ILNews

Dinner to support LRAP at Indy Law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis and Equal Justice Works will host the 2nd annual Public Interest Recognition Dinner March 6, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Indiana Historical Society, Eli Lilly Hall, 450 W. Ohio St., Indianapolis. The deadline to register is Feb. 19.

The featured keynote speaker is Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller. Featured honorees include Fran Quigley, class of 1987, director of operations for AMPATH and a co-founder of the Legal Aid Clinic of Eldoret, Kenya; Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, class of 1990, legal director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence and director of the Protective Order Pro Bono Project of Indianapolis; and Lisa Koop, class of 2004, a managing attorney at National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, where she supervises in the asylum, trafficking, and immigrant legal defense projects.

The dinner supports the endowment for the school's Loan Repayment Assistance Program for graduates who practice in the public interest sector.

Individual tickets are $75 and tables of 10 seats start at $600 for non-sponsors.

The first Equal Justice Works dinner to raised enough money in March 2009 for the endowment to be worth at least $100,000.

This year's host committee members include Chief Justice Randall Shepard, Secretary of State Todd Rokita, Emily Benfer, John Maley, Gary Miller, Tiffany Murray, Carl Pebworth, Caroline Richardson, Florence Roisman, Robyn Rucker, Rafael Sanchez, and LaWanda Ward.

For more information or to purchase tickets, visit http://indylaw.indiana.edu/organizations/ejw/ or contact ejwindy.dinner@gmail.com.

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT