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

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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT