Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Community Search
Sign In
Sign In securely
Latest News
Calendar

9/27/2017 » 9/29/2017
2017 PLDF Annual Meeting

Featured Members
Brett A. SmithFee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP, Dallas, TX
William A. Scott Jr.Scott, Sullivan, Streetman & Fox, P.C., Birmingham, AL

Dina M. Cox
Profile Pages More
Dina Cox

Groups
Last updated: 9/14/2017
Ms. Dina M. Cox
Experienced Attorney
Professional Information
Lewis Wagner, LLP
Equity Partner
501 Indiana Avenue, # 200
Indianapolis
IN
46202   [ Map ]
317 237-0500 (Phone)
317 630-2790 (Fax)
Visit Website »
Legal
  Insurance, Legal, Miscellaneous Professional Liability
Personal Information
Trafalgar, Indiana
United States
46181 
317 9334187 (Phone)
9/5/1969
Ryan Lacy
Additional Information
Education/Experience
Education:
∙ Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, J.D. cum laude, 1995
∙ Honors: G. Kent Frandsen Memorial Scholarship; Law School Alumni Association Scholarship; Order of the
Barristers, Intramural Moot Court; Competitor, New York National Moot Court; Tutor, Dean's Tutorial
Society
∙ Law Review: Indiana Law Review, Articles Editor, 1993 - 1995
∙ Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, B.G.S., cum laude & dean’s list, 1991
Social/Volunteer Organizations
Civic & Community Involvement:
∙ Board Member, WFYI, Indianapolis, IN
∙ Board Member & Mock Trial Volunteer Instructor, St. Florian Center
∙ Member, Canal Stakeholders Association
∙ Past Advisory Board Member, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Historic Ransom Place Neighborhood
Association
∙ Volunteer and Pro Bono Legal Service Provider, Planned Parenthood
∙ Contributing columnist, IN Lawyer
More Information
Significant Legal Malpractice Cases:
∙ Beneficiaries of a high-profile, $180 million estate asserted a complex, eight-count complaint against a very reputable Indiana law firm and eighteen attorneys in their individual capacities.  Dina’s defense team was able to garner immediate dismissal of five out of eight counts of the complaint on initial motions practice. The beneficiaries then amended their complaint alleging claims of negligence, “intermeddling,” and legal malpractice. Dina’s team was able to get the remaining claims dismissed by arguing that the beneficiaries lacked standing, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims, the beneficiaries were not real parties in interest, and the amended complaint failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted.  The trial court granted the defense motions to dismiss with prejudice in favor of all of Dina’s attorney clients. The beneficiaries exhausted all appeal efforts which Dina and her team successfully resisted at every level.

∙ In a case where the attorney-defendants had been sued by a non-client, Dina’s team filed a comprehensive motion to dismiss which argued no duty and failure to state a claim. While this motion was pending, the defense team leveraged an attractive settlement of the plaintiff’s multi-million dollar claims of fraud and tortious interference with contract and business relationship against the law firm and its individual partners.

∙ Defended law firm and individual attorney serving as successor custodian and then receiver in action brought by shareholders of corporation in receivership. This highly contentious case involved conflict of interest issues, as well as various claims of mishandling corporate assets against the attorney defendants. Dina’s defense team was able to narrow the numerous conflict and mishandling claims down to a single issue for trial involving the sale of corporate stock. This resulted in a greatly reduced damage award following a three-day jury trial in federal district court.

∙ Obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of law firm and individually named attorney where underlying matter involved dissolution of marriage. The attorney defendants were accused of breach of contract, fraud, abuse of process, legal malpractice, and bad faith. Plaintiff sought punitive damages. Plaintiff opted not to appeal the judgment on the pleadings.

∙ Dina successfully defended a law firm in a legal malpractice action where plaintiff claimed negligent representation by his defense lawyer in an underlying criminal case. Plaintiff alleged that the law firm was vicariously liable for the lawyer’s conduct. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the law firm in hopes of obtaining a better settlement with the underlying defense attorney, who was also named individually in the suit. When mediation failed, plaintiff sought to reinstate his claims against the law firm. Dina successfully argued that the statute of limitations had expired and therefore plaintiff’s claims could not be reinstated. Dina also argued that the Journey’s Account Statute did not apply to save plaintiff’s time-barred claims. The trial court agreed, and plaintiff petitioned for interlocutory appeal. Undeterred after the Indiana Court of Appeals declined to hear the appeal, plaintiff re-filed the same claim against the law firm before another trial court. Dina obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s claims by arguing collateral estoppel and the trial court’s Order of dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
PLDF © 2013 | 1350 AT&T Tower | 901 Marquette Avenue South | Minneapolis, MN 55402 | 612-481-4169 | cjensen@PLDF.org