ILNews

Leadership in Law 2012: Mary E. Solada

Managing Partner, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, Indianapolis Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

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

Mary Solada inspires strength through example. She exemplifies the work ethic and determination required to achieve great things. During her nearly 30 years practicing real estate, zoning and planning law, she has logged many professional achievements. Most recently, Mary’s election as managing partner of Bingham Greenebaum Doll’s Indianapolis office earned her a place in the firm’s history as the first female named to that position. She is known as a fierce and loyal advocate for her firm, her clients and her community.

The best advice I ever received was
think first, speak second.

I wish I had known when I graduated law school that
clients need constant care and feeding.

My best stress reliever is
hitting golf balls.

If I weren’t a lawyer, I’d be
a city manager.

In 2012, I’d like to
continue to improve at whatever I do everyday!

The three words that best describe me are
dedicated, loyal and determined.

In the movie about my life,
Susan Sarandon would play me.

In my community, I’m passionate about
improving literacy rates in Indianapolis Public Schools.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT