ILNews

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."
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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT