ILNews

Attorney’s swim from Alcatraz to benefit cancer research

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney will take on the cold, rough waters of San Francisco Bay next month, swimming from Alcatraz Island to raise money for cancer research.

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner Carolyn Clay Hall will be making her second crossing from Alcatraz to San Francisco as a benefit for the American Cancer Society. She swam the bay in 2007, and on June 7 she’ll ply the nearly 1.5-mile waterway again in honor of her mother, who is battling ovarian cancer.

Hall hopes her swim raises $11,000 for research. Donations can be made on the American Cancer Society’s event website. Hall raised $10,000 in her previous swim in honor of her father, who died of cancer in 2002.

Hall’s swim will take place when the water of San Francisco Bay typically is about 57 degrees, and she said acclimating to the cold is the most challenging aspect of the swim. She swims two to three times a week with Indy Aquatic Masters and soon will do some outdoor open swims to condition for the cold-water swim.

“I think it catches the eye when somebody says they’re going to swim from Alcatraz,” Hall said. “I think people are hooked by it.”

Hall will be accompanied by several hundred swimmers making the crossing, but she said she won’t likely beat her time of 2007. “I was in a lot better shape back then,” she said. She also hadn’t had Anna, her daughter who’s now 15 months old.

Some people think swimming from Alcatraz is crazy, Hall said, but there’s also a mystique about the island that houses the famed prison known as “The Rock,” as well as legendary escapes and attempted ones.

“People wonder if there are sharks in the water,” she said. “I didn’t see any sharks.”

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT