Literally chasing ambulances

April 15, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
People often joke that some attorneys are just “ambulance chasers” but this weekend, Indiana University Maurer School of Law students are going to make that stereotype a reality.

Students have brought back the Ambulance Chase 5k after several years of being absent on campus. It’s a race sponsored by the law school’s Health Law Society and the Sports and Entertainment Law Society with proceeds benefiting the American Cancer Society.

Organizers said they want to raise money for charity while poking a little fun at their profession.

I think this is a brilliant idea and a good one to bring back to campus. A race in which law students may dress up in suits and dresses and literally chase after an ambulance is hilarious and a great way to bring attention to your cause. Organizers hope to have an actual ambulance lead the race, although I assume if they don’t have a real one, they will have something to use as a stand-in.

I’ve mentioned lawyer stereotypes in regards to lawyer jokes before in this blog. Although sometimes the stereotypes may be hurtful and untrue, at least these students are able to embrace them to their benefit. Besides, in today’s tough economy in which law students are struggling to find summer associate positions and jobs, it’s nice to take a break and be able to laugh at some not-so-nice stereotypes about your future profession. Hey, the race may even change a few people’s minds about how they view lawyers.

The race is open to the public and you can register the day of the race, April 18. You can also pre-register at IUAmbulanceChase@gmail.com. Cost is $15 and of course, you get a T-shirt.
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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT