ILNews

Dinner to support IU Law - Indy LRAP

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

To help students and alumni who want to practice public interest law, even with law school loan debt, a group of Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis students will host a fundraiser March 7 for the school's loan repayment assistance program endowment.

The evening will begin at 6 p.m. in the law school's atrium. Some sponsorships and tickets are still available. For more information, e-mail ejwindy.dinner@gmail.com.

The goal of the group, Equal Justice Works, is to raise the endowment from $65,000 to at least $100,000 - enough to start distributing money. The students expect the dinner will be an annual event, said event organizers who include the group's president Caroline Richardson, and vice president Tiffany Murray, both third-year law students, and the group's liaison to the Student Bar Association, Andrea Ciobanu, a 2L.

"We wanted to do a fundraiser that would have a big impact, something sophisticated and fun," Murray said.

Among members of the host committee are Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana; Norman Metzger, Indiana Legal Services; Don Lundberg, Disciplinary Commission; Jon Laramore, Baker & Daniels; law professors Florence Roisman and Sheila Suess Kennedy; LaWanda Ward, the law school's director of pro bono and public interest; Jimmie McMillian, Barnes & Thornburg; and Gerald Bepko, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis chancellor emeritus and former law school dean.

McMillian said he was happy to help.

"For people who have a passion for public interest, you want them to be able to do that without grave concern of financial peril," he said.

Former congressman Andy Jacobs Jr. is the evening's guest speaker. The students also chose to recognize three alumni who have recently graduated to show the variety of public interest options and how much can be accomplished in a short amount of time, Richardson said.

Honorees are Emily Benfer, class of 2005, who helped start the LRAP endowment at the law school and is a fellow at the Georgetown University Law Center; Marco Moreno, class of 2003, an attorney at Lewis & Kappes in Indianapolis who has taken pro bono cases and volunteers for the Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic and Child Advocacy Inc.; and Melody Goldberg, class of 2006, who works for Indiana Legal Services' migrant farm workers program.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT