ILNews

CLE for 'Talk to Lawyer' Oct. 12

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In conjunction with its "Talk to a Lawyer Today" program Martin Luther King Day, the Indiana State Bar Association is offering a 6-hour CLE training seminar, "Amazingly Interesting CLE for Attorneys with a Heart," in Indianapolis Oct. 12.

Attorneys who agree to volunteer for a two-hour shift on Martin Luther King Day answering legal questions from the public and agree to take one civil pro bono case from Heartland Pro Bono Council will be able to attend the training seminar for free. Prosecutors, public defenders, and other government or inactive attorneys who agree to take a two-hour shift must pay $25 for the program. Attorneys who just want the CLE credit and don't want to commit to taking a case or volunteering for the program can attend for $200.

The seminar will include new topics to help attorneys answer the types of questions asked by the general public, such as low-income tax questions, parenting-time guidelines, and how to access public assistance. The live seminar will be videotaped and replayed at various sites throughout the state in the coming months.

The seminar will be from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, 230 E. Ohio St., Suite 300, Indianapolis. The 8th annual "Talk to a Lawyer Today" program is Jan. 18, 2010.

To sign up, the registration form can be mailed to Laurie Beltz Boyd at Heartland Pro Bono Council, 151 N. Delaware St., Suite 1800, Indianapolis, 46204; faxed to (317) 631-9775; or e-mailed to Laurie.Boyd@ilsi.net. Contact Boyd with any questions at (317) 631-9410, ext. 2267.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT