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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT