ILNews

On The Move - 1/19/11

IL Staff
January 19, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Move

On The Move: Information must be submitted at least 11 days before the Wednesday issue in which it is to appear. Digital images should be 200 dpi and saved as eps, tiff or jpeg; Color images are preferred. For more information or to submit an announcement, contact managing editor Kelly Lucas at klucas@ibj.com

Elections and Appointments
Jason Reyome, a partner in the Indianapolis firm Demos & Reyome, was appointed as master commissioner in Marion County Title IV-D Court effective Jan. 3, 2011.

Stephanie L. Cassman, an attorney with the Indianapolis firm LewisWagner, has been appointed chair of the litigation section of the Indianapolis Bar Association.

Debra Dubovich, managing partner with the Highland firm Levy & Dubovich, has been elected to the Indiana Bar Foundation board of directors.

Ginny L. Peterson has been elected to the management committee of the Indiana firm Kightlinger & Gray.

C. Daniel Motsinger, a partner in the Indianapolis office of Krieg DeVault, has been elected chair of the American Board of Certification of Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights Attorneys.

Leeanne R. Coons, an attorney in the Indianapolis office of Krieg DeVault, has been named treasurer of Executive Women in Healthcare.

Alicia M. Chandler, a partner in the Indianapolis office of Krieg DeVault, has been elected a junior-at-large member of the Indianapolis Bar Association commercial and bankruptcy law section.

Matthew R. Strzynski, an attorney in the Carmel office of Krieg DeVault, has been named vice chair of the Indianapolis Bar Association commercial and bankruptcy law section.

Awards and Honors
Stacy F. Thompson, a partner in the Bloomington office of Clendening Johnson & Bohrer, was named the 2010 Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year by the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana.

Promotions
Six Baker & Daniels lawyers became partners in the firm effective Jan. 1, 2011. The new partners include Adrienne Franco Busby, product liability, Indianapolis; William S. Meyers, intellectual property/patents, Indianapolis; Karen T. Moses, commercial and real property litigation, Fort Wayne; Sara M. Powell, insurance and financial services, Indianapolis; April J. Risk, trusts and estates, Indianapolis; Douglas A. Yerkeson, intellectual property/patent, trademark and copyright, Indianapolis.

Max E. Fiester has been named a partner in the Evansville firm Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson. Fiester is a litigator focusing his practice in commercial litigation, insurance coverage, and insurance defense.

Andrew A. Manna has been named a partner with Church Church Hittle & Antrim. Manna practices in the firm’s Noblesville office, providing general representation to Indiana public school corporations.

Joshua C. Neal became a partner in the Fort Wayne firm Barrett & McNagny, effective Jan. 1, 2011. Neal concentrates his practice in real estate law and property tax appeals.

Two LewisWagner lawyers became equity partners in the Indianapolis firm effective Jan. 1, 2011. The new partners include Susan E. Cline, healthcare and medical malpractice; and Kyle A. Lansberry, litigation, personal injury, product liability, construction, premises liability, and environmental insurance coverage.

Four Krieg DeVault lawyers have been named partners in the firm. The new partners include Amy Adolay, employment law and litigation, Carmel; Patricia L. Beaty, employee benefits and executive compensation, Indianapolis; Matthew E. Conrad, corporate transactions, economic development, renewable energy, corporate finance, and real estate, Carmel; and Kostas A. Poulakidas, economic development and public and municipal finance, Indianapolis.

Robert C. Brandt has been elected partner in the Indianapolis firm Riley Bennett & Egloff. Brandt concentrates his practice in the areas of medical malpractice defense and general litigation.

Retirements
Hugh E. Reynolds Jr. retired from Frost Brown Todd on Dec. 31, 2010. Reynolds practiced law in Indianapolis for 57 years, including an 11-year tenure as managing partner of Locke Reynolds.•

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT