ILNews

Attorneys donate record amount to food banks

Jennifer Nelson
April 27, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers and law firms participating in this year’s March Against Hunger raised the equivalent of 135 tons of food, a record amount for the competition that’s in its fourth year.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller teamed up with the Indiana State Bar Association and Feeding Indiana’s Hungry to create the friendly competition. Fifty-one legal groups from Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio competed to raise the largest amounts of monetary and food donations. Donations totaled 11,229 pounds of food and $51,172.

The competitors are separated into five divisions, with winners in each division receiving the Attorney General’s Cup. This year, Barnes & Thornburg won in the large division by collecting 946 pounds of food and more than $16,000.

Burke Costanza & Carberry in Merrillville won in the Medium Division by collecting 758 pounds of food and more than $4,000. Delk McNally in Muncie won the Small Division by collecting $800. Steven Douglas Law Office in Bloomington won in the Sole Proprietor Division by collecting 2,590 pounds of food and more than $1,100. The Vanderburgh County Prosecutor’s Office won in the Public/Nonprofit Division, collecting 1,211 pounds of food and more than $2,200.

“Lawyers are known for being competitive, and they have risen to the challenge of meeting the increased needs of the people of our state and also have helped elevate the public awareness of hunger in Indiana," Zoeller said.

Last year, 50 legal entities from Indiana and Kentucky collected more than 6,000 pounds of food and $27,574, which combined is the equivalent of 72 tons of food assistance.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT