ILNews

Attorneys donate $50,000 and 8,100 pounds of food to fight hunger

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers in Indiana and Kentucky stepped up to the challenge and donated nearly $50,000 and more than 8,100 pounds of food during this year’s March Against Hunger food drive.

Forty-three law and nonprofit groups participated in the sixth annual food drive during the month of March organized by the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, the Indiana State Bar Association and Feeding Indiana’s Hungry. The food and donations will go to 11 regional food banks that operate under Feeding Indiana’s Hungry.
 
“Once again, the lawyers in Indiana and their professional colleagues have gone above and beyond the call of duty,” said ISBA President Jim Dimos. “Their generosity in providing for the basic needs of our fellow Hoosiers is truly heartwarming and another reminder of how lawyers make a difference in their communities in so many different ways.”

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller hands out the “Attorney General’s Cup” to those who collect the most donations in six categories. This year’s winners are:
•    Extra Large Division – Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Elkhart) – 665 pounds of food and $15,218.93 in monetary donations
•    Large Division – Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP (Merrillville) – 1,569 pounds of food and $4,121 in monetary donations
•    Medium Division – Wilkinson Goeller Modesitt Wilkinson & Drummy LLP (Terre Haute) – $2,400 in monetary donations
•    Small Division – Tuesley Hall Konopa LLP (South Bend) – 95 pounds of food and $1,150 in monetary donations
•    Sole Proprietor – Steven Douglas Law Office (Ellettsville) – $1,410 in monetary donations
•    Public/Non-Profit – Vanderburgh County Prosecutor’s Office (Evansville) – 2,095 pounds of food and $5,000 in monetary donations.

“For the sixth year in a row the members of my profession have stepped up to help put food on the tables of those struggling and in need of the most basic necessities,” Zoeller said.  “These participants deserve recognition for selflessly giving their time and money to a worthy cause.  With their help we were able to help countless families.”

Since 2009, the March Against Hunger food drive competition has generated 52,354 pounds of food and $231,799 in monetary donations for Indiana’s regional food banks.



 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT