ILNews

On The Move - 6/18/14

IL Staff
June 18, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Move

On The Move highlights employment news, awards and honors attorneys receive, and board appointments or elected positions. Digital images should be 200 dpi and saved as eps, tiff or jpg. Color images are preferred. Information must be submitted at least 10 days before the Wednesday issue in which it is to appear. Submit your announcement at http://www.theindianalawyer.com/submit-on-the-move or email to managing editor Jennifer Nelson at jnelson@ibj.com. New Associations

barry-emily-otm.jpg Barry

*Emily Barry has joined Nickloy & Higdon of Noblesville as an associate and will focus her practice on civil litigation, employment law and family law.
hopper-george-otm.jpg Hopper
*George W. Hopper has joined Cohen & Malad LLP as of counsel.
simpkins-christopher-otm.jpg Simpkins
*Christopher D. Simpkins has joined Hill Fulwider P.C. as an associate where he practices in civil litigation with a focus on insurance defense, insurance coverage and professional liability defense.
chickedantz-eric-otm.jpg Chickedantz
*C. Erik Chickedantz has joined Burt Blee Dixon Sutton & Bloom LLP in Fort Wayne. His areas of concentration will be ADR processes including mediation and arbitration, and civil litigation.
vega-fitch-christina-otm.jpg Fitch
essex-christina-otm.jpg Essex
*Christina L. Essex and *Christina L. Vega Fitch have joined Kopka Pinkus Dolin as associates. Essex practices in the Indianapolis offices and focuses on insurance defense; Vega Fitch practices out of the Crown Point office and focuses on workers’ compensation, civil litigation and insurance defense.
hiler-ryan-otm.jpg Hiler
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP associate *Ryan P. Hiler has joined the firms’ intellectual property group.

Promotions Alice Morical is now an equity partner with Hoover Hull LLP.

hurwitz-lainie-otm.jpg Hurwitz
*Lainie Hurwitz has been named a partner at Ruppert & Schaefer P.C.

Appointments and Elections

smith-donald-otm.jpg Smith
reed-laura-otm.jpg Reed
jost-anthony-otm.jpg Jost
egloff-john-otm.jpg Egloff
Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP has named the following partners to their 2014 management committee: *John L. Egloff (re-elected), *Anthony R. Jost, *Laura S. Reed and *Donald S. Smith.
bennett-bryce-otm.jpg Bennett
*Bryce H. Bennett Jr. of Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP has been appointed by Mayor Greg Ballard to the Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee.
zoeller-greg-otm.jpg Zoeller
Indiana Attorney General *Greg Zoeller has been appointed to the board of directors of the American Legacy Foundation, a national public health organization dedicated to ending tobacco use in the United States.
stippler-david-otm.jpg Stippler
Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor *David Stippler has been appointed secretary of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates.

Awards and Honors

barker-sara-evans-otm.jpg Barker
U.S. Judge *Sarah Evans Barker has been awarded the 2014 NUVO Cultural Vision Awards’ Lifetime Achievement Award.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana recognized at a June 3 breakfast event the volunteer attorneys who handled 13 pro bono cases within the past year. Those attorneys are: Wendy Brewer, Kayla Britton, Courtney Chilcote, K.C. Cohen, Dustin DeNeal, Darrell Dolan, Jeremy Dunn, Jeff Graham, Elizabeth Lally, Nicolette Mendenhall, Erin Nave and Fatima Skimin.•

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