Dina M. Cox

Attorney in Indianapolis, IN

Dina is an aggressive yet civil trial lawyer who focuses her practice on drug and medical device/product liability defense, professional liability defense, consumer class action defense, insurance coverage, and insurance bad faith defense litigation. Dina has tried numerous jury trials in state and federal courts and has been involved in a wide number of appeals to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Since 1995, Dina has represented pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers in mass tort litigation, multi-district litigation, and individual lawsuits. She served as local counsel in hundreds of lawsuits involving silicone breast implants. From 1995 to 2000, she defended numerous orthopedic bone screw cases that were part of multi-district litigation. In that litigation, Dina was successful in helping her client win several summary judgment awards, which contributed to the economic resolution of those cases in the MDL. Dina also served on the defense team for blood plasma product manufacturers in AIDS/hemophiliac litigation, and she helped to favorably resolve multiple lawsuits in state and federal court against a pain pump manufacturing client. Dina has also defended a variety of toxic tort and chemical exposure cases, including cases involving tobacco, lead-based paint, latex gloves, mold, and animal/livestock feed products.

Dina also defends lawyers, law firms, and other professional clients against claims of malpractice. In the last several years, Dina has defended legal malpractice lawsuits with damage claims ranging from $16 million in one and $100 million in another. At the behest of malpractice carriers such as Firemen’s Fund, Great American, Minnesota Lawyers Mutual, The Bar Plan, AIG, and General Star, Dina has represented clients ranging from solo practitioners to some of the largest firms in Indianapolis. Dina has utilized or deposed some of the preeminent experts in legal malpractice and legal ethics. Dina has defended lawyers in a diverse array of substantive areas, including estate planning; wills and trusts; criminal defense; corporate law; family law; business transactions such as stock sales, asset sales, and mergers; medical malpractice; and, personal injury. The range of litigation topics Dina has successfully tackled includes: conflicts of interest; the scope of the duty owed to non-clients; the lack of any legal duty; whether an attorney-client relationship exists; claims of actual and constructive fraud; whether professional rule violations provide a basis for legal malpractice claims; and, the alleged failure to define the scope of the engagement, to name a few. Most importantly, Dina is passionate about defending the profession. Dina works hard to mount an aggressive, thorough defense on behalf of all of her professional clients. The results she has obtained, and the friends she has made in the legal community, are the greatest rewards for this hard work.

Pro Hac Vice Admissions:

Saline County Circuit Court, Arkansas

• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas

• Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri

• U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

• Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Ohio

• Court of Common Pleas of Van Wert County, Ohio

• U.S. District Court, District of Vermont

Honors & Awards:

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated AV

• Next Generation Faculty, National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 2012-2013

Indiana Super Lawyers©, 2011-2014
- Top 25 Women, Indiana Super Lawyers©, 2011-2014
- Top 50, Indiana Super Lawyers©, 2013

The Best Lawyers in America® in the fields of Product Liability Litigation - Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants, 2011-2015
- Best Lawyers’ 2015 Indianapolis Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants - Lawyer of the Year

• Rising Star, Indiana Super Lawyers©, 2009

• Medmarc “Honor Roll” of Defense Counsel, 2007: Based upon input from Medmarc's management, claim staff and clients, Dina was recognized for her commitment to providing exceptional service to the company and its policyholders.

Experience

Representative Cases:

Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of class action cramming allegations and denial of class certification
654 F.3d 728

• Indiana Court of Appeals affirms dismissal of legal malpractice claim
2011 WL 1620602

• Indiana Supreme Court affirms summary judgment in favor of plastic medicine cup manufacturers in wrongful death case
No. 49S04-0902-CV-88

Published Appeals:

Jason T. Myers v. Charles R. Deets, et al, 968 N.E.2d 299, Indiana Court of Appeals, May 29, 2012.

Lady Di’s, Inc. v. Enhanced Services Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728, U.S. Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit, August 16, 2011.

Blinn v. the Law Firm of Johnson, Beaman, Bratch, Beal and White, LLP, 948 N.E.2d 814, Indiana Court of Appeals, April 29, 2011.

Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, 913 N.E.2d 193, Indiana Supreme Court 2009.

Kovach v. Alpharma, Inc., 890 N.E. 2d 55, Indiana Court of Appeals 2008.

Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, Indiana Supreme Court 2003.

Inlow v. Henderson Daily Withrow & DeVoe, 787 N.E.2d 385, Indiana Court of Appeals 2003.

Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley, 744 N.E.2d 939, Indiana Supreme Court 2001.

Minisan v. Danek Medical, Inc., 79 F.Supp.2d 970, U.S. District Court for Northern District 1999.

Ross v. Cheema, 716 N.E.2d 435, Indiana Supreme Court 1999.

Wells v. Stone City Bank, 691 N.E.2d 1246, Indiana Court of Appeals 1998.

A Woman’s Choice v. Newman, 671 N.E.2d 104, Indiana Supreme Court, 1996.

Trials:

Federal Trade Commission v. Hold Billing Services, Ltd., et al., United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Cause No. 5:98-cv-00629-FB-HJB (November 4-15, 2013) (bench trial before Magistrate Judge on government’s motion for contempt).

Temp-Masters, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC, Judge Daniel Pfleging, Hamilton County Superior Court, Cause No. 29D02-0604-PL-326 (December 6-10, 2010) (resolved prior to verdict).

Neil Lucas v. Riley, Bennett & Egloff, Judge Larry J. McKinney, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Cause No. 1:07-cv-534-LJM-JMS (March 8-10, 2010).

Cathy Sitarz v. South Bend Knights, Inc. d/b/a Knights Inn, Special Judge David T. Ready, St. Joseph County Circuit Court, Cause Number 71C01-0007-CT-00123 (May 10-13, 2004).

Hattie Shaw v. Payless Supermarkets, Inc., Judge Dennis Carroll, Madison County Superior Court, Cause Number 48D01-0106-CT-0483 (September 23-29, 2003).

Tracie Bentley vs. Richard L. Wilken, Judge Michael Scopelitis, St. Joseph County Superior Court, Cause Number 71D07-0110-CT-00210 (March 17-19, 2003).

Betty Jacques v. Allied Building Services, Inc. and Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., Judge Diana LaViolette, Putnam County Circuit Court, Cause Number 67C01-9709-CT-310 (November 14-16, 2000).

Pamela K. McCracken v. Indiana American Water Company, Inc., Special Judge John P. Stelle, Vigo County Superior Court, Cause Number 84D02-9608-CT-1348 (July 12-14, 1999).

Tyler G. Williams v. Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., Judge Bruce Bade, Blackford County Circuit Court, Cause Number 05C01-9604-CP-00053 (April 20, 1999).

Sami Maaita v. Kore Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a The Mine Shaft Saloon and Louis Huffman, Special Judge William Hughes (Hamilton County), Marion County Superior Court, Cause Number 49D03-9412-CT-1896 (February 16-18, 1999).

Berniece Wickersham v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Cub Foods, Judge Houston, Marion County Superior Court, Cause Number 49D10-9605-CP-0654 (January 25-27, 1999).

Marlene Freeman v. Supervalu, Inc., d/b/a Cub Foods, Judge Price, Marion County Superior Court, Cause Number 49D11-9612-CT-1794 (April 20-21, 1998).

Tammie L. Adkins v. Rebecca L. Houston, Judge Bruce Bade, Blackford County Circuit Court, Cause Number 05C01-9608-CP-094 (January 13-14, 1998).

American States Insurance v. Joseph Loughmiller, Judge Houston, Marion County Municipal Court No. 8, Cause Number 49F08-9404-CP-0670 (October 20, 1997).

Julie Ann Arnett v. Clancey’s, Inc., d/b/a Grindstone Charlie’s, Judge Christopher Monroe, Bartholomew Superior Court, Cause Number 03D01-9608-CT-744 (September 2-4, 1997).

Willie B. Trammel v. Supervalu, Inc., d/b/a Cub Foods, Judge Houston, Marion County Superior Court, Cause Number 49C10-9412-CT-307 (April 21-22, 1997).

Mary Gilley v. Supervalu, Inc., d/b/a Cub Foods, Judge William Lawrence, Marion County Circuit Court, Indiana, Cause Number 49C01-9402-CT-0430 (February 11-12, 1997).

Catherine S. Townsend & William Townsend v. Gene A. Hamm & Supervalu Transportation, Inc., Judge Pflum, Fayette County Circuit Court, Indiana, Cause Number 21C01-9512-CT-0370 (January 27-29, 1997).

Significant Drug & Medical Device Cases:

Obtained summary judgment for distributor of medicine dispensing cup in a medical device product liability case where a minor child died of an accidental overdose of acetaminophen with codeine while recuperating from surgery. Summary judgment was affirmed on appeal in an oft-cited opinion by the Indiana Supreme Court. Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, et al, 919 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 2009).

• Obtained summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of pedicle screw fixation device by demonstrating that the plaintiffs failed to produce the requisite expert support for their product liability claim. Dina’s defense team also successfully argued that plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that the manufacturer’s warning was inadequate, thus precluding plaintiffs from recovery based on failure to warn. Minisan v. Danek Medical, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 1999).

• Obtained summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a laser used in prostatic vaporization procedure by demonstrating that the plaintiffs failed to produce the requisite expert support for their product liability claim. Dina’s defense team also successfully excluded the opinions of the Medical Review Panel urologists on the issue of product defect. Plaintiffs filed but then withdrew their appeal of the summary judgment award.

• Obtained voluntary dismissal of a product liability claim against the manufacturer of a catheter where plaintiff claimed that the catheter “broke” during the patient’s arthrectomy surgery allegedly resulting in the need for emergency surgery to locate and remove the device. After extensive discovery during which no device defect could be revealed, Dina and her defense team persuaded plaintiff to dismiss his claim without payment from the defendant manufacturer.

Significant Legal Malpractice Cases:

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.  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.  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.

• 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.

Significant Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith Cases:

Defended $45 million claim of bad faith against insurer resulting in settlement for a fraction of demand. In defending this complex case, Dina led and collaborated with a team of lawyers and law firms pursuing interdependent actions for coverage, breach of contract, and fraud which directly led to successful settlement. Pending for more than seven years, Dina managed this extremely document-intensive case by utilizing the latest technology to implement document management software and digital communication features such as document share and remote database hosting to reduce travel expense and the expense associated with paper copies. Throughout the course of the case, Dina and her team litigated multiple issues, including choice of law, disqualification of counsel as necessary witnesses, agency duties and negligence, third-party beneficiary of insurance contract theories, insurance contract reformation, and numerous privilege issues impacting the joint interest privilege, the insurer-insured privilege, as well as attorney-client privilege and work product protections implicated in insurance claim files, coverage counsel files and sensitive company financial information. Dina’s team also worked with several nationally recognized insurance experts in the areas of claims handling, underwriting, bad faith and insurance defense counsel ethics and professional responsibility.

• Obtained summary judgment in favor of a professional liability insurance carrier who had been sued by its lawyer-insured for bad faith and punitive damages. Successfully advocated for application of the prior acts exclusion and denial of coverage for failure to timely provide notice of the potential claim under a claims-made policy. The issue of contract rescission on the basis of material misrepresentations on the policy application was also litigated.

• In underlying case involving wrongful death claims stemming from the death of a freshman college student during a fraternity “rush” event, two carriers disagreed over defense and indemnity obligations to an insured who leased the fraternity house to the fraternity organization. After litigating which policy was primary vs. excess, whether the underlying death arose out of “use” of the premises, whether the underlying death resulted from an “occurrence” or “accident,” whether two Liquor Liability Endorsements excluded coverage, whether an exclusion based upon the lack of prompt medical care applied, whether a Special Events Endorsements excluded coverage, and whether an exclusion based upon “failure to supervise” precluded coverage where alcohol was involved in the underlying event, Dina obtained a declaration of coverage on summary judgment on behalf of the insurer who had defended and indemnified the realty corporation, including a judgment for the sums expended in defending and settling the underlying wrongful death case. The case was then favorably settled at mediation before a trial on damages.

• With co-counsel John C. Trimble, Dina obtained an order requiring the insured to submit the issue of repair/replacement cost of damaged curtainwall of downtown Indianapolis skyscraper (estimated to be in the range of $15 million to $49 million) to appraisal, despite the insured’s arguments that the applicable policy language was ambiguous and that the insurer had committed bad faith in the claims investigation process. After umpire reached decision favorable to insurer, the case was settled at mediation for a fraction of the replacement cost sought by the insured, and all claims of bad faith were dismissed.

• Defended an insurer in a breach of contract/bad faith case, who had issued a miscellaneous professional liability policy to a company that produced and bred laboratory animals. The insured sought coverage under the policy with respect to a dispute with the U.S. Government based upon the False Claims Act, where the Government contended the insured supplied federally funded researchers with genetically non-conforming lab mice raised under two contracts held with the National Institutes for the Aging. After the insurer declined to defend and indemnify, the insured and the Government reached a settlement wherein the insured agreed to pay $7.2 million to settle the False Claims Act claims. In the subsequent breach of contract and bad faith case by the insured against the insurer, Dina argued that the U.S. Government’s False Claims Act claims against the insured arose from false billings rather than professional services such that they were not covered by the policy. She also argued that multiple exclusions barred coverage. The case was favorably resolved at an early mediation.

• Defended a lawsuit involving claims of breach of contract, bad faith, fraud and constructive fraud by a hog farmer against his insurance carrier. The case arose after the insurer and insured (who had retained a public adjuster) disagreed over the replacement value and business interruption loss associated with the total destruction by fire of one of the insured’s hog confinement barns. In this case, Dina successfully warded off the insured’s attempts to depose high-level executives of the insurance company. She also litigated issues associated with the insurance broker’s negligence in the procurement of insurance on behalf of the insured. The case was favorably resolved on the eve of trial after Dina’s defense team uncovered the insured’s probable insurance fraud in manufacturing fake invoices for repair and clean-up costs.

Significant Consumer Class Action Cases:

Obtained summary judgment and order denying class certification on behalf of the nation’s largest telecommunications billing clearinghouse in alleged cramming (i.e., unauthorized telephone billing) putative class action. After oral argument to the Seventh Circuit, the court affirmed the district court’s rulings that plaintiff’s authorization of disputed charges on its phone bill precluded its claims of unjust enrichment and statutory deception, and that individual issues surrounding each customer’s transaction precluded class certification. The Seventh Circuit also agreed that an alleged violation of Indiana’s anti-cramming regulation could not serve as the factual predicate for class action claims because the regulation does not apply to billing clearinghouses. This opinion has had significant industry impact as one of the first published appellate opinions addressing class action cramming allegations and the application of state anti-cramming regulations.

• Leveraged voluntary dismissal of putative class action lawsuit filed against telecommunications billing clearinghouse using favorable Seventh Circuit opinion discussed above.

• As national counsel, defended putative class action lawsuit filed in Arkansas state court — where the standard for certification of class actions is notoriously lenient — and litigated removal and remand under Class Action Fairness Act where the representative plaintiff attempted to avoid federal court by stipulating to alleged damages in an amount less than the jurisdictional amount in controversy ($5 million).

• Guided client through class action settlement process and claims challenge process in two nationwide class actions in which client was major indemnitor of settling defendants, including mounting challenge to proposed class counsel fee award.

Publications

Recent Publications:

"Common mistakes of young lawyers," The Indiana Lawyer, August 13-26, 2014.

• "Time records and billings are important risk management tools," The Indiana Lawyer, April 9, 2014.

• "Lawyers may still be subject to discipline when lacking any knowledge of employee misdeeds," LPL eAdvisory, March 2014.

• "Taking payment from someone other than client may create risk of discipline," LPL eAdvisory, March 2014.

• “Implement a system of checks to avoid conflicts of interest,” The Indiana Lawyer, June 5, 2013.

• Survey, “Legal Malpractice Law — State of Indiana,” American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, 2007 - present.

• “Avoid client problems by avoiding problem clients,” The Practical Lawyer, April 2013.

• “How to Scale the Tower of Babble,” DRI: The Whisper (Volume 8, Issue 2) 2012 (co-author).

• The Law of Lawyers’ Liability: Fifty-State Survey of Legal Malpractice, Professional Liability Committee, American Bar Association, 2012 (author of book chapter entitled “State of Indiana”).

• “Avoid client problems by avoiding problem clients,” The Indiana Lawyer, September 14-27, 2012.

• “Malpractice vs. Misconduct,” DRI: The Voice, May 23, 2012 (co-author).

• "Lawyers Part of Super-Commuter Trend,” The Indiana Lawyer, April 11, 2012.

• Summary: Indiana Legal Malpractice Law, American Bar Association, December 2008.

• “The Self-Critical Analysis Privilege in the Context of Drug & Medical Device Litigation,” Drug, Device & Biotechnology Committee Newsletter, International Association of Defense Counsel, Number 10, July 2007 (co-author).

• “Top Ten Ways to Protect Against Claims of Malpractice,” Professional Liability Litigation Alert, ABA Professional Liability Litigation Committee — Section of Litigation, Volume IV, Number 2, Spring 2007 (co-author).

Presentations

Recent Presentations:

Faculty Member, “National Session — Building Trial Skills,” National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Boulder, CO, July 23-31, 2014.

• Faculty Member, “National Session — Building Trial Skills,” National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Boulder, CO, July 24-August 1, 2013.

• "Practical and Thoughtful Tips for Successful Litigation Management," DTCI 18th Annual Conference & Meeting of the Membership, Abe Martin Lodge in Brown County State Park, November 16, 2012.

• "Panel Discussions on Lawyer Misconduct & Legal Malpractice," Indiana Lawyer, Indianapolis, IN, October 31, 2012.

• "Trial Tips & The Art of Legal Persuasion," ICLEF, September 26, 2012 and October 4, 2012.

• “Navigating the Social Media Maze,” Medmarc Annual Meeting of Defense Panel Counsel, Bolton Landing, New York, June 15, 2012.

• “Hot Topics in Accountant Liability — 2012,” American Society of Women Accountants, Indianapolis, Indiana, May 22, 2012.

• “Ethics Within the World of Tax,” Indiana Tax Practitioners Association, Indianapolis, Indiana, December 13, 2011.

• CPA Ethics & Risk Management, Indiana Society of Accountants, Nashville, Indiana, 2010 - present.

• Faculty Member, “Deposition Advocacy Skills College,” ICLEF, Indianapolis, Indiana, July 13-14, 2010.

• CPA Ethics & Risk Management, Indiana Society of Accountants, July 14, 2010.

• Faculty Member, “Mid-Central Regional Basic Trial Skills Program,” National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Indianapolis, Indiana, annually, 2007 - present.

• Faculty Member, “Mid-Central Deposition Program,” National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Indianapolis, Indiana, annually, 2005 - present.

Associations

Professional Associations:

ALFA International
- Contact Partner
- Product Liability Practice Group — Steering Committee
- Professional Liability Practice Group
- Women’s Initiative — Steering Committee
- Marketing Committee

• American Bar Association
- Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability
-- Reporter, ABA LPL eAdvisory
- National Legal Malpractice Data Center
- Professional Liability Committee of the Litigation Section
-- Former Co-Editor, Professional Liability Litigation Alert
-- Former Co-Chair, Membership Committee

• Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL)

• Defense Research Institute
- Drug & Medical Device Committee
- Professional Liability Committee

• Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana
- Trial Tactics Committee

• Indiana State Bar Association
- Litigation Section

• Indianapolis Bar Association

• Lawyers' Club of Indianapolis

• Litigation Counsel of America, Trial Lawyer Honorary Society
- Fellow

• Marion County Bar Association

• National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA)
- Next Generation Faculty (NGF) Class of 2012

• Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS)

Civic & Community Involvement:

Canal Stakeholders Association, Past Member

• Historic Ransom Place Neighborhood Association, Past Board Member

• Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Past Advisory Board Member

• Metropolitan Indianapolis Public Broadcasting, Inc. (WFYI Indianapolis), Board Member, 2013 - present

• St. Florian Center, Past Board Member & Mock Trial Volunteer Instructor

317-643-4899
Credit Cards Accepted
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.6 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Appellate
  • Business Litigation
  • Class Action Defense
  • Drug and Medical Device Litigation
  • Toxic Tort
  • Employment Law
  • Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
  • Product Liability Defense
  • Professional Liability Defense

 

Peer Rating

av

Overall Peer Rating

in Litigation, Business Law and Professional Liability
4.6 out of 5.0

Legal Knowledge
4.5
Analytical Capabilities
4.5
Judgment
4.5
Communication Ability
4.7
Legal Experience
4.5

  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials

Position

Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 1995, Indiana
1995, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana
1995, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
1996, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
2010, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
2013, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Credit Cards Accepted
American Express
Discover
Mastercard
Visa
Law School Attended

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Class of 1995
J.D.
cum laude, 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

University Attended

Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
Class of 1991
B.G.S.
cum laude & dean’s list

Contact Information

Fax

317.630.2790 Call Now

Email

Send email to Dina M. Cox

Social Networking



Office Information
Dina M. Cox
Partner
500 Place 501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200,
Indianapolis, IN 46202-6150

Loading...

Logo
Lewis Wagner, LLP (Indianapolis, Indiana)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.