ILNews

Pro golfer's lawyer promotes new initiative

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
You don't have to be a golf fan to have an interest in the recent PGA tournament at Pebble Beach Golf Course in California.

Indianapolis lawyer Joseph Champion at law firm Bingham McHale has a key connection to that tournament and the winning golf pro, Steve Lowry, who walked away with a $1.08 million prize Sunday.

The Hoosier attorney has represented Lowry in legal issues such as sponsorships and wealth management, and Champion looks forward to his client's recent tournament victory as a way to promote the law firm's new initiative.

Champion has been representing Lowry for about two years, after being referred by the golfer's brother-in-law who lives in the Indianapolis area. Now, Lowry's world-wide ranking goes from 305 to 116, and this means he'll automatically qualify for the PGA Tour for the next two years and also qualifies for the Master's Tournament, Champion said. In the history of golf, Lowry's now the 46th all-time money winner, Champion said.

An Indiana lawyer for more than a decade and with the Indianapolis firm since 2005, Champion said he's previously represented pro basketball and football players before focusing more on golfers for legal counseling about wealth management, contracts, and sponsorships.

The firm's new initiative, which will be called the Bingham Entertainment Sports Talent group, will involve eight to 10 people to focus on sports clients. Champion said he hopes to focus mostly on golf, as well as some Olympic sports, coaches, and singers on the entertainment side.

"Hopefully, we'll generate some interest through the business community who want to be involved in sponsoring a pro golfer," Champion said.
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT