ILNews

Lucas: 2013 Leadership in Law Award winners revealed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigIn the news supplement you will find inserted in this issue of the Indiana Lawyer, we are pleased to introduce and congratulate our 2013 Leadership in Law Distinguished Barristers and Up and Coming Lawyers. While the interests, practice areas and geographic locations of these individuals are diverse, the common threads are the drive these men and women display in their work and the commitment they’ve shown to support fellow attorneys and the pursuit of justice.

Through the profiles in this award supplement, it is our goal to introduce IL readers to the men and women behind the public and professional personas. Lawyers, like members of other professions, can be the victims of stereotypes, and what we learned is that it is sometimes wise to expect the unexpected. We asked our honorees a few questions, and some of their answers surprised us. We hope that you will take a moment to get to know these accomplished and intriguing individuals a bit better.

For example, when asked whether a world without 24/7 technology would be a good or bad thing, I assumed that our Up and Comers would balk at the idea of disconnecting. Surprisingly, a number of these young lawyers expressed a desire to temporarily put down their beloved smartphones, making comments like “face time should be more than an app on my iPad.”

There seemed to be consensus that today’s fascination with legal drama on television and in the movies doesn’t accurately represent the reality of practicing law – although several suggested that scenes from “My Cousin Vinny” came very close. When asked what lawyer from history he or she would most like to spend a day talking with if given the chance, Thurgood Marshall received multiple votes. The collection of individuals suggested by our 2013 class would likely make the most fascinating panel ever assembled.

Responses to our “what scares you” question made us laugh, cringe and nod heads in agreement. As an editor, I particularly appreciated Judge L. Mark Bailey’s answer: missing a deadline.

The “advice I would give to my 25-year-old self” provided by our Distinguished Barristers and “the most important thing my mentor has taught me” relayed by our Up and Coming Lawyers provide valuable insights and common-sense suggestions for lawyers at all stages of their careers. I hope that you will take a few minutes to peruse these profiles.

Again this year, we received a number of impressive nominations and, as I’ve said before, the most difficult thing about the Leadership in Law Award is that not all deserving nominations can be selected. But to that, I say, there is always next year. Very soon, we will open the 2014 award nomination process, and I hope that you will consider submitting a nomination.

As you consider 2014, I’d like to make one observation. While an abundance of outstanding nominations for the Distinguished Barrister Award were received this year, the number of female attorneys nominated who fit the award criteria in this category was low. Why did this happen? We are unsure. We know that many qualified women have been practicing law for 15 years or more in Indiana. It was rather apropos that Judy Woods’ nominator told us that many times in Judy’s career she has found herself to be one of a few females or the only female in the room, and that she “has quietly opened doors for women and patiently held them open for the women who have come after her.” Clearly, the work is not done.

Please join me in congratulating the Indiana Lawyer’s 2013 Leadership in Law honorees. These very deserving individuals – some relatively new to the profession, some seasoned in their work – inspire those around them, representing the profession admirably.•

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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT