On The Move 8/28/13

August 28, 2013
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 or email to editor Kelly Lucas at
Brett E. Osborne has joined the firm Hocker & Associates LLC. He practices personal injury and criminal law.

vargo-deborah-otm.jpg Vargo
*Deborah J. Vargo has joined Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity’s professional staff as general counsel and executive team member.

Donald J. Smith has joined Stark & Smith LLP as a partner. Neha Matta has joined Lewis Wagner LLP as an associate. She will focus her practice on civil litigation including insurance defense, premises liability, product liability, construction and trucking cases.

torres-lori-otm.jpg Torres
*Lori Torres has joined Ice Miller LLP as an attorney in the firm’s public affairs group. Torres is a former advisor to Gov. Mitch Daniels, having served as the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Labor.

Appointments & Elections

hoy-brett-otm.jpg Hoy
Lewis Wagner LLP attorney *Brett Hoy has been elected to the Indiana Chapter of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society board of directors.
strange-jennifer-otm.jpg Strange
Harrison & Moberly LLP associate *Jennifer L. Strange has been selected for participation in the 11th class of the IndyBar Bar Leader Series.

Cohen Garelick & Glazier partner MaryEllen Kiley Bishop has been elected to serve as the Indiana University board of trustee’s vice chair.
Attorneys Janet D. Hocker, Vicki L. Fortino, Kassandra Green and Brett E. Osborne, of Hocker & Associates LLC, have relocated their office to 6626 E. 75th St., Suite 410, Indianapolis.

The law firm of Jacob Hammerle & Johnson have opened new offices at 345 South Main St., Zionsville.
Ice Miller LLP and Faegre Baker Daniels LLP have each been named among the 2013 “50 Best Law Firms for Women” by Working Mother and Flex-Time Lawyers. Both firms indicate that 37 percent of their respective attorneys are women, and each was recognized for innovative programs to support advancement and leadership by female attorneys.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?