ILNews

IBA: Local Leaders to be Honored with 2012 Recognition Awards

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

These IndyBar members–and their innovative ideas–are just a few of those who will be honored at the Indianapolis Bar Association and Foundation Recognition Luncheon on Thursday, November 8, 2012. Join us for lunch and say thank you for the countless hours the recipients have devoted to various legal programs, causes and issues. The luncheon, to be held at the Columbia Club, will begin at noon. Register today by visiting www.indybar.org.

The recipients of the President’s Award for Service to the Association are Liz Shuster and Chuck Schmal, both of Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP, for their efforts to create the new Indy Attorneys Network section.

This year’s President’s Award for Service to the Profession will be awarded to the Hon. Louis Rosenberg of the Marion Circuit Court for his work dedicated to reforming the Marion County Small Claims Courts.

The Board of Directors Award goes to the IndyBar Legal Services Advisory Committee, chaired in 2012 by Tim Hurlbut of Rubin & Levin PC, for the extraordinary time and effort dedicated to the creation and launch of Indy Lawyer Finder, the bar’s innovative online attorney search tool.

Joel Schumm of the Robert H. McKinney School of Law will be honored with the Dr. John Morton Finney Jr. Award for Excellence in Legal Education for the creation of supplemental bar examination preparation questions provided to IndyBar Review students.

For her involvement with the Young Lawyers Division, Stephanie Eckerle, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, has been named the Young Lawyer of the Year.

The following will be honored with Pro Bono Awards for their efforts on behalf of the Indianapolis community:

Law Firm: Cohen & Malad LLP

Law Student: Nabeela Virjee, Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Attorney Aiding Entities: Hon. Mary Davidsen, Office of Environmental Adjudication

Attorney Aiding Individuals: Sara McClammer, Barnes & Thornburg LLP•

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT