McKinney 3L raises funds so man can keep guide dog

December 19, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Thanks to an Indiana law student’s study break, a New York City-area man will be able to keep his longtime companion and guide dog.

3L Grant Kirsh saw Cecil Williams’ story on the news while taking a break from studying for his finals at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.  Williams made headlines after falling onto the tracks at a subway station in Harlem after fainting. Williams, who is blind, has a guide dog, Orlando. The nearly 11-year-old dog jumped onto the tracks to try to help Williams. He clung to his dog as a train passed over them. Amazingly, Williams and the dog escaped relatively unscathed. Williams had some cuts and bruises, and Orlando wasn’t injured.

That’s the feel good part of the news story. The sad part is that because of Orlando’s age, he has to retire and Williams’ insurance will not cover the cost of caring for Orlando and a new guide dog.

That’s where Kirsh comes in and the story takes a happy twist. He turned to indiegogo, a crowd-source funding site, and created an account to raise money so that Williams can keep Orlando. The account was started Tuesday and it already has hit its goal of $50,000. As of Thursday morning, people have contributed nearly $66,000, all of which will go to Williams.

“I just saw an opportunity to do something and ran with it,” Kirsh said. He tweeted so much about it, and those tweets were retweeted so frequently, that by 8:30 a.m. on Dec. 18, he’d hit his limit for Twitter for the day.

Kirsh’s motivation for helping a man he never met comes from his love of dogs. He has two dogs, one of which was homeless.

Kirsh worked for seven years in commercial real estate before attending law school. His father and uncle practice at their adoption firm Kirsh & Kirsh, which Grant is planning on joining after graduation.

If you’re interested in donating to Williams’ account, visit the indiegogo website. The fundraising ends Dec. 31.

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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT