to the 2008 event at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, including seven teams from Indianapolis law firms. Those firms were:

•Baker & Daniels - Baker's Dozen

•Barnes & Thornburg - Barnes & Terrier

•Bingham McHale - Bingham Bulldogs

•Findling Garau Germano & Pennington - The Tails of Justice

•Ice Miller - Miller Time Mutts

•Lewis Wagner - Lewis Waggers

•Tabor Law Firm - Tabor "Paw" Firm

Partner Tammy Meyer with Lewis Wagner gathered with about six others throughout the day at the event and set up a table where they handed out blue Frisbees with the firm's name. Her husband, Marion Superior Judge Gary Miller, attended the event with her.

Amy Larmore, a paralegal with Findling Garau Germano & Pennington, was one of a couple people from the firm who were able to make it to the event. She took her daughter and 3-year-old puggle, Mona.

This was the first year that Barnes & Thornburg participated in the event after hearing about it during a Humane Society fundraiser last fall, business law associate Joi Kamper said. Around 10 people from the firm attended at different times during the day, she said. The firm raised about $2,000, she said.

Associate Lauren Phyllis Buford in the litigation department, who also helped organize the corporate team, said one reason she wanted to help form the team came after she adopted a 5-year-old miniature pincher from the Humane Society in January. Her dog, Cinnamon, has three legs because of an auto accident that happened before Buford adopted her, she said.

"She didn't walk the entire track and we carried her some of the way, but she had a great time," Buford said. "We hope this is the start of something we can do every year, and it's a good cause and something fun for the legal community to help with."

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?