ILNews

IndyBar: Pro Bono in the Fast Lane!

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the mood for meaningful pro bono service without the long-term commitment? Check out two one-day-only pro bono opportunities coming up soon with the IndyBar!

Mediation Day: Sept. 26

The IndyBar ADR Section Executive Committee is pleased to announce that it will host its fifth annual Mediation Day Friday, Sept. 26, 2014, at Barnes & Thornburg (11 South Meridian Street). Through Mediation Day, the section provides a service to the courts and community by volunteering time to mediate several screened cases for litigants who qualify for modest means mediation. Barnes & Thornburg has generously volunteered its downtown office to provide ample conference facilities for this joint endeavor.

To make this event a success, 10 volunteers who are registered domestic mediators and have experience mediating paternity cases are needed. Judge Sheryl Lynch in Paternity Court is screening non domestic violence cases and will have 10 cases for volunteers to mediate Sept. 26th. Each volunteer mediator would agree to mediate one case starting at either 8 a.m. or 1 p.m. Volunteers can bring a laptop to assist with drafting agreements, and lunch will be provided. There will also be a judicial officer on site to approve the mediated agreements.

If you wish to volunteer, please email ADR Section Chair Phyllis Armstrong at parmstrong@mede8.com with a desired start time (8 a.m. or 1 p.m.).

Ask a Lawyer: Oct. 14

Ask a Lawyer, the IndyBar’s largest pro bono effort, is accomplished only through the assistance of scores of lawyers and paralegals who manage sites (paralegals ) and provide free face-to-face legal advice (attorneys) to members of the community at locations throughout the city.

Volunteers are being sought for one of two shifts (2 to 4 p.m. or 4 to 6 p.m.) at 13 library/community center locations in Indy Tuesday, Oct. 14. To volunteer, contact Caren Chopp at cchopp@indybar.org.•

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT