Indy firm presents film about civil rights lawyer

IL Staff
February 16, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis law firm will be among the hosts of a documentary screening about a controversial civil rights attorney, with a question-and-answer session with the firm's attorneys to follow.

Waples & Hanger, along with the Indianapolis International Film Festival and Indianapolis Museum of Art, will show "William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe" at 7:30 p.m. Thursday in the Toby Theater at the museum. The documentary is about Kunstler, the late attorney who represented Martin Luther King Jr., the inmates in the Attica prison rebellion, and John Gotti, among others, as seen through his children's perspective. Filmmakers Emily and Sarah Kunstler examine their father's life and transformation from a middle-class family man to a movement lawyer to the most hated lawyer in America.

An informal pre-screening conversation will be in the IMA lobby. Following the film, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis visiting professor Fran Quigley will moderate a question-and-answer session with Indianapolis attorneys Richard Waples and JauNae Hanger, who work in constitutional litigation, civil rights, and public policy reform.

Tickets may be purchased at the IMA ticket desk, online at, or by calling (317) 955-2339. Visit for more information about the film.


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?