ILNews

Leadership in Law 2012: Margaret M. Christensen

Associate, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, Indianapolis Indiana University Maurer School of Law

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

Margaret Christensen is the definition of an inspiring leader. With her legal experience in construction and business contract law, she approached the Indiana Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors Association to work with contractors on legal matters and has been a featured presenter at the group’s convention. Meg’s passion for helping others extends into various organizations, including Trusted Mentors.

In 2012, I’d like to
have a happy, healthy baby girl in July.

The best advice I could give a recent law school graduate is
stay in touch with your law school and undergraduate classmates. They’ll turn out to be your best clients, referral sources and peer mentors.

The three words that best describe me are
curious, optimistic and engaged.

My long-term career goal is
balance.

If I weren’t an attorney, I’d be
a lobbyist or other legislative professional.

My escape from work is
Pilates and ice cream.

My mentor has taught me
to slow down and handle things one at a time.

In the movie about my life
Jennifer Garner would play me because she has a balanced life and doesn’t take herself too seriously.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT