ILNews

Leadership in Law 2012: Andrew C. Mallor

Partner, Mallor Grodner, Bloomington Indiana University Maurer School of Law

April 25, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Andrew Mallor (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Andrew Mallor is the antidote to “bad lawyer” jokes. He strives to make the legal profession better through education and example. He has set a high bar for those practicing in family law. Andy leads by example in his practice, sharing his time and expertise with others about to enter the profession and through his involvement in the Bloomington community and local charities. He shines as an example to younger lawyers and constantly reaches back to help aspiring lawyers forward. His business savvy and legal intuition have earned Andy the moniker: a lawyer’s lawyer.

The best advice I ever received was
to do the hardest tasks first, whether calling a client with less than a great result or dealing with a difficult problem.

I wish I had known when I graduated law school that
Bill Oliver, my tax professor, would come work with me after retiring from IU. I would have asked him for a better grade in tax class.

My best stress reliever is
attending theater with my family.

If I weren’t a lawyer, I’d be:
Ironically I am doing it. I own Andrew Davis Menswear and have two full-time jobs.

In 2012, I’d like to
take a long vacation in Italy with my wife, Jane.

The three words that best describe me are
family-centered, service-oriented and entrepreneurial.

In my community, I’m passionate about
supporting the local arts and theaters and contributing to not-for-profits that make a difference.

In the movie about my life,
I have no idea who would play me, but I want Spielberg to direct.

ADVERTISEMENT

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