Self-nominations and nominations of colleagues are now being taken for the 2026 Board of Directors of the Indianapolis Bar Association. A variety of opportunities to lead are available with varying responsibilities and time commitments among the roles.

     The following vacancies exist for the coming year and must be filled by an attorney member:

• 1st Vice President (Also a member of the Executive Committee. Serves one-year term and will automatically assume the office of President-elect in 2027 and President in 2027.)

The 1st Vice President is in line to assume the presidency of the association with the full-time assistance of the Executive Director.  The 1st Vice President is a member of the leadership team with direct influence over the success of the association $2+ million operating budget, 12-person staff, and services and programs provided to nearly 5,000 members. The average monthly time commitment of the 1st Vice President is 4-6 hours.

• Treasurer (Also a member of the Executive Committee. Serves a two-year term, 2026 and 2027.)

The Treasurer works with the Associate Executive Director to maintain the finances of the Association. An independent annual audit is conducted and monthly financial reports are produced for Treasurer review and board acceptance. The Treasurer also makes themselves available to review and sign semi-monthly payables. Along with the Associate Executive Director the Treasurer monitors accounts receivable and budgetary goals. The Treasurer serves as co-chair of the Audit and Investment Committee with the Foundation Treasurer.  The Treasurer also reviews for approval all budget needs and requests.  The average monthly time commitment for the Treasurer is 2-3 hours.

• At-Large Director (There are five positions available, each two-year terms, 2026 and 2027.)

At-Large Directors are involved and engaged in determining policies, procedures, and regulations for the Association. The monthly time commitment of an at-large director is 2-3 hours per month. The Board of Directors, which is made up of 33 members of the association, meets monthly with the Executive Committee members meeting additionally every six weeks. Tasked with setting and the policies of the Association and guiding the implementation of the association’s strategic plan, the board of directors has the opportunity to provide meaningful impact on the success of our Indianapolis legal community.

All members of the Board of Directors are expected to provide active and visible support for the association’s programs and services and visibly support the activities of the association on a monthly basis including special events and the Bench Bar Conference. Board members are also expected to support the Indianapolis Bar Foundation with a financial contribution within their individual means. Members of the board also attend an overnight retreat each November for the purpose of training and planning.

     Self-nomination for board consideration is encouraged, as are nominations of colleagues. The interest form is brief and is found online here. Deadline to submit is Friday, August 15, 2025. The Nominating Committee will select an inclusive slate of nominees which reflects our community while recognizing current and previous leadership and service to the Indianapolis Bar Association.

     Should any member wish to bypass the nominating committee process, the petition for independent nomination which requires written support of fifty members of the association may be found on the association’s website. 

In collaboration with the IU McKinney School of Law, the Indianapolis Bar Association is recruiting attorneys to volunteer their time (in-person or via Zoom) for the benefit of law students participating in mock interviews. Attorney volunteers will provide students with reasonable expectations in the interview process and help them avoid common pitfalls in a "hands on" learning experience. This is a core program administered by the law school, so volunteers should expect responsiveness and clear communication.

TOTAL VOLUNTEER TIME ANTICIPATED: Less than 90 minutes

TIMELINE: Interviews would be completed before the end of the 2025 Fall Semester, likely to commence as early as September 2025.

Plan now to be on hand for an historic event as the Indianapolis legal community welcomes for the first time a United States Supreme Court Justice to an Indianapolis Bar gathering. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will join the Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for a conversation about Justice Jackson's career and her recently released book, Lovely One: A Memoir. 

Marion County voters wanting to learn more about Marion Superior Court candidates can now visit www.indyjudges.org for more information. The website contains biographies, photos and the recommendations of both the Marion County Judicial Selection Committee and the Indianapolis Bar Association. Both organizations have recommended all Marion County judges on the ballot receive a “yes” vote for retention.

Attorney leaders of the Indianapolis Bar Association are urging the retention of all eighteen Marion Superior Court judges on the November ballot. Based on the results of a 2024 survey conducted by the bar, the association is recommending a “Yes” vote for those judges required by law to stand for retention (approval or rejection by Marion County voters).

Those judges include Linda E. Brown, John M.T. Chavis II, Stephen R. Creason, Charnette D. Garner, Danielle P. Gaughan, Alicia A. Gooden, Clayton A. Graham, Jennifer P. Harrison, Amy M. Jones, James A. Joven, Marie L. Kern, Helen W. Marchal, Jeffrey L. Marchal, Charles F. Miller, William J. Nelson, Cynthia L. Oetjen, Clark H. Rogers, and Jose D. Salinas.

“Marion County voters should feel confident in the continued service of our Marion Superior Court judges on this ballot,” said David Duncan, Indianapolis Bar Association President. He added, “We feel very confident in recommending their retention.”

To participate in the survey, attorneys were required to confirm direct professional contact with each judge they reviewed. Ultimately, nearly 1,000 of the licensed practitioners receiving the survey participated.

As leaders of the Indianapolis Bar Association, we are happy to join the leadership of the Indiana State Bar Association in encouraging Indiana’s voters to vote “Yes” for the retention of those members of the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals currently on the ballot before Hoosier voters.

A recent survey conducted by the Indiana State Bar Association showed that nearly 85% of their members statewide that responded endorsed retention.  In announcing their finding the ISBA aptly noted, “It’s important to remember that judges do not create laws; they interpret and apply them, guided by the Constitution and legal precedent. This independence is fundamental to a fair and impartial legal system, allowing courts to serve as neutral arbiters where justice is delivered without bias.” They further added, “Retaining a judge is about affirming their commitment to upholding the law and serving the people of Indiana impartially.” 

These jurists have served our state well and should retain their positions on the Indiana bench.

David Duncan, President
Lee Christie, President-elect
Katherine Jackson-Lindsay, 1^st Vice President
Rebecca Geyer, Immediate Past President

Submissions of interest are now being taken for the 2025 Board of Directors of the Indianapolis Bar Association. A variety of opportunities to lead are available with varying responsibilities and time commitments among the roles. The following vacancies exist for the coming year and must be filled by an attorney member:

• 1st Vice President (Also a member of the Executive Committee. Serves one-year term and will automatically assume the office of President-elect in 2026 and President in 2027.)

The 1st Vice President is in line to assume the presidency of the association with the full-time assistance of the Executive Director.  The 1st Vice President is a member of the leadership team with direct influence over the success of the association $2+ million operating budget, 12-person staff, and services and programs provided to nearly 5,000 members. The average monthly time commitment of the 1st Vice President is 4-6 hours.

• Secretary (Also a member of the Executive Committee. Serves a two-year term, 2025 and 2026.)

The Secretary keeps the written record of board and executive committee meetings. The Association supplies a laptop for in-person meetings to allow for real-time recording of minutes to limit the time required by the Secretary outside normal association meetings. The average monthly time commitment for the Secretary is 2-3 hours.

• Delegate to the American Bar Association (Serves a two-year term, 2025 and 2026.)

The Delegate to the American Bar Association (“ABA”) represents IndyBar at all meetings of the ABA and serves as the liaison between the ABA and the IndyBar President, Board of Directors, and Executive Committee. The Association provides a stipend to offset the cost of attending the midyear and annual meetings of the ABA but does not pay the annual dues to join the ABA.

• At-Large Director (There are five positions available, each two-year terms, 2025 and 2026.)

At-Large Directors are involved and engaged in determining policies, procedures, and regulations for the Association. The monthly time commitment of an at-large director is 2-3 hours per month.
The Board of Directors, which is made up of 33 members of the association, meets bi-monthly with the Executive Committee meeting in the off months. Tasked with setting and the policies of the Association and guiding the implementation of the association’s strategic plan, the board of directors has the opportunity to provide meaningful impact on the success of our Indianapolis legal community. 

All members of the Board of Directors are expected to provide active and visible support for the association’s programs and services, and visibly support the activities of the association on a monthly basis including special events and the Bench Bar Conference. Board members are also expected to support the Indianapolis Bar Foundation with a financial contribution within their individual means. The average monthly time required of a board member is 2-3 hours. Members of the board also attend an overnight retreat each November for the purpose of training and planning.

Self-nomination for board consideration is encouraged, as are nominations of colleagues. The interest form is brief and is found online at www.indybar.org/nominate. Deadline to submit is Sunday, August 18, 2024. The Nominating Committee will select an inclusive slate of nominees which reflects the diversity of our community while recognizing current and previous leadership and service to the Indianapolis Bar Association.

SUMMARY: The Indianapolis Bar Association (“IndyBar”) has learned of recent public statements attacking the Marion County criminal justice system generally, and the Honorable Mark D. Stoner specifically. These statements come in the wake of Judge Stoner’s sentencing of Elliahs Dorsey (“Dorsey”), the individual charged in the April 2020 shooting death of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Officer Breann Leath. Officer Leath was tragically shot to death after responding to a call regarding a disturbance between a male and a female. After hours of deliberation, Dorsey’s jury acquitted him of Murder. The jury found Dorsey Guilty but Mentally Ill of lesser included offenses. After Dorsey’s sentence was pronounced, some made statements that either implied or outright erroneously stated that Judge Stoner inappropriately sentenced Dorsey to far less than the maximum sentence in the killing of Officer Leath. Some made remarks in the local media that dangerous offenders can shoot anyone and simply say they have a mental health problem, and they will receive a “sweetheart” sentence. This rhetoric is dangerous, and it is false.

For the killing of Officer Leath, the Court was limited to only a six-year sentence based on what the jury found Dorsey guilty of. When judges sentence offenders convicted of crimes, they are limited by the statutory sentencing guidelines for the crime. When deciding on an appropriate sentence, judges are required to start in the middle of that range and then consider specific statutory factors, called mitigating and aggravating factors, when deciding whether to impose a harsher sentence or a lighter sentence. The sentence Judge Stoner imposed on Dorsey for the count of Reckless Homicide was nine months shy of the maximum sentence allowed under the law. There is no statutory aggravator to enable judges to impose a harsher sentence on Reckless Homicide when the victim is a police officer who is killed in the line of duty. Dorsey’s total sentence for the crimes he committed in April 2020 was 45 years and 118 days, 30 years of which is to be executed in prison followed by 15 years of probation where the Court will monitor Dorsey’s behavior and mental health condition. Should Dorsey not abide by the conditions of his mental health probation, he could be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his 15-year term of probation.

It is understandable that officers and citizens are aggrieved by the fact that the shooter was not sentenced to a much longer period of incarceration. However, misrepresenting the facts and the law to cast blame on a specific judge and the courts at large is misplaced. If reckless homicide of a police officer should carry with it a harsher sentence than the maximum of six years it currently carries, we have a responsibility to inform our legislators on this issue and to advocate for changes to the law. Only in uniting to better protect our community at large are we able to affect positive change. 

Indianapolis Bar Association Recommends Retention of all Marion Superior Court Candidates
A survey recently conducted by IndyBar has resulted in the recommendation for continued service on the bench for each Marion Superior Court judicial candidate whose term of office expires in 2024. 

The Indianapolis Bar Association (“IndyBar”) has learned of recent public statements made by Doug Carter, Superintendent of the Indiana State Police, in a local television interview regarding the Marion County criminal justice system and the Hon. Judge Jennifer Harrison. These statements include specific references to the case of Luis Leyba-Gonzalez, the defendant charged with the crimes of Resisting Law Enforcement Resulting in Death and Reckless Driving Causing Death.  The statements of Superintendent Carter are inaccurate, mischaracterize the judiciary and the Marion County criminal justice system, and are counterproductive to the goal of public safety. Superintendent Carter not only inaccurately attacked Judge Harrison for the bond, which was set in this case, but he also attacked the Marion County court system in general. The clear inference from Superintendent Carter’s statements to the public were that, but for Judge Harrison, Mr. Luis Leyba-Gonzalez should not have been released from the Marion County Jail. Unfortunately, those statements are factually incorrect, and the resulting inferences are dangerous. Because Superintendent Carter’s statements regarding this case are wrong it is incumbent upon our organization to correct the record; because left unrebutted, many may assume they are true.

Pursuant to both the United States and Indiana Constitutions, criminal defendants are afforded a presumption of innocence through each phase of the criminal process.  This includes the phase of setting bail.  As such, in determining a bail amount, Indiana law requires that a judicial officer impose conditions that will assure the appearance of the accused for future court hearings along with ensuring no further safety threat to the community. An evaluation of the probable cause affidavit, the defendant’s criminal history, and all other appropriate circumstances supports that the bond issued by Judge Harrison in the amount of $50,000 surety plus $1,000 cash was appropriate.

     There are limited circumstances where an accused can be denied bail from the outset of an arrest.  Those circumstances do not apply to this case.  Thus, had Judge Harrison denied Mr. Leyba-Gonzalez bail at all, as suggested by Superintendent Carter, she would have been violating both the law and his constitutional rights.

Further, Superintendent Carter’s statement that he attempted, and Judge Harrison refused, to discuss this aspect of the case publicly would lead an uninformed person to conclude that Judge Harrison somehow demonstrated leniency in the release of Mr. Leyba-Gonzalez. Our community does not benefit from such reckless rhetoric. Superintendent Carter, in his television interview, said he tried to call Judge Harrison and she would not take the call.  Superintendent Carter should certainly know that judges cannot have ex-parte communications (one sided conversations) with the Superintendent of Indiana State Police in a criminal case where his officers are witnesses in that case or where he personally might be a witness. Section 2.9 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits such ex-parte communication.

If judges were to take calls from parties or witnesses in cases pending in their court, then they would violate their sworn oaths of neutrality and impartiality. The public should have a clear understanding of how our judges are required to act in cases. Just think how it would be if everyone in a case could first pick up the phone and call the judge to directly influence them about the case. Our system of judicial conduct prevents this from happening and the impartiality of our judges is a fundamental part of our justice system.

    Our Constitution provides individuals with the right to free speech, and we encourage constructive conversation among members of the community regarding the judicial system to bring greater understanding to these issues and to build upon the important work being done each day in our criminal justice system. It is equally important to note that our judges have an obligation to refrain from participating in that discourse when doing so might undermine and jeopardize the rights of individual litigants. Indiana judges are required by the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Judges and their court staff are prohibited from making any public statements that “might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court or, make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”

Given our judiciary’s inability to meaningfully respond to Superintendent Carter’s proclamations, and pursuant to Section 2.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, IndyBar has an obligation to do so. Public safety, and justice, is paramount to our members and the larger community. Unlike Superintendent Carter, we are bound by ethical rules that prohibit us from offering false narratives in the public sphere. Constructive and accurate criticism is a fundamental component to ensuring that our judicial process works effectively for all in our community. At IndyBar we provide a positive forum for respectful discourse and education regarding the judicial process, but in instances where an unaccountable individual makes damaging claims that are demonstrably false, we have a collective duty to attempt to correct the record. Doing so is fundamentally important as we work together to ensure that justice is done in a fair and consistent manner in the Indianapolis community.

-end-

Note: No judicial members of the Indianapolis Bar Association participated in drafting this statement.